Better to get good lenses with a entry body than less quality lenses with a better...

FamilyID

TPF Noob!
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
70
Reaction score
1
Location
Canada
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Better to get good lenses with a entry body than less quality lenses with a better body.

True or False? It's all your opinion, and I'm quite curious.

So basically a 650D with some nice glass.
Or a 5D Mark III with some not so fancy glass.

Which one is better? And why?
 
There's plenty of Youtube videos on this subject.
A pro lens on a low end camera will trump a high end DSLR with a low grade consumer lens in general.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Playing Devil's Advocate...
That is true, but you can always use a body for years, much like a lens (just maybe not as long).
 
Quality glass every time, bodies come and go decent lens will live on for a lot longer.
 
or

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Love both Matt and DigitalRev videos. I have seen them already.
I would like to see if anyone can justify (somehow) why a pro body setup with meh glass can be beneficial.
 
In case anybody hasn't mentioned it, I would say go for glass first. Really good glass will last for decades. Once you get top shelf glass, you can change bodies all you want.
 
I have to say, a 5D III with a cheap 35mm f/2, a 50mm f/1.4, and an 85mm/1.8 is a FAR,far better imager than a 650D or other Canon APS-C body with allegedly "pro" zoom lenses.

Lenses can only go "so far" when the ISO level is high, and a crop-body is just not the same class of tool as a higher-end FF model from Canon. I personally believe (and DxO Mark scores confirm it) that Canon's APS-C sensor cameras are slightly inferior imagers at this date in the 21st century.

Not sure what one means by "Meh glass." What exactly does that mean? I mean, when a $100 prime like a 50/1.8 or a $200-class lens like their old 35/2 has HIGHER image quality than a $2,499 Canon zoom lens? Or when a $388 85mm f/1.8 lens has higher MTF and higher sharpness and contrast than a $2,499 Canon zoom?

I thought Matt Granger's video comparison was funny. I especially liked the following "test scenario" of the doll on the brick wall in the park....helluva' comparison scenario...

$MATT Granger screencap.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have to say, a 5D III with a cheap 35mm f/2, a 50mm f/1.4, and an 85mm/1.8 is a FAR,far better imager than a 650D or other Canon APS-C body with allegedly "pro" zoom lenses.

Lenses can only go "so far" when the iSO level is high, and a crop-body is just not the same class of tool as a higher-end FF model from either Canon. I personally believe (and DxO Mark scores confirm it) that Canon's APS-C sensor cameras are slightly inferior imagers at this date in the 21st century.

Finally, another side of the decision! Very agreeable. My 600D has quite the grain at 3200ISO plus.

However, if you got fine glass, it will last a long time, and then you will be able to use those high end FF cameras to their best potential.
 
FF cameras do not demand "high-end glass" to score high image quality...the sensor is larger, the pixels are larger, the per-pixel image quality is higher, and a lens with only average performance yields a high-quality image on a bigger sensor. It is the SMALL-sensor cameras, like 4/3 and APS-C, which demand EXTREMELY good lenses, in order to make decent images. There's a lot of misunderstanding about this in the on-line world. A high-resilution FF sensor does NOT demand an exceptional lens to make a nice image... in much the same was as a medium-format film camera makes a gorgeous picture, in almost all cases with lenses that are not good enough for use on 35mm or digital cameras.
 
Meh glass meant like, non-L or higher end glass. More like 50mm F/1.8 against a F/1.2 (maybe not that big of a price different). Basically, lower end primes and zooms on a FF body vs L zooms and higher end primes.
 
Well I don't do Canon but if you are asking D5200 with top glass vs D800 with mediocre glass, I take the D800!!!
 
I have to say, a 5D III with a cheap 35mm f/2, a 50mm f/1.4, and an 85mm/1.8 is a FAR,far better imager than a 650D or other Canon APS-C body with allegedly "pro" zoom lenses. Lenses can only go "so far" when the ISO level is high, and a crop-body is just not the same class of tool as a higher-end FF model from Canon. I personally believe (and DxO Mark scores confirm it) that Canon's APS-C sensor cameras are slightly inferior imagers at this date in the 21st century. Not sure what one means by "Meh glass." What exactly does that mean? I mean, when a $100 prime like a 50/1.8 or a $200-class lens like their old 35/2 has HIGHER image quality than a $2,499 Canon zoom lens? Or when a $388 85mm f/1.8 lens has higher MTF and higher sharpness and contrast than a $2,499 Canon zoom? I thought Matt Granger's video comparison was funny. I especially liked the following "test scenario" of the doll on the brick wall in the park....helluva' comparison scenario... <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=56797"/>

No longer "that Nikon guy" :/
 
Here in the digital age, lenses out-last camera bodies by a significant time factor as it relates to the evolution of technology.

In other words, camera body technology evolves at a much faster pace than lens technology does.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top