Which 1 comes first ?

[Numnumball]

Hey guys i got a question ..... which one would you first invest in ?


Very Good Lens Example Cannon L lens (EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM) With maybe a 40D

or Good Body 5dmk2 and average lens (EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM )?

Just my 2 cents, its does nt make sense to spurge over 3K for a body and cheap out on lens as u shd be aware of the rate of depreciation of body over lens (5Dmk2 may cost 3.8K nw but 3 yrs lapsed, my bet it's worth may dipped by as much as 50%)..

Lens on the other hand do depreciate but at a less exaggerated rate than bodies, some even appreciated to a extent it fetches 30% nw for a new one in the mkt (Gd example : AFS 17-35mm f2.8 sells for ard 2K 8 yrs ago, nw cost 3K new)

Whatever lens u invest nw shd be used on your body nw or the next and the next.

I will tk option 1 if i will u.. and upgrade to a FF body when u have the dough

 

[Lomographer]

After factoring in the FOV crop (1.6x) on the 40D/50D, the 10-22mm is equivalent to about 16mm on FF. So if you can accept the 10-20mm on 40D/50D, you should be able to accept the 17-40mm on the 5DmkII.

yup, and if you need to go any wider,

there's still the 16-35 MK II and the 14mm f/2.8 L

 

[Lomographer]

technically lens are more value for money then bodies,

as some lenses take a long time to be upgraded whereas bodies get introduced at a 2 or 3 years basis,

and hence the lens would in this case be a better investment, as they don't become obsolete as quick.