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

I'll stir up the pot a bit and say it depends on where one is 'coming from'.

By that, I mean that a newbie to photography in general would be better off starting with, say, a Canon T4i or even a 60D (a year or two 'behind' newest/bestest/highest priced versions) and a decent zoom (not kit) or the standard nifty-fifty, but definitely not $1000 and up category of glass. Why? I would be quite upset if, say, as my first endeavor into photography someone convinced me to put a $2400 EF 24-70 f2.8L ii on my T4i and I discover 6 months later that I am mostly interested in bird photography. Yes, I could sell the 24-70 and get a 100-400 or something like that, but that assumes I know how/where/how not to get gypped to sell the 24-70 and get the 100-400. Bottom line, I'd rather know 'what I am doing' before plunking down lots of $$$ on what seems like a good fit only to be disappointed.

But on the other side of the coin, knowing what I can and can't do with whatever equipment I have, and knowing what is needed to get 'what I want' for pictures, then I'd go with a better body and 'catch up' with glass as finances permit. That's basically the plan I followed. After moving up from a 30D and kit glass to a 60D, I then upgraded to L glass and when I finally had the money, a 5D3. I 'discovered' my end goal after several years of taking pictures in digital. I also bought the 'wrong glass' a couple of times along the way, as well. At least I knew I didn't intend to go birding...
 
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.

This is why I will always buy glass first. The way I see it, by the time I have the "best glass" there will several newer bodies with the best at that time sensor technology to save up for.
 
You also will have to consider what lens is good/bad/mediocre/brilliant/crap. As pointed out earlier a full frame does not demand quite as much from the resolution side of things. Vignetting etc is another story, but someone compares the 50mm f1.8 to the 50mm 1.2. These 2 lenses at extreme price points for what there respective focal lengths (personally I have never used the 1.2 but have many shots I like from the f1.8), but a fairer comparison may be the 50 f1.2 vs the 50 f1.4. many will say unless you really need that wafer thin dof the 1.4 performs better. So possibly the 1.4 on a 5d is better than the 1.2 on a 650d.

long story short- a good lens doesn't need a red ring. Cheaper lenses can be just as good as there very expensive cousins, the 50 1.2 is obviously better at f1.2 but most probably could not tell the difference between a shot with these 2 lenses at say f2.2. Good lenses picked wisely with a better body would in my opinion be better than a lesser body picked with the most expensive lenses. There is no denying that good lenses make the bigger difference, but the most expensive lenses are not always "that much better"
 
Any time people give you an answer to anything that has many options and the answer is "ALWAYS THIS WAY", the answer should be considered suspect.

FOR EXAMPLE...

Let's say you happen to be someone who shoots in the dark all the time and cannot use flash, but you have a variety of focal ranges that you need to work from and you only have $3000 to spend. Guess what? You're going to need a camera that can handle high ISO really well, and you're going to have to accept the limitations of cheaper glass.

The answer is... IT DEPENDS.

People are ABSOLUTELY correct that lenses essentially last forever. A good lens is pretty much good for a very long time, and in many cases you can sell your good glass for nearly what you paid for it for that very reason. HOWEVER... not all camera families can use older glass on newer bodies, and even the ones that have been consistent for years (Nikon) have some limitations.

Also... the camera body that you buy now will be just as good in 10 years as it is today, assuming it is still working. When people say "Camera bodies age", what they are talking about is a technology curve. Camera technology moves much faster than lens technology and old bodies become "obsolete" more quickly than glass because of that. Obsolete, however, applies mainly to their capabilities... speed, ISO handling, AF. There's also some question of programs handling their file formats, but my 10 year old D100 files are still readable, so take that with a grain of salt.

The trick, however, is the camera body aging problem has also DRASTICALLY slowed, and you can see that in the difference between the cameras over time.

If you compare a D200 to a D100, it's like comparing a finely crafted sword to a dull round rock at the bottom of a lake.
Comparing a D300 to a D300 is like comparing a laser-sharpened sword to the finely honed one.
Compare a D7100 to a D300... well, it has a nicer hilt and some advances in the metals.

etc.

It's sort of a silly analogy, but the point is that the initial advances in the technologies were OVERWHELMING and while things continue to improve, the changes have mostly been steady/incremental. You won't probably see another overwhelming jump until something staggering changes at the technology level- like a completely new kind of sensor or something along those lines.

So, the answer really must be very personal and very much about your needs and purposes.
 
^^ watching to much game of thrones me thinks:sexywink:
 
Ha. No, then I'd be saying it's like comparing a Tyrion to a Jaime or something. :) Dwarf technology these days, you know...
 
I think the question should be

Glass vs Body vs Knowledge.


A experienced photographer knows what to choose and why. He/she know when to choose a better body over lens and vice versa. But in general, glass is a better choice for me.

Just for the image quality, the difference between a pro camera sensor and the entry level camera sensor is not too big nowadays. But the difference between Pro lens and entry level lens is quite a bit.


This is one example of low end camera body with a pro lens and of course the most important factor is the person behind the camera. (Canon Rebel XT or 350D with 400mm f/5.6L)

Mandarin duck (Mandarina Duck), 002269 [JuzaPhoto]
 
Those youtube videos were neat test samples. But I agree on alot of what is said.

And, what is a pro lens? 2.8 and faster?
And what about a full manual 85mm f/1.8 AI-S lens considered "pro" though lacking all the creature comforts of today's lenses (AF, AFS, VR etc) ?
 
I upgraded from a T2i to a 7D simply because of Processor speed. I get a thrill capturing birds in flight and the T2i simply could not take shots fast enough for me. I now use both cameras as the sensor is pretty much the same. I tested both on a tripod with exact settings and same lens.

When the RAW images were checked out I came to the conclusion that 4 of the better images came from the T2i and four from the 7D. The camera image quality between the two were pretty much the same. I now use the 7D for my wildlife shots and the T2i when I know the subject is going to be stationary. The zoom lenses are on the 7D and Nifty Fifty on the T2i.

I should have added, I believe the best way to improve image quality is to go to Full Frame, but that is outside the economic ballpark at this point. Looking at glass I am to the point next purchase is also outside the economic ballpark. I already have the better NON-L lenses. I am now working on education, lot's of good info and instructions out there at no cost. :)
 
Last edited:
Multiple sword quotes, not quoting full text because of size.

I actually really like this analogy, and it does also explain that technology was very new at the time of the older computers, so im really glad you pointed this out. Well said, regardless. :)
 
I would say most people starting out cant afford a high end camera and slowly work there way up and same goes with lenses you buy what you can afford. I have just started and know if I wish to achieve tac sharp images I need better glass so I will save my money buy the L lenses I want and then retire my t4i as a back up camera and buy a canon 6D.I would think this is a hobby we all started out as enthusiasts and grew into professional photographers
. I don't know of anyone unless they won the lottery that buys the best camera and 5 L series lenses to begin photography. Yes money creates sacrifices that we need to make at first and we grow and the need to consume more quality and knowledge goes hand in hand . Kelly
 
I'd say go for the nice body. You can get prime lenses for both makes fairly cheap. A good 35mm and 50mm will keep you happy for a very long time.
 
I have to go with glass first. More often than not, people who venture into "serious" photography start with a consumer body like a D3200, a D5200, or anything along those lines. I'm not going to say there's anything wrong with them, because there isn't. Low end DSLR's have come a REALLY long way! It's rare, but I will concede that you'll see someone starting out with, say, a D7100, or a D60 DOES happen. You really don't see anyone starting out with D800 or a 60D, let alone a D4, or a 1DX. I won't even go into medium format here...

At any rate though, most people start with a basic body. From there, when they start figuring out their interests, that's when I figure it's time to start investing in better lenses. I really wouldn't even advise anyone to go buy a more advanced body before they have the lenses. Lets face it. It makes no sense to stick something like a $200 75-300 (NOT a 70-300) on a 1D series body, let alone sticking a Nikon equivalent on a D4 or D800. Some lenses? MAYBE! that's a big maybe. It really depends on the body and lens combo. A D4 can get away with, say Nikon's 70-300 with stunning results, but I wouldn't exactly want it on a D800, and I REALLY wouldn't want a 75-300 on either of them! Likewise, you could put Canon's 70-300 on a D1X and get quality shots, or even each company's respective 15/16-85's are good on most bodies. To me, that's nearly as bad as putting an 18-300 on even a mid-range body like the D7100 or D60. If someone really wants to, sure, go for it. To each their own.
 
Just for the image quality, the difference between a pro camera sensor and the entry level camera sensor is not too big nowadays.

But the debates even when both are prosumer enthusiast cameras are and can be epic - at least between makers.

Sent from my iPad using PhotoForum
 

Most reactions

Back
Top