p.3 #1 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
The writer took it in the wrong context.
Buying the best body under the sun is not gonna get you very far if you use it with a crappy lens. On the other hand, buying a decent body that meets your shooting requirements coupled with a great lens will get you much farther.
p.3 #2 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Not always true...what if the $600 body can't focus ?.
droopy1592 wrote:
$8,000 lenses on $600 bodies will pull off a better pic (in the same conditions) than an $8000 body with a $600 lens. A bit extreme, I know, but it applies.
Besides, that article really doesn't say much that applies to digital.
Aug 13, 2010 at 06:21 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
n0b0 wrote:
The writer took it in the wrong context.
Buying the best body under the sun is not gonna get you very far if you use it with a crappy lens. On the other hand, buying a decent body that meets your shooting requirements coupled with a great lens will get you much farther.
Buying the best lens under the sun is not gonna get you very far if you use it with a crappy body. On the other hand, buying a decent lens that meets your shooting requirements coupled with a great body will get you much farther.[/
p.3 #5 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Say I want to take a sequence of shots of a runner running towards me. Just compare an XTI with a 7D which one do you think will get you better pic of those shots ?. You can couple the XTi with 300 f/2.8 IS and 7D with 300 f/4 IS if you wish.
droopy1592 wrote:
How many do you know of that can't? Center point rocks on most of them.
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
droopy1592 wrote:
$8,000 lenses on $600 bodies will pull off a better pic (in the same conditions) than an $8000 body with a $600 lens. A bit extreme, I know, but it applies.
Besides, that article really doesn't say much that applies to digital.
I like to shoot macro with my 1Ds3 + 100/2,8 macro or Sigma 150/2,8.
what $ 600 body beats that combo
Or what what $ 600 body beats the 1Ds3 + 17-40 when I like to shoot superwide landscape
p.3 #7 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
All depends on what you're trying to do. Good light, reasonable lens (50 1.8, 85 1.8 etc) I doubt if anybody can tell the differnce between various bodies. Get out before sunup, expose at ISO 1600 or 3200 and the differences in bodies soon becomes apparent. Same for glass, good light, expose at f5.6-8, hard to tell the differences. Let the light fade, expose at f2.8 or 3.5 and the differences soon become real enough.
With the introduction of 18 mp bodies another factor has come in. Those who pixel peep suddenly see a difference in their lenses that wasn't apparent before. Some say this new body must be rubbish, some say Ooohhh, my lens is now rubbish, when really the only thing that's changed is the degree of magnification they are pixel peeping at. A4 prints will still look just like they used to.
Yes, I'd go for nice glass before a nicer body, but there are times when a good body makes a world of difference.
Geeeez, there's a cute little blonde down at our coffee shop, now that's what I call a body! Forget about the glass she serves the soft drink in. See! Body before glass again! You just can't make hard and fast rules.
Aug 13, 2010 at 07:07 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Ferrophot wrote:
All depends on what you're trying to do. Good light, reasonable lens (50 1.8, 85 1.8 etc) I doubt if anybody can tell the differnce between various bodies. Get out before sunup, expose at ISO 1600 or 3200 and the differences in bodies soon becomes apparent. Same for glass, good light, expose at f5.6-8, hard to tell the differences. Let the light fade, expose at f2.8 or 3.5 and the differences soon become real enough.
With the introduction of 18 mp bodies another factor has come in. Those who pixel peep suddenly see a difference in their lenses that wasn't apparent before. Some say this new body must be rubbish, some say Ooohhh, my lens is now rubbish, when really the only thing that's changed is the degree of magnification they are pixel peeping at. A4 prints will still look just like they used to.
Yes, I'd go for nice glass before a nicer body, but there are times when a good body makes a world of difference.
Geeeez, there's a cute little blonde down at our coffee shop, now that's what I call a body! Forget about the glass she serves the soft drink in. See! Body before glass again! You just can't make hard and fast rules....Show more →
Why would the introduction of 18 mp bodies suddenly make the pixel peepers see a difference in their lenses ? Canon already have released a couple of 21mp bodies a rather long time ago.
And I have heard that argument since it was 6mp
p.3 #9 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
This thread illustrates the problem with looking at things in isolation. It's about the system and one's needs. Abam way up at the beginning states exactly that.
Ask yourself what your rate limiter is. Fix that.
Aug 13, 2010 at 07:27 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Daniel Heineck wrote:
This thread illustrates the problem with looking at things in isolation. It's about the system and one's needs. Abam way up at the beginning states exactly that.
p.3 #12 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
What is the differences between 2002 and 2010 bodies. Forget about resolution & hi iso gimmicks, somewhere 0%->5% range or maybe the other way around in IQ. Imo, latest bodies got way overrated. Well, better save for lenses.
p.3 #13 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
When you see an image, here is what I believe goes into it, prioritized by importance:
(1) photographer's capture effort & skill
(2) environmental factors including light (lighting) and luck
(3) postprocessing effort & skill
(4) lens
(5) camera
Other than in some special cases (eg., large billboard or very low light photography) cameras represent the worst photographic return on your investment $$.
p.3 #14 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
PetKal wrote:
When you see an image, here is what I believe goes into it, prioritized by importance:
(1) photographer's capture effort & skill
(2) environmental factors including light (lighting) and luck
(3) postprocessing effort & skill
(4) lens
(5) camera
Other than in some special cases (eg., large billboard or very low light photography) cameras represent the worst photographic return on your investment $$.
+1, Nicely ordering the hierarchy, Peter
Aug 13, 2010 at 08:46 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
mttran wrote:
What is the differences between 2002 and 2010 bodies. Forget about resolution & hi iso gimmicks, somewhere 0%->5% range or maybe the other way around in IQ. Imo, latest bodies got way overrated. Well, better save for lenses.
If you look at it the other way: What is the differences between 2002 and 2010 lenses probably a lot less than the bodies
Aug 14, 2010 at 02:01 AM
Guest
Guest
p.3 #16 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
I think not - at least now Canon makes general purpose lenses that don't require stopping down 3 stops, at which point the old ones still sucked.
p.3 #17 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Lars Johnsson wrote:
If you look at it the other way: What is the differences between 2002 and 2010 lenses probably a lot less than the bodies
Lars, not many people has the luxury lenses you have now... What i meant is...from "non-L" to "L" lens is better than from X to XMarkY body. Well, he/she can improve the IQ from Peter's steps 1,2 &3 alone without buying anything beside market value of the lenses seem much better in return than the bodies.
Body upgrade has more sense when we've already moved across its sensor boundaries (1.6-> 1.3 -> 1.0) and our set has hit the IQ mark and we want something 10% better.
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Snopchenko wrote:
I think not - at least now Canon makes general purpose lenses that don't require stopping down 3 stops, at which point the old ones still sucked.
Canon nearly only makes the better and more expensive L lenses today. Before Canon released a lot of cheap non-L primes. So it's not such a big difference if you compare L against old L. And cheaper non-L against older non-L
But I have never owned any lenses that require me to stop them down 3 stops before they where usable. Look at all the low priced older non-L lenses. You don't need to stop them down 3 stops to use them
Aug 14, 2010 at 03:00 AM
Guest
Guest
p.3 #19 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
The primes are (mostly) fine. I'm speaking about the old junk like 28-80, 28-90, 75-300 and whatnot... that still sells for $70 on KEH. But today even the kit lenses can be used without stopping down much... but they've all switched to EF-S so as a 1D owner, I'm out of luck. The older ones pretty much seem bad, all of them.
I was considering a 24-85 (5500 rubles = $180 on used market) as a standard zoom / walk around solution but it'd be unusable in poor light. If only the 15-85 had been adaptable to / usable on EF though...
p.3 #20 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Snopchenko wrote:
I was considering a 24-85 (5500 rubles = $180 on used market) as a standard zoom / walk around solution but it'd be unusable in poor light. If only the 15-85 had been adaptable to / usable on EF though...
if the 24-85 is anything like its bigger brother (28-105 3.5-4.5 USM) then I would say it could be a great little lens. I had a mk1 28-105 USM and it could hold up to the 24-105L I have now.
As for EFs you can Mod some of them to work on a 1.3 crop. I dont know about the 15-85 but I know the 18-55 IS can be done. However I dont think the 17-55 2.8 throws a lrge enough image circle at any focal length to be usable
