Does it make sense to get a lens which cost more than the body?

[two200]

Got a 1000D. Was thinking of getting a macro lens but was just wondering whether an expensive lens on an expensive body better IQ than a same lens on an entry-level (aka cheap ) lens. Should I get a 3rd party lens or original lens?

[m3lv1nh0]

Originally Posted by two200 Got a 1000D. Was thinking of getting a macro lens but was just wondering whether an expensive lens on an expensive body better IQ than a same lens on an entry-level (aka cheap ) lens. Should I get a 3rd party lens or original lens?

A good lens will go a long way and would most likely outlast your camera. So it is worth it to get a good lens for the long run. Good lens also is sharper and has IQ better than using a kit lens. There's also 3rd party lens which has great performance so have to depend on your needs and wallet.

[Flashbulb]

Originally Posted by two200 Got a 1000D. Was thinking of getting a macro lens but was just wondering whether an expensive lens on an expensive body better IQ than a same lens on an entry-level (aka cheap ) lens. Should I get a 3rd party lens or original lens?

better pictures does not always mean you need better equipment but rather more practice to see what kind of system you need.

3rd party or original is ownself preference as long know where to go and what to do when need to send for servicing. check the online for reviews first.

[calebk]

If lens cost justifies image quality, then one will be hard pressed to explain the logic behind the cost to image quality ratio of the 50mm f/1.8II.

[two200]

Actually thinking of getting the Canon 180mm macro which cost over 2k or just a tamron 70-300 macro but only f4 which cost 250 (from clubsnap price list)? Not sure if the 'limitation' of entry level justify such expensive lens?

[Kit]

Then buy a more expensive body if it makes you feel better and more "justified" about using expensive lenses.

[gman23xx]

A camera just holds the sensor and the processing power. You can have a simple camera like at 1000D, but with a good lens, you can produce good pictures.


Just like the phrase, "Numbers do not win a war", it doesn't mean that you must have a expensive body + expensive lens to produce a good picture.


gman

[coldfish]

Originally Posted by two200 Got a 1000D. Was thinking of getting a macro lens but was just wondering whether an expensive lens on an expensive body better IQ than a same lens on an entry-level (aka cheap ) lens. Should I get a 3rd party lens or original lens?

In the film days, good bodies cost only a few hundred dollars and good lens were just as expensive as what they are charging for now. Of course some chip off in price for older models but lens prices have been pretty stable.

Are you insinuating that entry level camera bodies don't quite cut it in IQ terms?

[two200]

Originally Posted by Kit Then buy a more expensive body if it makes you feel better and more "justified" about using expensive lenses.

Actually not trying to justify but just wondering whether the added advantage of a more expensive lens will go wasted on a camera that may not be so high tech!

Originally Posted by gman23xx A camera just holds the sensor and the processing power. You can have a simple camera like at 1000D, but with a good lens, you can produce good pictures. Just like the phrase, "Numbers do not win a war", it doesn't mean that you must have a expensive body + expensive lens to produce a good picture. gman

Thanks for the encouragement, but sigh... now I have no excuse for posting bad photos

[two200]

Originally Posted by coldfish In the film days, good bodies cost only a few hundred dollars and good lens were just as expensive as what they are charging for now. Of course some chip off in price for older models but lens prices have been pretty stable. Are you insinuating that entry level camera bodies don't quite cut it in IQ terms?

Sorry lah, thought my entry level quite basic already . Just that in normal everyday life, more expensive stuff usually have better results, hence by inference, more expensive camera better IQ mah

[sje4182]

Originally Posted by two200 Sorry lah, thought my entry level quite basic already . Just that in normal everyday life, more expensive stuff usually have better results, hence by inference, more expensive camera better IQ mah

I am a noob but would like to contribute as i also have other equipment-centred hobbies.

Yes 1000D body is basic and of course cannot compare with say 50D, not to mention those 5 digit bodies. But i think for any given body, a better lens will still yield better pictures even if the body is basic. If u can a multi thousand dollar L lens with f/1.2 or whatever, it will definitely give u better pics than say a "normal" lens. In this aspect photog is better than my other hobby which is hi fidelity audio (where for eg. if ur cd player is say, $500 there would be little use getting a $5000 cable) cos a lens upgrade would almost always yield results even if ur body is basic. So ur upgrade, if u can afford, is usually worthwhile.

[tjhan]

Lens actually contribute more than the body when it comes to the final picture. Far more.

[gman23xx]

Originally Posted by two200 Sorry lah, thought my entry level quite basic already . Just that in normal everyday life, more expensive stuff usually have better results, hence by inference, more expensive camera better IQ mah

Not to worry bro. Just buy what you feel is worth the money for you. Take good pictures and have fun. Enjoying the hobby is the most important part.


gman

[thinkvision]

when you found 24-70L are too soft on 5Dmk2 or 1dsmk3 while 85L may just match those 20+mp sensor, you will know lens are more important than body.

[Entertainer]

you dont seem to be doing much macro. why get that lens then? what do u like to/want to/always shoot?

[two200]

Originally Posted by Entertainer you dont seem to be doing much macro. why get that lens then? what do u like to/want to/always shoot?

One of the reason why you don't see any of my macro is because the 'macro' from my current kit lens are simply not macro but more of still Basically, I like to take nature eg animals big and small.

Except for the macro lens and the prime, I have the 2 kit lens you have.

[Entertainer]

ah! i see..

if you are sure of what you want to take, then go ahead and get good lens. u may change body in a few years time, but good lens do last a long time!

[Headshotzx]

I'd rather have a 400D with a 70-200 2.8IS versus a 40D with a 55-250 any day.

[Russ]

In general, I think that one should eventually end up with lenses that cost more than the body. Most people have a system where the lenses cost more than the body. If I bought all my gear brand new now, my lenses would cost me about 4k but my body less than 2k. Over 10 years, I probably will spend as much on bodies because I will probably go through 3 bodies with the same lenses. So nothing wrong with it.

However, cheap lenses are not necessarily no good, and there are some really good value lenses out these e.g. 50mm 1.8II, 18-55 IS, 55-250IS (all under $400). And they can produce really nice pics if you use them with skill. Of course, better gear can help (better contrast, colours, focus speed) but if you don't have the skills, they are "wasted" in a sense - good expensive lenses are more wasted on poor skills rather than a cheap body.

[Deming86]

Do losta research to see if the price difference is justifiable (TO YOU AND NOT ANYONE ELSE) and if you can afford, go ahead! You'll outgrow your 1000D in no time but with good lenses, you will probably be using them for future bodies if you intend to upgrade =D