Zeke wrote:
Since the photographer is the main link in the photographic process, how will the photo be affected if a lesser quality lens is used on a pro quality camera body? It would seem that the lens would be the limiting link in a quality. Even if it is photoshopped would a pro quality lens produce the best result. It seems good lenses make excellent photos if everything else stays the same.
I'd much rather have a high quality lens on a basic, entry level camera... than a cheap, kit lens on a pro quality body.
The lens will make far more difference in images, than the camera it's used upon.
"Pro" cameras are more about bells and whistles... fast frame rates, more advanced AF systems, extra durability, more customizability, added weather resistant sealing, etc. But they use essentially the same sensors as "lesser" cameras. So when it comes to image quality, if the same lens is used, the same settings are used and the same care is given to accurate focus, there will be little difference whether a camera costs $500 or $5000.
But with lenses the difference in image quality is much more dramatic.
For example, you can buy a Canon EF 75-300mm III lens for under $200 but it's image quality is nowhere near that of a Canon EF 70-300mm L series that costs $1350.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=776&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0 Then compare the EF 70-300mm L with the $2400 EF 100-400mm L II at 300mm:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0 But if you want a larger aperture to be able to more strongly blur down backgrounds, you'll need to spend $6100 for the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L II:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0How about a wide angle zoom comparison? Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L ($800) versus Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS ($1100):
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 or the 16-35mm f/4L IS ($1100) versus a Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III ($2200):
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1073&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0Or a standard zoom: There's a pretty noticeable difference between $650 Tokina AT-X 24-70mm f/2.8 (at f/4) and $900 Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=993&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=823&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 But image quality differences are a lot less obvious comparing the EF 24-70mm f/4 with the even more premium $1900 Canon EF 24-40mm f/2.8L II:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2These compare Canon DSLR full frame lenses in some popular and common focal lengths, simply because there are a whole lot of lenses and choices for the EF system. In other systems you'll find similar differences, though the selection may vary a lot. For example, there are probably even more choices in the Nikon DSLR F-mount... But so far there are relatively few choices in both Canon RF and Nikon Z mirrorless systems.