Whats more important, top of the range body, or top of the range lenses?

Twizzel

Twizzel

Messages
712
Name
Rach
Edit My Images
No
Please settle a small family argument once and for all...:D

Dad and I both have an interest in photography. Dad has put all of his available money into buying a new body (Canon 40D) and has compromised on his lenses (has a Canon 18-55mm IS and a used, old Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 no IS or USM, it's an old lens).

I on the other hand have always been told that lenses are what makes the photo. From experience I believe this, I used to have the Canon 70-300mm to use for sports photography, then flogged it to dad :naughty: and bought a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 USM lens and the difference in the photographs is astounding. I currently use a Canon 350D, with the above Sigma 70-200 and have just bought a Sigma 10-20mm.

So, which is the better option? :thinking: Obviously if money was no object both dad and I would have the best lenses and bodies available, but with a budget is it more important to have a better body or better lenses?
 
I think an excellent lens will get the best from a lesser camera whereas a good body will show up the bad points of a poor lens, ultimately you want good body and lens but good lenses will stay with you for a long time when you change bodies so are a wise investment.

I would say get the best lens you can afford at the time to go with whichever body you have no point in spending £500 on a body and £50 on a lens, try to balance it up or go £300 on the lens and £200 on the body cos when you change the body later the lens will stay and you will again see the benefit
 
Good glass over bad is always going to have a much bigger impact on image quality than the body it's on.

The general exception, where you could consider a body to be more important is when the subject is moving so fast that you need a REALLY good AF system to stand a chance of getting the shot at all, or when you absolutely have to have weather sealing to even try the shot.

Or to put it the short way, your Dad owes you a pint. ;)
 
Both of you are right (IMO), while most modern DSLR's are capable of producing excellent images, and if it was just straight excellent images, then your argument would be the correct one, however, if you take the example of your interest-sports, then the camera body comes into play, for example a better frame rate , bigger buffer, quicker autofocus etc etc., so although the images may not be the same quality as with a better lens, the keeper rate may be higher, or sharper focus etc.

So perhaps the arguments balance them selves out ?
 
Which is better, a chap with cateracts looking through a clean window, or a chap with 20/20 vision looking through a dirty window? ;)

You need both things, in harmony, together with the skill (or luck) of the Photographer for the image to be perfect.

Personally, I've always found the smart money lies in buying just behind the times - grab the best you can afford from the stock that's already been out a year or so and has already suffered some of its depreciation.

Cheers,
James
 
lens every time bodys will come and go as tech moves on but decent glass will last you a life time...
 
Neither, a good eye for a photo is.

You can spend huge amounts of money on both and still produce snapshots.
 
Glass first every time, my reasoning

1) Good glass will always be good glass where as in a few months time the 40D will look old technology.
2) Good glass could be considered a longer term investment, a 7 year old 70-200 f2.8 IS (launched in 2001) will still cost close to £1000 and will still give the same stunning images (assuming reasonable care), where as a 3 year old 30D - 8.2MP DSLR with 9 Focus Points isn't going to fetch much even if it is a fully capable camera.

(OK it's the same point but two ways of looking at it just goes to show how important it is)
 
I agree with james. Good advice. I think subject matter comes first then glass followed by camera. I have in the past with 35mm taken some memorable shots with grotty old bodies but good glass. but it's been the subject that has made the picture.
 
At the end of the Day you buy the equipment you need or best suits your needs, don't worry about whether it's got the newest fandangle wiggymidongle if it produced quality images two years ago then in the right hands it will still do so. Top of the range equipment does not make an amazing photograph/photographer.

Just list the qualities you need and don't need in a camera and lens and the decision should be made for you.

Ie:
Do you need full frame
Do you need fast shutter speeds
What focal lengths best suits your style/needs
How fast do you need the lenses to be-will it be used in low light
do you need Image Stabilisation
What media will your images be used for, this will determine what resolution you'll need

I do also agree on the investment and image qualities of professional glass
 
knowledge first followed by glass then body, but ideally all should be balanced with a slight bias towards knowledge!
 
Although new to dSLRs, my main focus is investing in glass (only where I can get a super bargain, mind ;) ). Admittedly, I'm not going to be using all the lenses right now, as I've simply not got time to indulge because of a hectic work schedule, and I'm still mastering shooting in the dark wintery conditions.

However, come summer, I'll be able to get out and about a bit more :) Come next winter, once I've gotten used to everything, then I might be looking at getting an extra camera as my 'main' that has got better ISO settings that can compensate for the seasonal mirk. Mind you, by then, with the help of TP, I might have more confidence in shooting in darker conditions and be able to compensate for it without needing a new camera! So, I'll have saved money on a new body, but still have good glass to work with.

That's my logic anyway.. not sure if I've explained it very well ;)
 
Les McLean said:
Both of you are right (IMO), while most modern DSLR's are capable of producing excellent images, and if it was just straight excellent images, then your argument would be the correct one, however, if you take the example of your interest-sports, then the camera body comes into play, for example a better frame rate , bigger buffer, quicker autofocus etc etc., so although the images may not be the same quality as with a better lens, the keeper rate may be higher, or sharper focus etc.

So perhaps the arguments balance them selves out ?
Click to expand...

What he said! ^^^^^
 
Good glass will last you a life time, bodies get replaced. Generally, I'd go for glass over body.

However if it was my first ever DSLR body and I felt I wanted to start out at the mid-range rather than entry-range then I may just initially compromise on glass to get that first body I wanted with the idea that I'd then concentrate on glass from then on

Which is what I did :)

Dave B.
 
Oakey22 said:
i had some good len's, the 100-400 and 70-200 f/4 for football but had to get a better body than my 40D because of the noise the 40D had at high ISO
Click to expand...

I'd argue that F/4 isn't good enough for average football conditions, its doable but you're hanging on by the fingernails.
Its difficult to make an argument for fast glass at the expense of top iso performance though, there is a huge advantage using a low noise body these days.
I mean, are there really that many really crap lenses, or are they just slow....
 
joxby said:
I'd argue that F/4 isn't good enough for average football conditions, its doable but you're hanging on by the fingernails.
Its difficult to make an argument for fast glass at the expense of top iso performance though, there is a huge advantage using a low noise body these days.
I mean, are there really that many really crap lenses, or are they just slow....
Click to expand...

thats why i also bought the 12-300mm f/2.8 at the same time, but i would still say i needed the 1D mkIII for the iso, even when its at 2.8 it is not good enough on the 40D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top