Body or glass, what's more important?

bob5820

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
One of the general recommendations I've seen on this forum is to base your choice on the lens system rather then the camera body, and then to put your money into the best glass you can afford. While this makes sense I'm a little confused. Because of the way things are marketed its quite easy to compare bodies, glass however seems to be more difficult to get a good reading on (at least from a newbe perspective). Also how does third party glass such as Sigma/Tokina/Tameron fit into the equation. Can some of these lenses be cost effective alternates to OEM glass without sacrificing quality. How does one search out the gems among all of the available glass?
 

islandman

macrumors 6502
Sep 13, 2006
356
0
One of the general recommendations I've seen on this forum is to base your choice on the lens system rather then the camera body, and then to put your money into the best glass you can afford. While this makes sense I'm a little confused. Because of the way things are marketed its quite easy to compare bodies, glass however seems to be more difficult to get a good reading on (at least from a newbe perspective). Also how does third party glass such as Sigma/Tokina/Tameron fit into the equation. Can some of these lenses be cost effective alternates to OEM glass without sacrificing quality. How does one search out the gems among all of the available glass?
This all depends on a lot of things.

1. Are you planning to be a professional?
2. How much do you plan to spend?
3. How long have you been doing photography on any level?

There are more questions, but let's start there. Once you determine these, here are some things to consider:
1. Glass will outlast camera bodies, so that's why people say to invest in the glass. In addition, don't spend $300 on a lens just because you think it's a bargain; think about the long run. I have lenses that cost more than $1,600 EACH, and I know that they will consistently produce superb images even when I move on to new bodies in the future. I made a huge mistake when I bought two cheap lenses early on. Those lenses ended up collecting dust before I finally sold them on eBay for next-to-nothing.

2. Some gems can be found with Sigma/Tamron. I don't believe in Tokina at all. With that said, keep in mind that some 3rd-party lenses are made obsolete by camera manufacturers in future bodies and have to be re-chipped by Sigma/Tamron/Tokina in order for them to work. WIth that said, I have a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 that I simply love on my Canon 20D. For the money, it's the best lens I own. It's the ONLY 3rd-party lens I have, however.

3. To compare lenses, I usually surf http://www.dpreview.com and ask questions there. A great review site for lenses is http://www.fredmiranda.com. Don't let the high cost of lenses deter you from buying a good lens. If you plan to keep doing photography for a long time, it will pay for itself (especially if you become a pro and start making money).

Hope this helps :).
 
Comment

beavo451

macrumors 6502
Jun 22, 2006
483
2
1. Glass will outlast camera bodies, so that's why people say to invest in the glass. In addition, don't spend $300 on a lens just because you think it's a bargain; think about the long run. I have lenses that cost more than $1,600 EACH, and I know that they will consistently produce superb images even when I move on to new bodies in the future. I made a huge mistake when I bought two cheap lenses early on. Those lenses ended up collecting dust before I finally sold them on eBay for next-to-nothing.
Don't be fooled by costs at times. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is ~$100 and is one of the best lenses you can get optically wise. There is much debate about how much "better" the f/1.4 version (for $300) is optically.

The 18-70mm DX lens is another "cheap" lens at $300, but optically it is close to the $1200 17-55mm lens. The only down sides are the build quality and lack of the 2.8 constant aperture.

Read the suggested sites and forums and you will eventually get a feel for what lenses are good and what are not.
 
Comment

Zeke

macrumors 6502a
Oct 5, 2002
507
1
Greenville, SC
Sigma is the only 3rd party (to my knowledge) that has rechipping problems. Tamron has a great track record of compatibility. I have almost all Tamron lenses because they're price/performance ratio is very good. While not Canon L lenses, they can be very good if you get the right lens. Obviously, there are some cheap ones but if you do your research you can get some great glass for a much lower price than the comparably performing Canon.
 
Comment

islandman

macrumors 6502
Sep 13, 2006
356
0
Don't be fooled by costs at times. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is ~$100 and is one of the best lenses you can get optically wise. There is much debate about how much "better" the f/1.4 version (for $300) is optically.

The 18-70mm DX lens is another "cheap" lens at $300, but optically it is close to the $1200 17-55mm lens. The only down sides are the build quality and lack of the 2.8 constant aperture.

Read the suggested sites and forums and you will eventually get a feel for what lenses are good and what are not.
I agree with you about costs. Canon has some truly inexpensive gems (50 f/1.8 and 85 f/1.8). I was generalizing in my post, but yes you are absolutely right. To find the best gems (expensive or otherwise), I highly recommend the review sites.
 
Comment

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
16,983
4,965
Lenses dominate, but body issues also determine the choice.
There are many factors to consider, and the prioritization depends on what subjects interest you most:

- Range of Ultrasonic, Super Sonic, or Silent Wave lenses with manual retouch
- Range of image stabilized lenses or in-body antishake.
- Range of wide lenses
- Range of telephoto lenses
- Diffractive Optics telephoto lenses
- Big aperture primes
- Defocus Control or Soft Focus lenses
- Tilt/shift lenses

- Flash system
- Availability of bodies with full frame, Super CCD SR, or Foveon sensor
- Availability of weather sealing at your budget level
 
Comment

bob5820

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
3. To compare lenses, I usually surf http://www.dpreview.com and ask questions there. A great review site for lenses is http://www.fredmiranda.com. Don't let the high cost of lenses deter you from buying a good lens. If you plan to keep doing photography for a long time, it will pay for itself (especially if you become a pro and start making money).

Hope this helps :).
Thanks for the sites. Which do you find more valuable, tha actual reviews or the lens discusion forums?
 
Comment

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,415
124
Location Location Location
The lens is more important than the camera. With that said, this was probably more true when people were shooting with film....

A camera with a bad, noisy sensor that simply cannot take highly sharp, crisp photos under rather ideal conditions is probably not a good choice for a camera. However, I believe that almost all DSLRs today are fantastic, so you're not a loser no matter which camera you purchase.
 
Comment

beavo451

macrumors 6502
Jun 22, 2006
483
2
I agree with you about costs. Canon has some truly inexpensive gems (50 f/1.8 and 85 f/1.8). I was generalizing in my post, but yes you are absolutely right. To find the best gems (expensive or otherwise), I highly recommend the review sites.

I'm glad you did not take offense. :)
 
Comment

failsafe1

macrumors 6502a
Jul 21, 2003
619
0
Glass or body

Glass is the most important of the two. A nice sharp fast 2.8 lens is much better than scrimping on glass to get a nice new model camera. You might be able to get by with last year's model camera body and get more glass for your buck. Always check used stock when buying and that gives you more for your money. The best place I know is keh.com they are an awesome company for good used glass. An easy example is buying a Canon 20D over the new 30D and then get better glass. Just an example.
 
Comment

islandman

macrumors 6502
Sep 13, 2006
356
0
Thanks for the sites. Which do you find more valuable, tha actual reviews or the lens discusion forums?
Both, actually. At Fred Miranda, I prefer the reviews by far. At Dpreview, I find the discussions to be very valuable (once you filter out the Nikon vs Canon bashing that goes on in the respective forums).
 
Comment

Foucault

macrumors 6502
Dec 30, 2002
272
0
Pasadena, CA
Glass it is

I agree wit h cgratti. Your lens has very little moving parts, and most of them will have at least a five year warranty or more. Invest in a good lens, and you will have something that you will be able to use for years. While you'll probably upgrade your camera equipment every 3-5 years just to catch up with technology.
 
Comment

milozauckerman

macrumors 6502
Jun 25, 2005
477
0
In the old days, glass over body was an easy decision, 'cuz you could stick Tri-X behind anything you pleased. These days it gets to be a little more complicated - the jump from a D50 to a D80 is a pretty good one in terms of image quality and the body's usability.

As a general guideline, the best lenses for any system will be primes - a single focal length, with a large aperture (making your viewfinder image brighter, a real bonus). The cheapest Nikon or Canon prime is as 'good' as a professional zoom lens.

The next-best level of lenses are constant-aperture zooms. Primarily, these are marketed as professional equipment and priced as such (ie Canon f/2.8 'L' zooms selling for $1000+, similar models from other manufacturers). Third-party (Tamron, etc.) constant-aperture zooms can be excellent, but quality varies and they don't always interact well with the body's autofocus system - I recommend doing a search on photo.net for the lens and reading what you can.

From there you have the various grades of consumer-level zooms. They make compromises for cost and size and generally of a lower level of quality than the other two groups. BUT, in this day and age, excluding the dirt-cheapest of the dirt-cheap zooms, image quality should be very usable on most offerings.
 
Comment

maxi

macrumors regular
May 23, 2006
127
0
Buenos Aires, Argentina
I agree wit h cgratti. Your lens has very little moving parts, and most of them will have at least a five year warranty or more. Invest in a good lens, and you will have something that you will be able to use for years. While you'll probably upgrade your camera equipment every 3-5 years just to catch up with technology.
Actually, lenses have moving parts: the glass itself!!!! and any misalignment (be it by wrong tolerances, quality control or mishandling) will seriously screw them up ;).

Research, each brand has a handfull of "jewels" that stand above the rest either because of their exceptional value (the ~$100 nikon 50mm f/1.8 is incredible) or their sheer quality (the 105mm f/2DC is simply stunning, but will set you back ~$800). I don't have any experience with canon, but you can find manual focus nikons that are very cheap and incredible quality wise (the 105 f/2.5, 180 2.8, etc) and used AF lenses too.

If you want to research nikons, this guy tested almost every nikon lens you can think of: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

As for the 18-70mm, it is a nice lens, but I think the 17-55 is a step ahead optically.
 
Comment

Buschmaster

macrumors 65816
Feb 12, 2006
1,306
26
Minnesota
Just to shake things up I'm going to say the camera body. Yeah, I said it.

But I didn't mean it.;)

My experience in this field stems as far as Film SLRs. I had both the body and the lenses that were great. And I also had the lenses that were bad. You can really tell which lens I shot with when you see the pictures developed. I'm sure the same holds true for digital, but probably to a lesser extent. There seems to be a greater divide in digital bodies than in film bodies. So, while I do say the lens is more important and ultimately more responsible for the final product, the body is also very important. I look at some camera bodies where a couple hundred dollars can make the biggest difference in the world. For example, a Pentax K110D is basically their baseline DSLR at this point. You step up to the (soon to be released) K10D and you get shake reduction (i.e. image stabilization) faster burst capability, a lithium ion battery vs. AA's, and 4 megapixels to boot. Granted this is a little bigger gap than some others in price but I simply used it as an example. And by the same grain of salt others are arguing the differences in hundreds of dollars in lenses. So it's probably important to get a nice set, rather than just a nice lens.
 
Comment

Mike Teezie

macrumors 68020
Nov 20, 2002
2,205
1
Both are equally important. I can't make a photo with just my 5D, and I can't make a photo with just a lens.

It's all about the combo to me. My 5D and 50mm f/1.4 is THE dream team for me. I rarely use my 70-200 f/2.8L IS, but when I do, it's dreamy too.

The lenses are still really great on a 1.6 body, but those combos just don't do it for me like their full frame counterparts.

Kind of a non-answer, I know.
 
Comment

ziwi

macrumors 65816
Jan 6, 2004
1,087
0
Right back where I started...
Glass is more important, but that being said the Digital body comes into play as one can not take a picture with the lens alone. The advances in the body for af, sesor cleaning, resolution, etc. help to resolve the picture the lens sees better all the time. As someone said before the glass you will always have and the body will be the replacable component...
 
Comment

Similar threads

  • Texas26257
5
Replies
5
Views
768
  • ericgtr12
46
Replies
46
Views
3K
  • Darmok N Jalad
24
Replies
24
Views
3K
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.