Am I wrong?
Apr 13, 2016 11:59:32 #
It seems as though many camera buyers set out to buy a top of the line camera body and then buy cheap, aftermarket lenses for it. I've always thought that the lenses are the most important part of an outfit and (if buying on a budget) would opt for the best lenses and a less-expensive camera body. Anybody agree? Disagree?
Apr 13, 2016 12:06:21 #
Leitz
Loc: Solms
Budnjax wrote:
It seems as though many camera buyers set out to buy a top of the line camera body and then buy cheap, aftermarket lenses for it. I've always thought that the lenses are the most important part of an outfit and (if buying on a budget) would opt for the best lenses and a less-expensive camera body. Anybody agree? Disagree?
I try to buy the best of each I can afford. What others do has no effect on my purchases.
Apr 13, 2016 12:08:19 #
Budnjax wrote:
It seems as though many camera buyers set out to buy a top of the line camera body and then buy cheap, aftermarket lenses for it. I've always thought that the lenses are the most important part of an outfit and (if buying on a budget) would opt for the best lenses and a less-expensive camera body. Anybody agree? Disagree?
According to what you consider cheap after market lens Tamron,Sigma,Tokina,Samyang all make very good lens some actually rate better than Canikon equivalent. See nothing wrong with saving money if performance is same or better.
Apr 13, 2016 12:09:06 #
I feel you are correct. Its like in the old days when you were setting up your stereo system, you bought the best speakers you could afford to use with your receiver.
And don't buy a $1200 lens and spin a $20 filter on the front of it. That's my two cents!
And don't buy a $1200 lens and spin a $20 filter on the front of it. That's my two cents!
Apr 13, 2016 12:29:15 #
Budnjax wrote:
It seems as though many camera buyers set out to buy a top of the line camera body and then buy cheap, aftermarket lenses for it. I've always thought that the lenses are the most important part of an outfit and (if buying on a budget) would opt for the best lenses and a less-expensive camera body. Anybody agree? Disagree?
In the digital age, the camera is more important for image quality than it was in the film days. With film, the camera only needed to hold the film flat and have an accurate shutter. Now, the quality of the sensor and the software can make a significant difference. And the quality of third party lenses these days is much better than it used to be.
Apr 13, 2016 12:41:23 #
Both are equally important. But lenses last much longer than camera bodies before they are surpassed. So I got a less expensive body then collected some of my L glass. Then bought my 7D2 and I am now filling out my collection of L lenses.
Apr 13, 2016 12:49:13 #
wingclui44
Loc: CT USA
tradio wrote:
I feel you are correct. Its like in the old days when you were setting up your stereo system, you bought the best speakers you could afford to use with your receiver.
And don't buy a $1200 lens and spin a $20 filter on the front of it. That's my two cents!
And don't buy a $1200 lens and spin a $20 filter on the front of it. That's my two cents!
I don't agree with you about speaker-receiver combo. If you don't have a receiver that it's out put frequency is matching with the speaker, it won't get the best out of it. for example, you speaker's response frequency range is between 50-40,000Hz. and your receiver only delivers 200-20,000Hz, then you will lose the sound of the extreme bass, and the high end of the sound. You will found the music from the speaker will be flat toned.
Same as camera lens combo, you need the best to match the best. That's difference between professional and consumer.
Apr 13, 2016 12:57:27 #
Apr 13, 2016 13:00:08 #
Budnjax wrote:
It seems as though many camera buyers set out to buy a top of the line camera body and then buy cheap, aftermarket lenses for it. I've always thought that the lenses are the most important part of an outfit and (if buying on a budget) would opt for the best lenses and a less-expensive camera body. Anybody agree? Disagree?
WGAS?
Apr 13, 2016 13:05:39 #
Budnjax wrote:
Not much point in putting inferior glass on a premium body as it will not realize the camera's full potential for things such as IQ. In turn, there's not much point in putting premium glass on a body that can not realize the lenses full potential.It seems as though many camera buyers set out to buy a top of the line camera body and then buy cheap, aftermarket lenses for it. I've always thought that the lenses are the most important part of an outfit and (if buying on a budget) would opt for the best lenses and a less-expensive camera body. Anybody agree? Disagree?
It's best to know the strengths and weaknesses of each, then match accordingly.
Apr 13, 2016 13:07:23 #
Without proper camera technique -framing the shot, operating the camera, taking advantage of lighting, using imagination- the lens itself means little. There are some people who use only top lenses, but are unable to produce a truly captivating image even if their dear life depended on it, while others manage to consistently crank out fantastic images using nothing but budget lenses.
Apr 13, 2016 13:47:50 #
wingclui44 wrote:
I don't agree with you about speaker-receiver comb... (show quote)
I'm confused by the professional/consumer statement. Are you referring to gear or users?
Aren't professionals consumers?
If a person purchases a "professional" lens but never uses it for hire or to make money, is it still a professional lens?
A person, who earns their livelihood and pays their bills with an income from the work they do taking and processing photographs, purchases a Sigma or Tamron lens that is the equivalent to a top shelf lens manufactured by Nikon or Canon. Does that make it a professional lens?
Buy the best you can afford, body and lenses and learn how to use them. They are tools and the user posses the knowledge to put the tools to use. How the tools are used is totally up to the user, regardless of if they are paid to use them or not.
Oh, the speaker analogy, any amplifier meant for playing music that doesn't go as low as at least 80 Hz is not very good, shoot for 40Hz if possible. Anything below 30Hz is more felt than heard. Also, anything over 18,000HZ the average person can barely hear and over 20,000Hz is pretty much music to the dogs.
Apr 13, 2016 13:47:54 #
rook2c4 wrote:
Without proper camera technique -framing the shot, operating the camera, taking advantage of lighting, using imagination- the lens itself means little. There are some people who use only top lenses, but are unable to produce a truly captivating image even if their dear life depended on it, while others manage to consistently crank out fantastic images using nothing but budget lenses.
:thumbup: not to mention that most people don't even print or print only small pictures. There are many examples of top of the line lenses used on "older" cameras and they blow away the opposite combos.
Apr 13, 2016 13:47:54 #
Apr 13, 2016 13:55:03 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.