dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I buy ONLY FX (full frame) lenses for my Nikons. This is because I can easily use them on either my Full Frame D610 or my crop sensor D7100 or the wife's D7000. I also buy good glass because the lenses will (or should with good care) far outlast my cameras and will be compatible on newer Nikon cameras as they come down the pike. (this is one thing that Nikon is and always has been very good at). I have two DX (a Nikkor 18-70mm and a Tamron 10-24mm) lenses and everything else is FF. This allows me to easily use the Full Frame lenses on any of my camera without worrying about the camera shifting to DX Cropping on a full frame camera. I also know that these lenses will be fine on ANY DSLR Nikon camera that I buy in the future.

jdedmonds

I'm curious; how would you change the percentages now assuming top quality equipment, e.g., D850 and an 85mm f/1.4?

jdedmonds

My next previous post was for JohnSwanda.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I think with digital cameras, I would give the camera and the lens equal importance, especially with a very high end camera.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Just curious, why would you spend big bucks on an extremely good "professional grade" camera... Say a Nikon D850 or something and then go get cheap (and I don't mean inexpensive) lenses. Yes, I buy used expensive lenses (because I probably couldn't afford them a new) but my used lenses are better than a new Nikkor 18-70mm or a Nikkor 70-300 (the old version) lens. They have better glass, better mechanics and the silent wave (SWM) versions' motors are quieter. I also have a Tamron 10-24mm (DX) lens and still kick myself for not getting the Nikkor FX version. Mine fisheyes at the 10-12mm area and the Nikkor (yes I've rented one) doesn't. I guess what I'm saying is that in lenses, as with cameras, you tend to get what you pay for, unless of course you know your equipment and find a real bargain.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

How does saying the camera and lens are equally important translate into saying I would buy a cheap lens?

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

This all depends on what is meant by 50-50. I have an inexpensive Pentax K-30 which I use with a f/4-5.8 lens. With modern technology, I could gain better low light capability by spending money on a better lens, one with wider apertures, or I can purchase a KP, which handles higher ISO values much more gracefully.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I guess what I was trying to say is that if you have a so-so camera, good glass will help you get the most you can out of the camera. However, if you have a good camera and put bad or so-so glass on it, then it will only give you so-so results. It's kind of like entering the Daytona 500 with a really old beater car. You might finish the race but you won't be anywhere in the competition. A Photographer with good equipment, can not (or should not) blame the equipment for average shots of a great subject. If the photographer's images aren't good then, its because the photographer goofed, didn't get the image in focus, didn't adjust for the light or whatever. It isn't because the camera or lenses were bad. One reason that Nikon (and I assume Canon and others) have various levels of lenses is because of the quality of the glass, the quality of the materials and the quality of the design. Nikon has "entry level" lenses which are designed to give okay or general quality images. These are good for vacationers and people that only want to create memories of that trip. They have mid-level lenses that are great for the amateur or entry-level pro and pro-quality lenses that are designed for their ruggedness, quality of glass and smoothness of operation. For instance, an entry level lens might cost a purchaser anywhere from $50 to $250 where the same lens in a mid-level might be $200-$500 and the same lens in a pro might be $400-$750. This is one reason that I sometimes purchase used lenses. I got a $1700 Nikkor 80-400mm lens that was Nikon's upper end 80-400 before they came out with the same lens with the Silent Wave Motor in it and now retails for $2299 and the new version of the one that I got retails for $1800. I got mine for $600 and it's professional quality and no scratches or blemishes. Good glass doesn't have to cost you an arm and a leg as long as you know what you're looking for. I have a Nikkor 70-300 (roughly the same as the 80-400 but it is Nikon's "entry level" lens and it cost $700 but is Nikon's entry level FX lens. My 80-400 weighs 3 times as much but I get much better photos. Yes I have both, but I let the wife use the 70-300 because she thinks that the 80-400 is too heavy. Both use the internal focus motor in the camera but the 80-400 is much sharper, has a better VR and focuses sharper.