Buying 6D is a 24-105L a no brainer?

[Dave Throgmartin]

I was fortunate enough to have a good tax return this year and am very likely to buy a 6D in the next week or so.

My gear list is in my signature. As far as I'm concerned the 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 USM L are both golden. I see myself using each often going forward. Both will obviously be much wider on the 6D than they are for me now.

My other wide to normal lenses are the 28mm f/1.8 and Zeiss 50mm f/1.4. I'm thinking about selling the 28mm f/1.8 when I make the move. I saw that lens on crop as being a really good low light lens that could double as a normal lens. I don't see myself needing a 18mm crop equivalent fast lens. I like the Zeiss rendering and think it will be much better on full frame. If it turns out I don't use it much and it gathers dust I'll sell it later.

Given the relatively low $539 cost increase to go from the 6D body only ($1860) to 6D kit with 24-105 ($2399) is it a no brainer to get the kit?

Do you find the 24-105 takes photos that you are very happy with on full frame? I'm somewhat concerned if i get it, it's primarily purpose will be as a 41mm - 69mm image stabilized zoom lens.

Thanks for any help.

Dave

[andnowimbroke]

You will prolly use it more than the 17-40 that you currently have. I was holding it 1/8 sec at 24mm and looked good. I wouldn't expect that if I was running and gunning. Is there distortion? Yes. Most can be cleaned up in post though. I'd get it. If you don't like it, sell it for $650-700.

[conropl]

Dave:

Do you shoot from a tripod much? If so, then there probably is not a real good reason for the 24-105. However, if you are hand holding the majority of the time, then it may have merit. I love my 24-105 (even on a crop body) - I realy like the IS when hand holding... but since I am on the tripod mostly, I would much rather have your FF 17-40 and 70-200 combination than my crop body with 10-20 and 24-105 combination. But if I was hand holding I would seriously consider the 25-105 because it is so versitile and covers a nice range.

I would not get hung up on getting it because it is cheap if you do not need it. Personally, I have enough to do without selling equipment I do not need.

Enjoy your new camera.

Pat

[Busted Knuckles]

+1 I agree, I like the 24-105, I find I don't use on the wide too much so the distortion issue isn't so bad.

Dave:

Do you shoot from a tripod much? If so, then there probably is not a real good reason for the 24-105. However, if you are hand holding the majority of the time, then it may have merit. I love my 24-105 (even on a crop body) - I realy like the IS when hand holding... but since I am on the tripod mostly, I would much rather have your FF 17-40 and 70-200 combination than my crop body with 10-20 and 24-105 combination. But if I was hand holding I would seriously consider the 25-105 because it is so versitile and covers a nice range.

I would not get hung up on getting it because it is cheap if you do not need it. Personally, I have enough to do without selling equipment I do not need.

Enjoy your new camera.

Pat

[neuroanatomist]

If you do a lot of walkaround shooting, the 24-105 is a great choice. Personally, I think a general purpose zoom is extremely useful, and the 24-105 is a very good one. I can see replacing mine with a 24-70/2.8 II, but until then, I'll keep on using the 24-105.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Thanks guys. I appreciate the comments.

I don't use a tripod a ton, but probably should use it more often.

I'm going to sleep on it, but think the 24-105 would be the way to go.

Dave

[DavidEccleston]

If you don't like it, you can always sell it for more than the price increase. I bought a refurb one for $1000, used it sparingly for 2 years, then sold it for $950. That's an incredibly cheap 2 year rental fee ($50 + taxes on the $1000).

[Kayaker72]

Yes, to me it would be a no brainer. First off, you can always return it (within 30 days). Second, you could almost certainly sell it for more that you bought it for....but finally, the 17-40 on a 60D is equivalent to 27-64 mm on the 6D. So you keep the equivalent focal length and gain IS. Of course, your wife has the 6D, so, if you haven't already, I'd be playing with the 17-40 on her camera to see how much you like the wide angle vs the equivalent focal length that you are used too.

A final way to look at it, but even though you really have most focal lengths covered, only missing 40-70 mm, it is nice to minimize the number of times you have to switch lenses. It prevents hassle and minimizes the chances of introducing dust. A quick guess, but if you go with the set up of 17-40 and 70-200 f/4 IS, you'll be switching lenses frequently whereas if you have the 24-105, you'll be switching lenses less frequently.

Anyways, just a few thoughts. Congrats on the new 6D!!

[EricPvpi]

Nice! Looking forward to seeing how you like the move from the 60D. I still haven't figured out what I want to move to down the road.

Eric

[Black_Dog]

Yes, the 24-105mm is a great all-purpose lens. I think you'll find that your "41mm - 69mm" assessment will be backward. What will likely happen is that your 24-105 will become your default lens. You will use it from 24mm to 105mm and only take it off your body when you have specific need for super wide-angle or longer telephoto. As such, it will make the effective usefulness of your wide-angle zoom 17-23mm and your telephoto zoom 106-200mm.