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