Upgrading from Canon 750D (Rebel T6i)

[TWX]

If I were you, I will look into getting better lenses to start with. As mentioned, a faster lens (wider max aperture) allow more light to the camera which help focusing in low light situation. On top of that, if you do not have a external flash yet, you may also consider getting one. Some of the external flash has focus assist beam which help camera focus in low light.

Personally, lenses upgrade had more impact on my photos than camera upgrade and lens investment last longer. The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens I bought used 10 years ago to replace the stock Canon standard zoom lens still works and products great image. It is still my go to lens with my 7D mk1 today. My 85mm f/1.8 lens still a great lens after all those years. I still like the creamy looking out of focus blur background it produces. (Same with the 70-200 f/4 I have). The recent gem I got is the Sigma 24-35 f/2 lens.

When I bought my body-only 77D I also bought the 24mm f/2.8, and it was better-enough at 24mm than my 18-55mm IS II that I tracked-down a used 17-55mm f/2.8. As a consequence the 24mm doesn't get a whole lot of use anymore (though I find it convenient when I don't want people to get their backs up when I'm taking pictures) but either way, going from ~f/4 to f/2.8 made a big difference in low light for a human subject. I've also enjoyed using the 50mm f/1.8 in the right situations, either low-light or to get that shallow depth-of-field.

Back before Christmas, one of my local pawn shops had one of those Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses for $100. The 50mm f/1.8 is also new only a tad more than that, and used can be had much less expensively. When I bought mine from that same pawn shop it was forty bucks with both caps and a rubber hood. It very well might be worth buying a cheap fast lens to try out first, before spending much more money on a new camera. The 50mm f/1.8 or a 40mm f/2.8 might both be good choices, as they're useful on both APS-C and full frame cameras, so even if the desire to upgrade remains, neither preclude any of the listed Canon options.

As far as speed to get a shot goes, for me it seems best if I set my camera to one-shot autofocus, with a single autofocus point, that point chosen based on what part of the subject I wish to focus on. When I shoot this way I usually pick a focus point near the top, centered or slightly off-center, such that the subject's face will end up at that point, and so I avoid accidentally focusing on something in the foreground. Obviously this doesn't work in all situations, and there are plenty of times when I let the camera figure it out, but if I'm trying to get a picture of my kid as she's running along, this seems to work best.

 

[Dao]

Back before Christmas, one of my local pawn shops had one of those Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses for $100.

Wow ... that's a STEAL!!! GREAT price!!

 

[photoflyer]

So an EF-S lens won't focus to infinity on an EF camera

Just to be clear, even if you could get an EF/S lens to mount on an EF body you run the risk of damage. A Canon lens rep told me there is a chance the mirror could hit the lens. I'm not going to test this assertion.

 

[TWX]

Back before Christmas, one of my local pawn shops had one of those Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses for $100.

Wow ... that's a STEAL!!! GREAT price!!

So you're saying I should go back and get it if it's still there?

 

[Dao]

Back before Christmas, one of my local pawn shops had one of those Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses for $100.

Wow ... that's a STEAL!!! GREAT price!!

So you're saying I should go back and get it if it's still there?

Well, it is up to you since you already have the 17-55mm f/2.8 which I believe is a better lens. But $100 for the Tamron is a great price if it is in good shape.

 

[ac12]

Back before Christmas, one of my local pawn shops had one of those Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses for $100.

Wow ... that's a STEAL!!! GREAT price!!

So you're saying I should go back and get it if it's still there?

Well, it is up to you since you already have the 17-55mm f/2.8 which I believe is a better lens. But $100 for the Tamron is a great price if it is in good shape.

I think brand new, the Tamron is a $300 lens, so $100 is a great price.
But if you already have a 17-55/2.8, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is needless duplication, since it does not give you any more focal length in either direction. In which case it become a poor purchase.

 

[ac12]

6D
You have to replace two of your three lenses.
The FF dSLR will NOT mount your EF-S lenses. Only your Tamron EF lens can be used.

It will mount but it's a lens designed for an APS-C sensor. I believe the expression, "heavy vignetting," will be an understatement.

EDIT: I looked it up, I was incorrect, it is full-frame compatible.

As I understand EF-S is an EF mount with a shorter registration distance between the lens mount and the sensor.
So an EF-S lens won't focus to infinity on an EF camera.
But you can use an EF lens on an EF-S camera.

If I understand correctly, due to some quirks of how Canon approached the legal framework regarding EF and EFS, third-party lens makers are able to use the EF mount but are not yet able to use the differences that go with EFS. This means that third-party lens makers creating lenses for crop-sensor cameras will simply use the EF mount.

The mount itself its the same on the EF and EF-S lenses.
I put our EF lenses on EF-S cameras all the time.​

The crop-sensor EF lens will still mount on a full-frame body, but it won't fill the sensor.

It may mount, but as was mentioned in other posts, the mirror may be damaged by the EF-S lens projecting too far into the mirror box for the larger FF mirror.
So the reverse of my statement above is not true. You may NOT be able to mount an EF-S lens on an EF camera.

Yes the image circle of an EF-S lens is smaller than an EF lens, so the image won't fill the sensor.​

 

[TWX]

Back before Christmas, one of my local pawn shops had one of those Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses for $100.

Wow ... that's a STEAL!!! GREAT price!!

So you're saying I should go back and get it if it's still there?

Well, it is up to you since you already have the 17-55mm f/2.8 which I believe is a better lens. But $100 for the Tamron is a great price if it is in good shape.

I think brand new, the Tamron is a $300 lens, so $100 is a great price.
But if you already have a 17-55/2.8, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is needless duplication, since it does not give you any more focal length in either direction. In which case it become a poor purchase.

The question was more in-jest. I probably will return to that pawn shop again at some point, they had a fair amount of stuff at the time. Can't remember what lens it was, but there was one camera+lens that I would have liked to buy the lens if not the camera, maybe see if they'd break them up.

I'm trying not to have too much duplication/overlap with my lenses. Some overlap is good since it may mean less lens-swapping, I'm already pretty heavy on lenses in that range. If I were to buy anything else it would either be that Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or else some more primes.

 

[ac12]

Back before Christmas, one of my local pawn shops had one of those Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses for $100.

Wow ... that's a STEAL!!! GREAT price!!

So you're saying I should go back and get it if it's still there?

Well, it is up to you since you already have the 17-55mm f/2.8 which I believe is a better lens. But $100 for the Tamron is a great price if it is in good shape.

I think brand new, the Tamron is a $300 lens, so $100 is a great price.
But if you already have a 17-55/2.8, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is needless duplication, since it does not give you any more focal length in either direction. In which case it become a poor purchase.

The question was more in-jest. I probably will return to that pawn shop again at some point, they had a fair amount of stuff at the time. Can't remember what lens it was, but there was one camera+lens that I would have liked to buy the lens if not the camera, maybe see if they'd break them up.

I'm trying not to have too much duplication/overlap with my lenses. Some overlap is good since it may mean less lens-swapping, I'm already pretty heavy on lenses in that range. If I were to buy anything else it would either be that Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or else some more primes.

Actually, if you plan things out, you can have a LOT of overlap of focal length, but not duplication of function.
Example a light 18-55/3.5-5.6 and a heavy fast 17-50/2.8.

The light 18-55 lens might be a daily carry/travel lens, and the heavy f/2.8 might be for shooting basketball in the dim gym.
The focal length is almost duplicated, but the lens functions are very different.​

 

[TWX]

Actually, if you plan things out, you can have a LOT of overlap of focal length, but not duplication of function.
Example a light 18-55/3.5-5.6 and a heavy fast 17-50/2.8.

The light 18-55 lens might be a daily carry/travel lens, and the heavy f/2.8 might be for shooting basketball in the dim gym.
The focal length is almost duplicated, but the lens functions are very different.​

True, though I've found in-practice that my 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II sits in the cabinet with the other outmoded lenses and obsolete cameras, both because of the 17-55mm f/2.8 and because of the 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM. True, neither of those other lenses is as light as the 18-55mm, but I'm willing to put up with heavier in exchange for more options, both of which the two other lenses provide.

My basic rule is that everything that I want to use on a consistent basis has to fit into my camera backpack. Not carried solely on my neck the weight of various lenses matters a bit less that way.

 

[ac12]

Actually, if you plan things out, you can have a LOT of overlap of focal length, but not duplication of function.
Example a light 18-55/3.5-5.6 and a heavy fast 17-50/2.8.

The light 18-55 lens might be a daily carry/travel lens, and the heavy f/2.8 might be for shooting basketball in the dim gym.
The focal length is almost duplicated, but the lens functions are very different.​

True, though I've found in-practice that my 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II sits in the cabinet with the other outmoded lenses and obsolete cameras, both because of the 17-55mm f/2.8 and because of the 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM. True, neither of those other lenses is as light as the 18-55mm, but I'm willing to put up with heavier in exchange for more options, both of which the two other lenses provide.

My basic rule is that everything that I want to use on a consistent basis has to fit into my camera backpack. Not carried solely on my neck the weight of various lenses matters a bit less that way.

18-135 is a GREAT GP lens.
My school yearbook has standardized on that lens vs. the previously standard 2-lens kit, 18-55 + 50-200.
There is less lens changing, which is safer for the gear.
It just does not do well in LOW light, where the 17-55/2.8 would be my choice.

As a senior citizen, I've sometimes swapped in my old Nikon 18-70 specifically because it is smaller and lighter than my 18-140.