Help deciding on going full frame

[Ruined]

Hi All,

Sorry for the long post - I thought too much info is better than not enough. I look forward to hearing your thoughts especially if you have been down the same path as I am going.

Rob

Hi Rob,
Here is my advice: Unless you are ready to spend big bucks on full frame f/2.8 zoom lenses, stick with APS-C.

While a EF 24-105mm f/4 at f/4 on Full Frame will give you much better low light performance than an EF-S 18-135 f/4-5.6, it won't give you *that* much better performance than a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 at f/2.8 on APS-C. It will still be better, but IMO not throw all your EF-S lenses away and all the hassle you will need to do to upgrade better. You could use primes, but that does not sound like the flexibility you want.

If you really want to go full frame and want to use zooms, I would not do so until you can afford a 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Now that is a zoom that will really shine in low light and make the full frame transition worthwhile. The 24-105 f/4 on FF is an upgrade, but so is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 on your current camera; I would explore the latter instead if you are not trying to break the bank. Once you can afford 6D + 24-70 f/2.8L II - then upgrade to full frame.

 

[sdsr]

My intention is to have a good quality walkabout all in one solution when on holiday etc with the wife. Pickup the 6D and 24-105 and off we go with no need to swap out lenses. I am hoping to see a good IQ improvement over the 550D and 18-135 STM.

I'm sure you will (and you will likely be amazed by how much better 6D + 24-105 is in low light/high ISO). One caveat, though - when you use your 18-135, how often are you near the long end? You doubtless know this already, but in case you don't, while the 24-105 is usefully wider than the 18-135, it's less than half as long (the FF equiv. of 135mm is 216mm); so the 24-105 doesn't provide the same "all in one" convenience. You may find the 70-300L more useful than you expect! (For similar convenience, the Tamron 28-300 may be worth checking out; I've seen some fairly good reviews of it.)

 

[moreorless]

Hi Rob,
Here is my advice: Unless you are ready to spend big bucks on full frame f/2.8 zoom lenses, stick with APS-C.

While a EF 24-105mm f/4 at f/4 on Full Frame will give you much better low light performance than an EF-S 18-135 f/4-5.6, it won't give you *that* much better performance than a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 at f/2.8 on APS-C. It will still be better, but IMO not throw all your EF-S lenses away and all the hassle you will need to do to upgrade better. You could use primes, but that does not sound like the flexibility you want.

If you really want to go full frame and want to use zooms, I would not do so until you can afford a 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Now that is a zoom that will really shine in low light and make the full frame transition worthwhile. The 24-105 f/4 on FF is an upgrade, but so is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 on your current camera; I would explore the latter instead if you are not trying to break the bank. Once you can afford 6D + 24-70 f/2.8L II - then upgrade to full frame.

I don't think he's really "wasting" FF here though, he might not get a great deal of low light advantage from a 6D + 24-105mm vs a 17-55mm F/2.8 on his current camera BUT he will get improved range so its give and take.

One alternative that might be worth considering is the Sigma 24-105mm OS, reviews I'v seen tend to point towards it correcting the Canon 24-105mm's weaker performance wide open at the tele end.

 

[bholliman]

The EF24-105 should be removed from the L line. It's mediocre at best. So if you can tolerate it's weaknesses, it should suit you fine. Or, if 105 is not important, but IQ is, I'd recommend getting the 24-70 F4 or 2.8L II.

I don't agree. The 24-105 is very well built, definitely "L" quality, auto focuses quickly and quietly and is pretty good optically. The 24-105mm range is provides an extra 50% of reach over the standard 24-70 zooms. Its also a terrific bargain at around $600 on the used market. Excellent quality for that price!

There are of course better standard zooms, but they all cost more money, so the consumer has choices. I owned one of these lenses for two years and was very pleased with the images I captured with it. I replaced it with a 24-70 2.8 II last year, but if I didn't have the funds available I would still be using it.

Not all L's are excellent optically, some are just good. Personally, I like having options within the L designation.

 

[Rob-downunder]

So I finally got all my gear and have had the opportunity to take some pics using all 3 of the new zooms and thought I would give some feedback to those that offered advice as well as some info for those who may be going through the same process as myself.

For my standard usage as a walk around holiday kit the 6D with 24-105 is much much sharper than the 550D with the 18-135 STM. This was my main goal to improve image quality for a one lens holiday setup and I am very happy with the results.

Of the other 2 lenses - the 70-300L is brilliant. That thing is so sharp you could cut yourself with it !!! The 16-35 F4 is also very sharp. I haven't taken many shots with the 16-35 F4 but early indications are great.

So now I have to list all of my crop equipment on Ebay.

This first started with me looking at going to L series lenses rather than EFS lenses to improve image quality. However none of the focal length ranges for the zooms made sense for a single walk around holiday lens. So that lead to the conclusion that if I was going to L series zooms for image quality, then I would also need to go to a full frame body to make the zoom ranges make sense. I was also looking for the higher ISO quality available from the 6D.

So all I in all I am a very happy 6D owner and would encourage anyone else considering the move from a crop sensor body with EFS lenses to do the same if funds permit.