need advise please

<p>hello. i am new to this site and to this forum and im very new new to photography ( less than a year ) and i loved shooting landscape, nature and a bit of portraiture and im a soccer for shallow DOF. Currently im using a canon 70d with a tamron 24-70 f2.8 vc as my daily lens together with a canon 10-22 and 50mm 1.4, now i am prepared to buy a tamron 70-200 f2.8 vc ( not really sure if that is a a smart thing to do ) to get some reach on my shooting at the same time i've been hearing some really good thing about this particular focal range, anyway but recently a friend wanted to buy my 70d ( body only ) for a little less money and i was thinking if i do this then i could buy the canon 6d and go FF but that would mean i could not get the 70-200 lens as my budget would not allow me.<br>

Now the advise that i wanna get is do i just get the 70-200 f2.8 vc and wait for a year or two and just honed my skills and then go full frame maybe at that time there would be a canon 6d mk2 or a cheaper 5d mk3, or do i sell my 70d and get the 6d now and wait a year or two for the tamron 70-200 f2.8 vc or the canon equivalent maybe at that time it will be a little cheaper and will it makes a tons of difference if i switch from 70d to 6d ?<br>

on a side note if there is someone here who has 70d and a tamron 70-200 f2.8 vc i would like to know please how it handles and if im even on the right direction of even thinking of doing it.<br>

Now i know there are other brand of full frame camera but i already have a couple of lens for canon thats why i could only think of 6d for a full frame and 5d mk3 is out of my range.<br>

thank you very much for your patience and thank you very much for what ever response that i would get.</p>

<p>Hi Dennis,<br>

It's really very difficult to judge for somebody else, because it depends a lot on your photography style how useful a 70-200 would be. If you very frequently feel limited by the 70mm long end of your 24-70, then obviously a longer lens makes a lot of sense. More than moving to full frame. Whether a f/2.8 zoom is then the best choice is another thing: they are large and heavy, so you need to make sure your tripod can cope, and you need to carry it all around. Does your photography really require f/2.8, or would a little less also work? In other words: "why not get a cheaper, smaller and much lighter telelens, and keep some money in the bank for future purchases?<br>

Full frame has its advantages, but it's a bit the same story: do those advantages really matter for your style of photography? The better high ISO performance, better viewfinder, less depth of field (at similar aperture)? And does those differences matter enough to accept that it simply costs quite a bit more, and that for some time you'll have less lens options? If you move full frame, your 24-70 will also have less reach (so your need for a telelens only increases); the 10-22 won't fit anymore, so you'd either need a new superwide, or accept 24mm as widest (which is really quite wide already).</p>

<p>I don't use Canon, but I've used both APS-C and Full Frame. On neither format did I ever use my 80-200 f/2.8 for landscapes, a few times for wildlife (but it's too short - also on APS-C), and sometimes for closer up work, but I actually have more suited lenses for it (macrolens). For sports and such, the f/2.8 zoom is great, for landscape and nature too large and heavy. So, in your shoes, I would first re-think the want for a 70-200 f/2.8; especially since the Canon 70-200 f/4L lenses are so desirable. And you'll find that 200mm at f/4 gives a shallow enough DoF at normal distances; f/2.8 at 200mm is very very shallow quickly.<br>

If you really want a telelens, then moving to full frame is a limiting move: you'd only loose reach, and loose wide angle. So, my take: get a Tamron 70-<strong>3</strong>00 f/4.5-5.6 VC for now, keep the other money and then move to full frame when you can also afford to replace the 10-22. But, as said, this is without knowing your specific style and what is holding you back most at the moment, so for what it's worth.</p>

<p>Given that your longest current lens is 70mm (the 24-70), you need something longer. I would highly recommend the 70-200.<br /><br />I'm a former newspaper photographer/reporter/editor and I currently work in PR in Washington where I get to rub shoulders with some of the best news photographers in the business. Everybody has there preferences but almost every news photographer I run into carries a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8, plus a superwide similar to your 10-22. They might have other things in the bag (a 400 2.8 or 600 4.0 for sports for example, a telecovertor if they don't want to carry the big glass everywhere) but almost everybody has those three because they are bread and butter lenses than can handle 90 percent of assignments. What makes sense for news photographers makes sense for many others because a news photographer needs to be able to shoot just about anything, often with little if any notice.<br /><br />A 70-200 can be used for everything from a portrait to a wedding to a news conference to football (as long as the players are on your side of the field) to landscapes (not everything is a sweeping vista). For me, it's a go-to money lens.<br /><br />I would definitely add the 70-200 before changing bodies. Going FF isn't going to make nearly as much difference, if any, in what you can shoot compared with added another lens.<br /><br />Like I said, everybody has their own preferences but IMHO it's a no-brainer.</p>

<p>My everyday carry bag contains two DX bodies, a 19-35, 28-70/2.8, a 300/4 and an 80-200/4. That's what I find a need for on a regular basis. The 80-200/2.8 is a sweet lens and if you can afford it go for it. If not you likely won't miss the extra f/stop since you can boost the ISO a bit. Get the best glass you can afford, make it useable in both formats if possible. That will have a much greater effect on your outcome than changing to FF.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Now the advise that i wanna get is do i just get the 70-200 f2.8 vc and wait for a year or two and just honed my skills and then go full frame </strong>maybe at that time there would be a canon 6d mk2 or a cheaper 5d mk3, or do i sell my 70d and get the 6d now and wait a year or two for the tamron 70-200 f2.8 vc or the canon equivalent maybe at that time it will be a little cheaper and will it makes a tons of difference if i switch from 70d to 6d ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> The advice I will give you is that you NEED a logical reason “to go full frame”. <br>

Honing your skill is not a logical reason to “go full frame”<br>

Waiting for the 6D or other models to be cheaper are not logical reasons to “go full frame”<br>

<br>

IF you are shooting soccer – and you want to get better at it, and you want very shallow DoF - then it would be less expensive; less problematic more reach and you would have nearly as shallow DoF if you kept your 70D bought a 70 to 200 (I’d choose the Canon EF 70 to 200F/2.8 L IS MkII USM) and a x1.4 or x2.0 MkIII EF Extender to use with it - rather than buying an EOS 6D (or similar) and spending several thousands of dollars buying a 500mm or 600mm lens to achieve similar (but not the same) results.<br>

<br>

WW </p>

<p>Thank you very much for all those helpful responses, after reading those responses , it all makes a whole lot of sense for me now. I really could not find any logical reason to go get the canon 6d other than it gives a lot more DoF and the low light capabilities is a little more than my current camera but saying that i think my current camera is still more than adequate enough for the kind of shoots that i do. Like i mention before what i loved to shoot most is landscape and nature ( not professionally of course ) and a bit of portraiture and i really feel like i needed a longer lens that is why i am considering a 70-200 f/2.8 the reason for the f/2.8 is because i really loved a shallow DoF when it comes to portraiture so i was thinking if do i get this lens i would get some reach and still have the shallow DoF for my portraiture but saying that i would consider getting the 70-200 f/4 as it was suggested that it also gives a good shallow DoF.<br>

At the end of the day i think i would keep my 70d and just get the best 70-200 glass that i could afford and hope that it works for me. Again i would just like to thank all the response that i got as it really made me think what i really want to get. Cheers : ></p>