| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/15/2014 10:15:08 PM · #1 |
So after 3 years with my beloved 7D, I have finally taken the plunge to full frame thanks to the very cost-effective Canon 6D. I will be keeping the 7D as a backup and also use it for various things until I replace some of my lenses with something I can use on the 6D. Currently, the only thing I have is the 50mm 1.4 and the 24-105 f4L which is currently in the shop for repair :(
Here's my plan to replace my current set of lenses:
Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM Ultra Wide Lens >>> Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L (difference of ~$500 used)
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM >>> Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L USM (difference of ~$100 used)
Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD IF Macro Lens >>> Canon EF 70-300mm F/4.0-5.6 IS USM (difference of ~$75 used)
So I have to come up with about $700 to accomplish this. If anyone has any advice or criticism of my plan, I'd love to hear it. Cheers! |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 10:24:22 PM · #2 |
My best advice is to make sure to dispose of that junker 7D in a environmentally friendly manner. If you'll send it to me, I will ensure it gets disposed of in accordance with all applicable environmental regulations.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2014 10:27:41 PM · #3 |
| I've always thought you looked full-framed. Congratulations, and have lots of fun with the new gear. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 11:19:06 PM · #4 |
Congrats Art, and welcome to Team 6D!
For your mid-range zoom, did you mean the 24-70? I would certainly recommend even the Mk I version of that over the 28-70, which is a very old design. I have the Mk I version of the 24-70, and it performs well, with its most visible flaw some slight softness wide open at 70mm. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 11:23:56 PM · #5 |
Consider replacing your 10-22 with the optically shitty, (but still absolutely amazing Sigma) 12-24 rectilinear lens... Nothing else like it man, and you can actually save some $$ here.
Congrats, welcome brother.
Message edited by author 2014-05-15 23:25:19. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 11:32:47 PM · #6 |
| Since you already have, or WILL have when it comes back from the shop, the 24-105mm, which is stabilized, and you're about to have the 16-35mm, which is f/2.8, I don't see why getting the 24-70mm would be much of a priority for you. Consider instead the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, which is just a crackerjack lens, flat and clean and sharp, no distortion whatsoever. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 11:34:10 PM · #7 |
| sure go for the 17-40L instead of the 16-35. should break even then. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 11:49:51 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
For your mid-range zoom, did you mean the 24-70? I would certainly recommend even the Mk I version of that over the 28-70, which is a very old design. I have the Mk I version of the 24-70, and it performs well, with its most visible flaw some slight softness wide open at 70mm. |
Additional ~$250, but may be worth it - thanks Fritz!
Originally posted by Cory:
Consider replacing your 10-22 with the optically shitty, (but still absolutely amazing Sigma) 12-24 rectilinear lens... Nothing else like it man, and you can actually save some $$ here. |
Hard to pass up checking into something described a "...shitty but still amazing". Thanks Cory - I'll check into that.
Possibly good calls on the 17-40L and the 100mm Macro as well. Recalculating... :)
I just need to have enough glass to cover food, real estate, products and portraits. Thanks for the feedback. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 11:52:35 PM · #9 |
16-35mm f/2.8L is a MUCH better lens than the 17-40mm F/4L. I upgraded as soon as I could. We still have the 17-40 (Penny likes it on the 7D) so every now and then I do a shot with it, and I miss my 16-35...
The 100mm L Macro is an EXCELLENT portrait lens on FF bodies. |
|
|
|
05/16/2014 12:18:11 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I just need to have enough glass to cover food, real estate, products and portraits. Thanks for the feedback. |
Real Estate is where that 12-24 really shines. Not kidding. |
|
|
|
05/16/2014 09:31:27 PM · #11 |
You just have to ask yourself if it is worth almost double the cost. Not to mention the 82mm thread size being much larger than the 77 of many of the other L lenses (like the aforementioned 24-105 and 24-70 (mark I not II)).
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
16-35mm f/2.8L is a MUCH better lens than the 17-40mm F/4L. I upgraded as soon as I could. We still have the 17-40 (Penny likes it on the 7D) so every now and then I do a shot with it, and I miss my 16-35...
The 100mm L Macro is an EXCELLENT portrait lens on FF bodies. |
|
|
|
|
05/17/2014 03:26:22 AM · #12 |
| Congratulations are in order, excellent choice art! Other day I made the mistake of loading a friends 20-200 L 2.8 IS and I will never live again until I have my own. :( |
|
|
|
05/17/2014 03:51:15 AM · #13 |
Sweet!
I just got a 6D as well. Still haven't used it though and I'm sort of in the same boat with lens replacement. Mainly getting a replacement for the 10-22 |
|
|
|
05/17/2014 05:52:24 AM · #14 |
| Ken 24-70 2.8 Tamron can be a great option too. Great quality, good price :) |
|
|
|
05/17/2014 04:57:54 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The 100mm L Macro is an EXCELLENT portrait lens on FF bodies. |
Or, try the 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM. Half the price from the L, but still an excellent lens. |
|
|
|
05/18/2014 09:29:24 AM · #16 |
| Sweet congrats!!!! I can't wait to see what work you do with that camera :-)) |
|
|
|
05/18/2014 10:13:13 AM · #17 |
Congratulations. The godzillas and woodies will never look better.
I have slightly used 24-105L glass I'd sell to you for a few hundred. When it's not on your camera, you can carry your coffee in it.
It's 16oz, which is 24oz full frame equivalent.
Happy shooting!
Message edited by author 2014-05-18 10:13:42. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 10:10:22 AM EDT.
