6D with 17-40?

Jeff Peterman · Jun 11, 2015

Once again I'm thinking of picking up a 6D now that I know that the 7D MKII I was waiting for doesn't fit my needs (a great camera, but I don't shoot fast moving subjects very often). The problem is that most of my lenses are EF-S.

If I wanted to keep my costs down and stick with the body only, I would have a 17-40L (ancient, bought for my 10D before EF-S lenses came out), a 50mm f1.8 MK1, a 100mm f2.8 Macro (non L), and a 70-200 f2.8L IS MKI. The key thing with this combination would be the 17-40 as the standard lens. It is a lot shorter/wider than the 17-55 on my 7D, but the 70-200 becomes a lot more practical at a true 70-200 rather than 110-320 equivalent on my 7D.

Any thoughts?

smholl · Jun 11, 2015

I find the 17-40L to be a nice wide-angle lens for the 6D. A little too wide to be my "standard" lens.

For that I use the 24-105L. I keep it on the 6D about 75% of the time.

Jeff Peterman · Jun 11, 2015

That's my fear - I won't be happy with the 6D unless I also buy a 24-105 lens (either one), adding $700 to the cost. Having had an unexpected expense of $12,000 earlier this year, my wife would not be happy if I spend almost $2000, although round $1200 would probably be OK.

I will be shooting a wedding for a friend next month. Normally I'd shoot with a 17-55 on my crop body and the 70-200 on another. Replacing one of those bodies with the 6D would give me the chance for cleaner images, BUT need a lot of lens swapping unless I bought 24-105.

smholl · Jun 11, 2015

How about shooting the 6D with the 70-200? Use that combo for portraits. Just a thought.

MutantLabs · Jun 12, 2015

Jeff Peterman said:
Once again I'm thinking of picking up a 6D (..) The problem is that most of my lenses are EF-S.

Huh? You have five EF lenses in your arsenal!

Jeff Peterman said:
That's my fear - I won't be happy with the 6D unless I also buy a 24-105 lens (either one), adding $700 to the cost. Having had an unexpected expense of $12,000 earlier this year, my wife would not be happy if I spend almost $2000, although round $1200 would probably be OK.

There are people that skip the middle range and go with just a UWW-zoom (like the 17-40) and a tele zoom like the 70-200. It depends on your habits, though.

If you go for a two-body setup (7D + 6D), the lenses should be complementary. In this case you don't really need a 24-70/-105 for the 6D. If you instead go for a one-body setup, you can sell the 7D and all your EF-S lenses and gain quite some financial headroom.

Jeff Peterman said:
I will be shooting a wedding for a friend next month. Normally I'd shoot with a 17-55 on my crop body and the 70-200 on another. Replacing one of those bodies with the 6D would give me the chance for cleaner images, BUT need a lot of lens swapping unless I bought 24-105.

Taking a look at your gear list, I'd certainly bring the 7D + 17-55/2.8 plus the 6D with the 70-200/2.8. A perfect two-body combo for a wedding.

Maybe I'd pack the 17-40L (it's light) just in case I want to take some ultra-wide shots where the 17mm on the 7D aren't wide enough. But I most likely could live without it or end up with just a couple of shots.

Or pack the 85/1.8 for some portraits, but again I could live without it, given that you have the 70-200/2.8 on a full-frame body. Great for portraits.

TyphoonTW · Jun 12, 2015

Jeff Peterman said:
Once again I'm thinking of picking up a 6D now that I know that the 7D MKII I was waiting for doesn't fit my needs (a great camera, but I don't shoot fast moving subjects very often). The problem is that most of my lenses are EF-S.

If I wanted to keep my costs down and stick with the body only, I would have a 17-40L (ancient, bought for my 10D before EF-S lenses came out), a 50mm f1.8 MK1, a 100mm f2.8 Macro (non L), and a 70-200 f2.8L IS MKI. The key thing with this combination would be the 17-40 as the standard lens. It is a lot shorter/wider than the 17-55 on my 7D, but the 70-200 becomes a lot more practical at a true 70-200 rather than 110-320 equivalent on my 7D.

Any thoughts?

MutantLabs · Jun 12, 2015

^ another example for people skipping the 24-70 zoom.
--
www.flickr.com/mutantlabs

Jeff Peterman · Jun 12, 2015

Reminds me - I have an 85mm f1.8. I should have included it on the list. Plus an SL1 and 40D bodies with 10-22, 18-55, 55-250 EFS/STM lenses. Normally I'd shoot the wedding with my 7D and 40D bodies, with the 17-55 on my "best" body (because most shots will be with that) and the 70-200 on the other.

jrscls · Jun 12, 2015

I think you will be very happy with the 6D and the EF lenses you have. If the 17-40 is too wide, then you can always switch it out for a 24-105.

TimR32225 · Jun 12, 2015

Jeff Peterman said:
Once again I'm thinking of picking up a 6D now that I know that the 7D MKII I was waiting for doesn't fit my needs (a great camera, but I don't shoot fast moving subjects very often). The problem is that most of my lenses are EF-S.

If I wanted to keep my costs down and stick with the body only, I would have a 17-40L (ancient, bought for my 10D before EF-S lenses came out), a 50mm f1.8 MK1, a 100mm f2.8 Macro (non L), and a 70-200 f2.8L IS MKI. The key thing with this combination would be the 17-40 as the standard lens. It is a lot shorter/wider than the 17-55 on my 7D, but the 70-200 becomes a lot more practical at a true 70-200 rather than 110-320 equivalent on my 7D.

Any thoughts?

I stayed away from EF-S lenses completely because I did not want to paint myself into a corner as I upgraded to better camera bodies from my original 10D.

When I posted here to that effect a few years ago, I was ridiculed as being nuts for having such a view. In that day, most people posting in these forums were very reluctant to spend more than the cost of a 1.6x crop sensor body, so most probably never envisioned how full frame sensor bodies would become affordable for them.

My second body was a 1D Mk2N and I've shot 1-series cameras as my main body ever since, going to a 1D4 and 1DX, but I also kept the 10D, and 7D, which I still have although rarely use. I just never really saw any advantage in EF-S lenses either for crop sensor bodies or for full frame because I guess I had the range covered either way with various lenses.

Only you know what works best for you, but I would suggest looking at what you expect your long term path to be in the way of bodies, and begin to adjust your lens collection accordingly.

The 17-40 is an OK lens (I have that one too) and I have been basically happy with it except for softness in the corners. I recently purchased the 16-35 f4, and it is far superior, plus it's image stabilized. If you didn't already have the 17-40 I would advise against getting it. I'll probably put my 17-40 on eBay but I did not want to do it while Canon was running rebates on that lens and others.

I could never be happy with a 6D, due to the crippled auto-focus system compared to what I am used to. But if that works for what you shoot, the image quality is definitely very good. Based on the constraints you mentioned, that might be your best move right now, and it's probably the least expensive upgrade you can make that would increase your overall possibilities.

Good luck.

Wayne G · Jun 12, 2015

I bought my gear back in the "analog" days, so crop-factor lens weren't heard of. Technology marches on, so my stuff isn't "digital optimized", but for now it will have to do. So far, in the limited amount of shooting I've done w/ the 5d3 (so much to learn/figure out), I'm pleased, though I would likely be "wowed" with newer lenses.

There is some overlap in focal length, but each lens was purchased with forethought for a specific need/want, though once it was "I wish I had had a _____" after shooting something, and bought one later.

Thus: 20-35, 28-135 IS, and 70-300 IS zooms; and 24 T&S, ordinary 50, 100 macro and 400 telephoto. This also permitted similar focal lengths on two bodies when it was necessary to swap due to the limitations of 24/36 "RAW" images at a time before the buffer filled (run out of film).

My first upgrade to a more digital-capable lens would likely be the 17-40 to replace the 20-35. For myself, I don't see enough difference in reach to justify the cost of a 16-35 vs the 17-40. Then a 24-105 or something else to replace 28-135???? -- still a good bit of wide-end overlap there, but I don't see anything else in the catalog.

And while I'm here, a public thanks to timr32225 for his help in teaching an old dog new tricks.

arty H · Jun 14, 2015

I took the 17-40 with me on a trip to London last week. The 40 mm at the long end will work for people photos. The lens produces good results on the 6D, and I like the range. You do have a fast prime for people photos, so you may be very happy with your results.

There is a learning curve with the lens on a 6D, but it is short. If your major interest is in photographing people, a lens with a longer focal length may be more suitable, but you should be able to do fine with the lenses that you have already.

Jeff Peterman · Jun 15, 2015

I started with a 10D when it first came out and spent a lot of time trying to find a walk-around zoom. The 28-135 was not very sharp and not wide enough on the crop body. I bought a 17-40 but it wasn't long enough for my style of shooting. When I bought a 20D, I bought it with the EF-S 17-85 (the first EF-S lens) and it was a great combination, even if the lens wasn't especially sharp. Later on, I upgraded that to the EF-S 17-55, which is a wonderful lens. I kept the 17-40 just in case I switched to full frame.

There isn't a non-EF-S lens that works well as a walkaround lens (for me) on a crop body. If I had not bought EF-S lenses then I would have gone about 10 years without the lens I wanted on a crop body. I don't regret buying EF-S lenses.

My SL1 is a great small camera for travel. To keep it small and light, it made sense to buy the 18-55 and 55-250 STM lenses (especially because I got them at a big discount in a kit - $750 for the body and both lenses).

I know many people who decide not to buy EF-S lenses for their crop body just in case they move to a crop body "some day" and then five years later that "some day" hasn't happened. I recommend getting the best lenses for the body you have. I'm glad that I did.

As for the 6D, I'm still undecided. Without a 24-105, I'm not sure I'll be happy, and given the discount on the 24-105L when you buy it with a new 6D, maybe I should wait until I can buy the kit. But then, the 6D should be out soon. Having said that, if I'm convinced that the 6D will do what I want, it doesn't make sense to wait for the 6D MKII that may be out "some day."

Abu Mahendra · Jun 15, 2015

The 6D has to this day the second best Canon sensor.

Instead of 17-40L, i'd go with 16-35IS and 40 STM.

Jeff Peterman · Jun 15, 2015

I already have a 17-40 and I'm need to keep my expenses down right now. If the 6D can do what I need with the lenses I have, then I might get it. If I would need to buy more lenses, then I will wait until after the summer.

arty H · Jun 15, 2015

Are you going to hold on to your crop bodies? If so, you are fine.

You have all the focal lengths covered between the 17-40, 50, 85, 100 and 70-200. The 17-40 and 50 make a great travel combo. The primes give you coverage in the medium normal focal lengths. The only thing missing is an event lens, like the 24-105, and a very long lens for wildlife. Your crops give you this. You may want the 24-105 or 24-70 for a wedding, but you do have multiple bodies If a wedding shoot comes up. You can always use the 17-55 on a crop camera, with the 6D and a lens of your choice, either a fast prime or the 70-200.

I looked at your website and your favorite photos. You can do even better with the 6D and your current lenses. When I was at Bath at one of the interior baths, it was so dim that I could not see anything before dark adaption. I was able to "see" by upping ISO to 25,600 on the 6D and 17-40. The results put my film days to shame with ISO 800 or 1000 film (or by pushing Tri-X). I never thought that I would need to go this high, but the results were worth it. Of course, I could get cleaner results with a lower ISO and a 35mm F2 IS, but the 6D came through. I wanted to go out with one lens on the trip to Bath, and an ultrawide was needed.

The 17-40 at 40mm does give you a slightly narrower filed of view than the 10-22 at 22 mm. The difference is between the view of 40 vs 35 mm, and this matters. No matter how you see it, 40 is a relatively normal focal length, while 35 is a bit wide.

For macro, I would just as soon use a crop camera and get the narrow field of view you get from the 100 mm lens for some subjects, like a small tree frog. Now, with a 6D, you may find that you really prefer the results from the 100 mm lens. Detail is enhanced. It is almost like you are getting a second set of lenses when you add full frame to the mix.

I have used crop bodies since getting the 6D, but they get far less use right now.

In very good light, and photos of people, a crop does fine. When the light levels go down, the 6D shows what it can do. Prices are very good right now, but could go even lower when the 6DII comes out. I got mine in Dec. for a good price, and I am not looking to "upgrade" for a very long time.

Jeff Peterman · Jun 15, 2015

Decision made. I just ordered a refurbished 6D from Canon, and a white box 24-105 STM from Amazon, total cost approximately $1500.

I fully intend to keep the 7D to use when I need a fast shooting camera, or a second body with the 6D, and to keep the SL1 for my travel camera. I decided that I just wouldn't be happy with the 17-40L due to the short range and lack of IS. The reviews for the STM lens say that it is pretty close to the L lens optically (even if slower at the long end), with better IS, plus (unlike the L lens) it is great for video (not an issue on the 6D, but useful for this lens on the SL1 or a future body.

Maybe I'll finally sell the almost unused 17-40L, having held on to it for so many year "just in case."

Search

6D with 17-40?

Jeff Peterman

Forum Pro

smholl

Well-known member

Jeff Peterman

Forum Pro

smholl

Well-known member

MutantLabs

Well-known member

TyphoonTW

Senior Member

MutantLabs

Well-known member

Jeff Peterman

Forum Pro

jrscls

Veteran Member

TimR32225

Veteran Member

Wayne G

Active member

arty H

Senior Member

Jeff Peterman

Forum Pro

Abu Mahendra

Veteran Member

Jeff Peterman

Forum Pro

arty H

Senior Member

Jeff Peterman

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts