Such a beginner question, but i just have to ask...

[shivaswrath]

Saw your post, thought I'd weigh in, all shot with my D40x this past weekend in NYC, overcast, cloudy, this new Nikon 35 1.8 G shines (all in Aperture Priority, variable ISO)!!

(very versatile as well, hardly switched over to my 50 1.4 G):

(shot at f/4.0, anything less in direct sun, this lens suffers from nasty purple fringing on the borders)

(can't get more uber patriotic NYC then this?)

(whoring some BMW pics I took from the Grand Central exhibit)

(yes, NYC has flowers)

(gotta love MOMA for its weirdness)

(more MOMA weirdness, great color saturation)

So besides whoring my pictures, I wanted to show you that the 35 1.8G hands down is the only lens you can "getaway" with using on a busy day in NYC (I walked all day, for about 8 hours, around town with 2 primes and 1 zoom). . .yes, you need to be smart about its limitations, but you can see, outdoors, indoors, in museums, in well lit parks, you can get some awesome shots. . .

 

[Garbz]

Yes, I agree, but I'm looking at it from the issue of cost. The camera body is just the beginning of what people spend on photography equipment, again it is just my opinion, your money will go much further if you start with a decent camera body. Who wouldn't love to own a 600mm f/2.8 lens?

Oh you are absolutely right. A friend of mine is the perfect example. She shoots a D700 and a kit lens. Oh and because she took your approach she is now limited to 5mpx from one of the most sweetest cameras on the market.

I have to say your idea is silly plain and simple. Modern even cheap SLRs have excellent noise performance, and I tell you there is barely a kit lens on the market which comes even close to reaching the performance limits of even the cheapest DSLR sensor. Doesn't matter if you have a D40 or a Canon 1000D adding a better lens improves your artistic ability, image sharpness, colour contrast, low light performance, and all for cheap. Good lenses are available second hand, and even lenses made in the 80s which work on current cameras offer performance that makes you drool. Or what about getting a lens with awesome VR. Assuming you're shooting still subjects, you get a 4 stop improvement preventing camera shake.

Or we could take you approach and run around with an awesome new camera. Oh the images still look just as bad as they did on the Xti, but it's ok at least now I can shoot some crap photos in the dark.

I am not saying go out and get a 600mm f/2.8 but the OP is clearly at the start of his photography hobby. A 24-70mm f/2.8, a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a few awesome primes would definitely be higher on the priority list than a new camera body, and if you shop smart it will be cheaper than a 5DMkII to get all the above.

 

[paulk_68]

LOL, a Canon 400mm f/2.8L or a Canon 400mm f/5.6L, which lens can the above posters afford to buy?

BTW, if anyone knows of a Cannon 600mm f/2.8 lens on the market that is light enough to be hand shot, let me know,.. I'll rob Fort Knox to buy it :lmao:

Modern even cheap SLRs have excellent noise performance...

Tell that to anyone with a Canon 30D who tries to shoot with an ISO above 400 :meh:

 

[Garbz]

Tell me one Canon 30D that's modern.

 

[tsaraleksi]

Really the 20D and 30D do quite well through 800 and pretty decently at 1600. 3200 is a little rough but not unusable. As long as you are being careful with your exposure you'll be fine.