jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

The general advice is to spend your money buying good lenses and use them on whatever camera you have. Buying a cheap lens just to cover a focal length is not a smart move. That's good advice.

I've generally heeded that advice. I don't buy lenses "just because." I've always bought a certain lens because I've wanted a particular focal length. I'm covered from fisheye to 300mm with a 1.4 extender. With all the online reviews of new Nikon lenses, I haven't had even a twinge of temptation to buy one. It was just the opposite with then Zfc, Z6II, and Z8. As each one was introduced, and I watched the endless reviews online, I couldn't resist. Reading all the positive comments here added to my "need" to have one. When Nikon introduced the DSLR that looked like the Nikon F, I was tempted, so I had the get the fc. I think I favor bodies over lenses because lenses are like tires on a car, and cameras are like the car itself. I've never gotten excited about buying a new set of tires. How about you?

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Terrible analogy. I love a good new camera, but the lenses, that’s where the magic happens.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I have a camera bag full of magic - all the magic I need. My point is that once I have a good lens, I don't need another. If a focal length is covered, it's covered.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Definition of good? Price? f stop? I buy decent lenses, I don't buy f2 type as I never use that f stop. Today, especially with my Canon R5, I found all the Canon lenses are great. I carry a 28 to 240, a 100 to 400 and a 2X extender. I covers me from 23 to 800 in one small pack. Also have a supper wide 11-24, a TS 18 and a 100 Macro with adapters for the R.
Plan to go to Alaska with my small pack next Spring.
We each do our own thing.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I simply get stuff from reputable manufacturers.
I don't need to have the absolute best, that would only make ME feel good! (and impress my friends.)
The normal viewer couldn't tell and wouldn't care, unless they are a devout pixel peeper.

Remember, any "difference" in a lens (or body) would only be evident when COMPARED to something.
ANY person viewing a single image will not know if the lens is $5000 or $500, better or worse, unless they have something to compare it to. (OR, if someone says it's a great or lousy lens, which generates a bias.)

My 8+ year old Sigma 18-200 works just fine for me, and it didn't break the bank.

As for seeing an image with a particular lens (which I don't care about), I'm not going to rush out and get that lens.
(There's no idea how much 'adjusting' may have been done in post.)

Of course the base image depends on the characteristics of the individual camera. The lens basically only affects clarity (which covers every sub-item that makes up the top level variable). Given [i]the same lens[i], I'll bet the 5D IV yields a better overall quality base image than a T1i. (A base image is what one has before any post processing is applied.)

But that's just my view.
Take it or leave it.
(Most will leave it... )

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Jerry, except for an upgrade campaign that I went through a few years ago, I have never been one to spend a lot of money on cameras. My last "new and different" camera was bought over five years ago, although I did buy a second D850 when they were on sale not too long ago and a second D500 about four years ago. At some point, I may pick up a Z8, but nothing else is anywhere on the radar.

Every camera I have bought has provided some new capability that I needed or wanted. The least impactive was actually my first D850, because I already had a D810. But as it has turned out, the D850 was a really good choice. The fine tuning of the layout makes its usability much better than that of the D810. It also is almost identical to the D500, which is the best camera I've ever bought and was the last model added to the fleet.

After an initial "misfire" many years ago with the very poor 18-70mm Nikkor DX zoom, I've always bought the best lenses I could afford. Sometimes this has meant waiting a while for a lens, but I now have 14-200mm covered with fast professional lenses and 200-500mm covered with very acceptable medium-grade lenses.

The result is that I've not had anything resembling a "gas attack" in many years. Occasional pangs go away pretty quickly after a little thought and reflection.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I don't do GAS either.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

I don't really get excited about bodies or lenses, I get excited about opportunities, I need to go see things to shoot, strange when your consider where I live as people come here to see things, (NYC)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Yes, I like going to events to do some shooting. Also, when I'm driving, I make not of interesting scenes to go back and shoot.

MrPhotog

Staying with the vehicle analogy, I see the camera bodies equivalent to automobile body styles: compact like compact cars, or medium format like vans, or large and ultralarge like panel trucks and semis.

Lenses I would compare to motors. We even use some of the same language More power (longer focal length) and more speed ( larger apertures)

The analogy is far from perfect. A trivial number of vehicles have interchangeable motors, although many auto models can be ordered with bigger or smaller motors.

Kevin.M Loc: Forked River, NJ

I don’t get excited about buying new tires but new tires always make my car drive and handle better.
To me a camera body is the tool and the newest technology is amazing. I find it rewarding and fun to produce images that I enjoy. I have found using better glass makes the camera perform much better otherwise why buy a Z8/Z9, R5/R6 etc? Does a race car use regular gas or lesser performing tires?

~ Kevin

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I'm waiting for companies to start making racing cameras. I have no idea how camera racing would work, but I look forward to it.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

My definition of ‘good lens’ depends on the circumstances. I do have a “Takumar 50mm F/1.4”, a great lens in the 1960’s or so, but sometimes I use a “Pentax DA 18-135” because I’m using a “APS-C” digital camera and AF is most important to me at the time.

Kevin.M Loc: Forked River, NJ

I read somewhere you have a high performance camera you can’t put average glass on it

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Right! That became obvious when high resolution cameras started appearing. They showed up the shortcomings of lenses.