10-03-2019 04:23 PM
Hi everyone and thanks for taking the time to read and reply!
I am a amateur shooter (although i want to start selling shots i print up) who shoots primarily landscape and waterfall shots.Think mountain ranges for the most part. Once in a while i will shoot some whitewater kayakers, but that would be few and far between. I am currently using a T6S with the 24-105 F4 L lens. Looking to get a used 16-35 F4 L soon too.
However, I am wanting to upgrade from my T6S first. This has been a great camera to learn on, and I shoot 100% in manual mode. However, i am wanting to move into a actual full frame camera. Being not a professional, I dont want to break my budget (especially since i still want to get the 16-35 F4 soon) so looking for something used.
What is a good option to move up to from the T6S that is a full frame? Things i love about the T6S are the wifi ability and the swivel screen. I'de be willing to give up either of these though if the benefits are good enough regarding picture quality.
If the suggestion would be to pick up the 16-35 F4 before the new body, that is more than fine too! Just unsure of which way i want to go with my next purchase.
If anyone is willing to give a quick idea of what would be a good full frame upgrade, and how it would upgrade my shots (outside of just being full frame) that would be extremely wonderful.
10-03-2019 08:27 PM - edited 10-03-2019 08:32 PM
I can understand why you would want to upgrade from a Rebel. I would recommend the 80D or 90D APS-C bodies. The 7D2 is getting long in the tooth, but it is still a top choice. If you really want a full frame, the 6D2 is a great camera, as was its' predecessor the 6D.
However, the single biggest improvement you can make to your images is to buy better glass.
The above was shot with a Rebel T5 and a Rokinon 14mm T3.1 cinema lens, which is a fully manual lens.. The shot was handheld. I love this lens. After a little experimentation on a tripod, I found the hyperfocal setting on the focus ring. i set it there, and everything beyond 3 feet is tack sharp.
I am going to suggest that you go for the wide angle L glass. Do not buy it used. Check out this price, with a one year warranty.
If it is more within your apparent budget than a full frame body, which you really do not need, anyway. If you are shooting at low ISO, 400 and below, the biggest advantage that you get from a full frame is a wider angle of view, which can be very handy when shooting landscapes and cityscapes.
10-04-2019 07:42 AM
actually never really shoot cityscapes. Its 95% landscapes out in the woods and mountains in national parks etc.
Is the 17-40 as well renowned as the 16-35? Everything I did in my brief research was that the 16-35 f4 is the go-to for landscape photographers. I already have the 24-105L
Tried to upload two pics but they are both too big lol
10-04-2019 09:00 AM
The 16-35 F4/L is a great lens and it is slightly sharper than the older design 17-40 F4/L which is still a very good wide angle lens. Both are great pieces of glass but if buying now I would go with the 16-35 HOWEVER pretty much nobody but you would be able to tell if you took images of the same scene with each lens and if you find a great deal on a 17-40 you will be very happy with it. The deciding point may be whether you envision situations where you would utilize the IS capability of the 16-35 lens.
I would budget for excellent glass first and then upgrade to full frame later, a good lens will be used by you for a very long time. At some point you may find a lightly used 5D4 at a great price which would be an excellent upgrade path given the direction you are taking. After I decided I needed a second camera body for sports to go with my 1DX 2, I found a 1DX in mint condition with only 16,000 shutter actuations at at a very reasonable price. Higher end cameras depreciate fairly quickly in value, especially as many jump on the mirrorless bandwagon because they just have to have mirrorless
10-04-2019 09:33 AM
10-04-2019 10:51 AM
Here is my 2 cents and worth every penny. Personally I would consider some other lens choices out brand for a zoom lens in the WA class. I have both the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens and the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. I am not impressed with either. I have not compared the f4, 16-35mm model to the f2.8 so it might be better. To further this I have several friends that see the same issues with the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens that I do. I used the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM for years and it made me money so what can I say. It works.
I totally agree with Rodger, you probably need a good photo editor to really see the difference between the 17-40mil and the 16-35mil but why not get the best in class? It is just that last little bit, the better lens gives your work that makes it. However, the problem with my copy of the 16-35mm is readily apparent. I stopped using it.
Today as of 10/4/2019 if I wanted a lens in this class it would be the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 FF Lens. Yes, I do have one. It is fantastic.
I also agree it is better to upgrade glass in favor of camera.
You said you shoot manual most of the time. This eliminates all the great new features a more current more advanced camera offers. All you need is a sensor and a shutter! Other than that if you truly think you need to move to FF the logical choice is the 6D Mk II for a new model. Either the 5D Mk II or Mk III on the used market would be fine too. Probably better as they are more rugged bodies. I would thoroughly consider the new 90D, too.
10-04-2019 11:03 AM
10-04-2019 11:26 AM
Hm, thanks for your input. I have read from multiple comparisons that the 16-35 F4 is the sharpest and best image out of the 16-35 F2.8 (which I was initially considering, until I read that the F4 is better). Looks like that changed with the 16-35 F2.8 III, but that thing aint cheap. I also have read that the 16-35 F4 is better than the 17-40 F4 (plus has the IS).
I haven't read anything on the Tokina. Since this is more a hobby+ (I don't do photography as a profession, but plan on selling my work that I print onto HD metal very soon) I was looking more at the canon lenses as they are a known quantity/quality and it was quicker research. I will look into the Tokina now as a comparison.
Also, right now I use DPP, but over the last month I have started to tinker with LR+PS and teaching myself the ins and outs of those programs.
Also, I wouldn't really say I'm upgrading so much, as adding a WA lens (as I don't already have one, just the 24-105 F4 L, and the kit 18-55 and 70-200). So it was more a option between adding a new lens I know I would get a lot of use of, vs upgrading my body.
If most of the improvements in a new body (outside of FF) are negated since I shoot in full manual, than that makes my choice MUCH easier. Plus I could sell that kit lens for maybe $50 lol.
I have the 16-35mm f/4L and have been very happy with it. I consider it to be an outdoor lens, though, as I always buy at least an f/2.8 lens if I plan to use it indoors. OTOH, I rarely use a WA lens indoors, so the f/4 suits me fine.
10-04-2019 11:39 AM
10-04-2019 12:21 PM
" I was looking more at the canon lenses as they are a known quantity/quality ..."
90% of the time I agree and I always go Canon if possible. However, the 16-35mm doesn't meet that " known quantity/quality". Does it? IMHO, of course, but seems to be by others also. Further as a general rule I consider no Tokina lens is worthy, the 16-28mm f2.8 is the exception. But it's you coin so spend it as you see fit.