Compare Canon 60d with 17-55 2.8 IS vs. Canon 6d with 24-105 4.0L IS

Started Dec 5, 2012 | Questions thread
ppage
Senior MemberPosts: 1,601Gear list
Like?
Re: Is 24-105 really a good lerns?
In reply to meland, Dec 6, 2012

meland wrote:

ppage wrote:

I see at B&H that the 6D with that lens costs only $600 more than the body alone. The EF-S 17-55 costs over $1,000. Is that just because it's 1 stop faster or is it a better lens? I have the 50D with the 17-55 and would love to upgrade to FF but the cost of replacing my 17-55 is a big concern for me. It's the lens I use 90% of the time and I don't want inferior glass. The 1 stop difference really doesn't matter to me; I shoot landscapes, often on a tripod.

Peter

The EF24-105 is a good lens and if it wasn't bundled with a body would cost considerably more. The EF-S 17-55 is a good lens too but tends not to be bundled and the extra stop of max aperture does add to the cost.

I'd suggest that the 6D + 24-105 will outperform 50D + 17-55 in most circumstances.

Thanks, that's what I was hoping to hear.  Since posting the question I've been hunting around and I see that you're right; the lens when not bundled is about the same price as the 17-55.  I also found a review of it at photozone that gives is a more or less mixed review.  It looks like for landscapes on a tripod at f/11 it would be excellent but at 24mm (very important for landscapes) it has pronounced barrel distortion.  That can be corrected in PP, but that also involves cropping the image, so.....   hmmmm...  further thought required.

Thanks again,
Peter

 ppage's gear list:ppage's gear list
Canon EOS 70D Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow