Body vs glass - what would you rather invest in ?

[shefjr]

I would go for glass first. If I went for a body first, by the time I had enough cash saved up I would have to buy a new body all over again. Glass really is timeless and isn't something that updates frequently.
Just my opinion though.

 

[BrianV]

I was looking at new old glass last night Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton | eBay £2500 for a 1950 lens

Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton Classic

Get the same lens in Prominent mount, get a Prominent to S-Mount adapter, and S-Mount to Leica. Save $2200.

I have two of the Noktons in Prominent mount. And two Prominents. $400 total, with the wide-angle, telephoto, and Turnit finder. And have the the Adapters for use on the Nikon and Leica. I might convert one of them the Leica mount myself, it is not hard. The Nokton has a decent back-focus, the Prominent has a leaflet shutter. I prefer the Zeiss Sonnars. The Noktons are about the same quality as the Leica mount Canon 50/1.4.

 

[baturn]

Right now I'd like a good body and perhaps I'll share a glass with her later. And I don't want to pay for either!

 

[goodguy]

Yep saw this video but I mean OLDER then this model, old like 6MP camera.

 

[Propsguy]

As is evident, you'll find this is largely a matter of what individuals feel is important to them, but you'll likely find some additional weight on the glass side of the scale because of the longer term investment value. That being said, if you have low quality lenses now, and get a new body (for example, you purchase a Nikon D800 body, and the best lens you have is the kit lens that came with your previous body) you'll be sorely disappointed in the apparent performance of the new body. The lousy glass just can't resolve the detail that the sensor is "asking for", and it will basically be a wasted effort. A smart upgrade path should allow you to always have compatible gear with fewest possible performance bottlenecks. The reason that high end glass is a fundamentally smarter investment is that, so long as the lens is of sufficient quality, no existing body will outperform the lens for many years.

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

It depends. If the body still did everything I needed to ie didn't need faster AF or better high Iso I would always invest in the best glass first. Bodies generally become outdated 1-2 years after launch however glass will last a lifetime

 

[ralphh]

I've decided that from now on I'm buying new glass as it holds it's value well, but buying bodies second hand, one generation behind once the new one is out and everyone it ditching their old "useless" camera for very little money.

I bought a 5D2 for £1000 with under 3k shutter counts just before xmas.

In a few years, when the 5D4 comes out and everyone is getting rid of their crappy old 5D3's that can't possibly take a good photo I'll buy one of those...

Be a long time befoe my 85LII is crappy and old and can't take a good photo so I was happy to buy that new

 

[Solarflare]

Err ...

You cant use a camera without glass.

You cant use glass without a camera.

So thats really a stupid question. Dont invest more into the camera or more into the glass. Simply fit them together.

And how much MONEY that means for camera and glass really depends upon what kind of glass you need.

For example, a Leica M user might find that he only needs a single 50mm lens. So he might get the new Leica M Type 240 plus the APO Summicron 50mm f/2 and be happy with that combo. In this scenario, the lens is about half as expensive as the camera.

Some amateur might want a general setup for just anything. So he might get a Nikon D600, AF-S 16-35mm f/4 VR, AF-S 70-200mm f/4 VR, AF-S 50mm f/1.8 and AF-S micro 105mm f/2.8 VR. Thats about 1600€ for the camera, and over 3000€ for the four lenses.

I've decided that from now on I'm buying new glass as it holds it's value well, but buying bodies second hand, one generation behind once the new one is out and everyone it ditching their old "useless" camera for very little money.

I bought a 5D2 for £1000 with under 3k shutter counts just before xmas.

In a few years, when the 5D4 comes out and everyone is getting rid of their crappy old 5D3's that can't possibly take a good photo I'll buy one of those...

Be a long time befoe my 85LII is crappy and old and can't take a good photo so I was happy to buy that new

Sounds reasonable, though the 5D3 has so many little nice advantages over the 5D2 that it would be a hard time for me to really follow though.

Likewise, D5000 << D5100. But only D5100 < D5200, so I have no trouble resisting the idea of getting a D5200; the difference between the D5200 and D5100 are just too small to be really relevant.

 

[O'Rork]

Mine tells me, if I trade up, she'll see to it I'm living in a 1 bedroom apt, eating cardboard pizza and barely making budget.

Right now I'd like a good body and perhaps I'll share a glass with her later. And I don't want to pay for either!

 

[Village Idiot]

Depends on what glass you're looking at too. If it's a minimal improvement where the lens isn't much better and a body will get you more usable high ISO, then why not go for the body? I can understand if you're trading in your 70-300 variable aperture lens to something like a 70-200 f/2.8 with image stabilization but if you're looking to upgrade the kit 18-55 to a marginally better lens, you have to decide if a new body wouldn't make a better upgrade.

It also depends on what you're shooting. If you're shooting something where a faster and more accurate AF or better high ISO performance will improve your photography vs what a new lens could do for you, then that's the obvious choice.

It's like anythis else with relations that depend on each other. If you're going to spend the money on engine modifications for a vehicle but not on suspension, your overall performance won't necessarily benefit because you're not upgrading what you really need to.

 

[jrizal]

I'd like to have both but can't afford either so I'm focusing on improving my novice skills if there are any at all.

 

[Village Idiot]

I'd like to have both but can't afford either so I'm focusing on improving my novice skills if there are any at all.

In that case, lighting. Well, if you're not shooting landscape, sports, or something similar then lighting is the way to go (goes back to appropriate tool for the job). Picking up a cheap off camera flash setup and learning how to use it will benefit you many times more than a new body or lens. You could hand me the first generation Canon Rebel 300D and the old 18-55 variable aperture lens and I could make good photos with it if I had a cheap lighting kit. I could probably get a setup with three lights, triggers, stands, modifiers etc... for under $500 most likely and that would just give me the ability to do so much more with the type of photography I do than a $2000 lens or $2000 body.

 

[Dao]

Keep in mind that photography gears are tools. Whatever it take to get the job done is the right tool whether it is the lens, camera body, lights or any other gears.

Lens or body upgrade depends on what you have now, what you plan to do and what end result you are looking for. Of course, looking cool and easier operation while shooting may be another factors for someone. So basically think about what you like to achieve, find out why you are not able to do so and go from there.

 

[O'Rork]

Seriously, my digital experience started with the D100 and the 28-80 kit lens from my first 35mm AF body. Never considered any DX lenses, bought the 50mm 1.4 D first. Followed by the D300 years later. Then the 3 kings trilogy. Last December, the D600. Today the FedEx guy is bringing a 19 year old Nikkor 300mm AF-I 2.8 ED, tomorrow the TC-14Eii.

In short, bodies come and bodies go. Bodies get faster,,,,AF speed and ability, pixels and ISO speeds too. But champion quality glass will always be just that.

Mine tells me, if I trade up, she'll see to it I'm living in a 1 bedroom apt, eating cardboard pizza and barely making budget.

Right now I'd like a good body and perhaps I'll share a glass with her later. And I don't want to pay for either!

 

[jrizal]

I'd like to have both but can't afford either so I'm focusing on improving my novice skills if there are any at all.

In that case, lighting. Well, if you're not shooting landscape, sports, or something similar then lighting is the way to go (goes back to appropriate tool for the job). Picking up a cheap off camera flash setup and learning how to use it will benefit you many times more than a new body or lens. You could hand me the first generation Canon Rebel 300D and the old 18-55 variable aperture lens and I could make good photos with it if I had a cheap lighting kit. I could probably get a setup with three lights, triggers, stands, modifiers etc... for under $500 most likely and that would just give me the ability to do so much more with the type of photography I do than a $2000 lens or $2000 body.

Actually, that's what I'm doing right now. I'm still waiting for my YN560 III and YN remote triggers to arrive ($110) All I have is a cheapo TTL flash. Remote flash and using manual is already beginning to interest me. Still can't afford Nikon speedlights. Maybe a used SB-600. But I don't think I'm looking hard enough.


@Dao I totally agree with you. And truth be told this subject has been asked a gazillion times already. Better gear enables to to take better pictures. But what is the use of better gear if your skills are not getting better by not taking the time and effort to learn and practice? I'm not saying that it's bad having gear envy. But it takes both gear and skill to master photography. As for me, let's just say my gear is far from perfect and so is my photography. But I still see the light at the end of the tunnel and I am to reach it.