Sound familiar?
When I first went to the DPR forums as a new Canon 300D owner, the advice I read over and over was that the body didn't matter very much to the final image. The forum regulars routinely stated that, given a limited budget, it was much more important to buy the best lenses one could afford rather than to spend most of one's money on the body. I believed that and even gave the same advice to others as I gained more experience with various lenses. For some time, I had a Rebel XT and several lenses costing far more than the body. There's clearly nothing wrong with budgeting that way, and I think it's the right solution for many people (eg. birders on a budget), but I have come to realize that it was the wrong approach for me. Right now, I have a 5D and three lenses (fewer than ever before), and 90% of my photos are taken with two Canon primes which cost me about $400 together - a 28mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.4. My photos have never been better, and I don't think there is any lens/body combo that would serve me better if I were to go with a less expensive body and more expensive glass.
Lens purchases are highly personal decisions. Just as I chose the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens over it's 50mm f/1.8 sibling, many others would have chosen the 28mm f/1.8 over the 28mm f/2.8. A few others would find both of those focal lengths to be boring or useless, and many more still would opt for the flexibility of zoom lenses rather than primes. Until recently, I never could have imagined that my most commonly used lens would be a prime. My exposure to the rangefinder forums helped me realize that primes were still a reasonable choice, embraced by many talented photographers.
As far as I can tell, there is no easy way to advise a new DSLR user as to which lenses to buy or how to budget between bodies and lenses. Some of the blanket advice we hear and repeat as gospel may in fact be counterproductive. Just something to keep in mind the next time a newbie asks how to spend $2500.
"Bodies will come and go. Buy the best glass you can afford."
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Posted by Amin
Labels:
DSLR,
lens,
lenses
2 comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In film days, the only variable in image quality for a given lens was the emulsion you loaded, so only the choice of lens mattered most in image quality.
In digital, the sensors (so far fixed in a camera body and cannot be swapped for one of different attributes) can vary widely in image quality.
Though body/sensor choice will make little difference if shooting low ISO and enlarging to no more than 4 x 6 inches or so, if you shoot high ISO or enlarge/crop substantially, the choice of camera body (and associated sensors) can be important.
My opinion is that it is better for a beginner to get a cheap camera and an affordable and good lens than a high priced DSLR and a kit lens. This means also not to get the cheap DSLR and use the kit lens. My friend didn't touch his Canon 350D (Rebel XT) for one year because he didn't get good pictures from this combo, especially indoors. The situation changed when I recommended him getting an affordable 50/f1.8
When I became interested into a DSLR I couldn't imagine that lenses can be that expensive. Naturally a newbe would spend all his money into the best camera he can afford paired with a kit lens. But the joy will not last very long. The camera will be topped with cheaper and better models one, two years afterwards. Then, what people say, the Canon kit lens is crap already today.
If the newbe would have bought a Canon 350D together with the 50/1.4 he is better served. Once he decides photography is not his beef he can sell camera and lens through ebay with moderate loss, much less than he would experience with the "best camera" approach.
I would also recommend getting an affordable zoom lens, something like the Sigma 18-125 or 17-70 and look afterwards which focal setting are most used. If he needs more image quality, maybe with a faster lens, then he should get what fits him best. After 2 years it is still a good time to get another body, if he still wants to.
Your example is somehow special. Most DSLRs are equipped with APSC sized sensors which have 1/2, 1/3rd or in case of the 4/3rd format 1/4th area of the full format (35mm) Canon 5D. On a camera full format camera you get best quality on 50mm and 28mm without the need of spending much money. On an APSC sized sensor the equivalent lenses are 30mm and 18mm which would have less image quality at a higher price. Generally full format has its benefits with wide angles and smaller sensors with tele ranges. The big view finder of a full format camera is a great help for composing and manually focussing. However, my friend who also owns a Canon 5D says it needs the very best lenses which could become expensive in the "wrong" focal range. The reason is that the smaller APSC sensors use a smaller image circle within the full format circle. As lenses tend to become softer in the edges small sensors use the "sweet spot" of the lens. The drawback is, the resolution/sharpness of lenses have to be higher for small sensors for same image quality.
For the beginning one fast and one zoom lens is enough IMO. Just try to get familiar with your gear and spend money wisely.
Of course, in your case getting the 5D with the 50mm and 28mm lens at the beginning would have been perfect. For many or most beginners it is much more money than they plan to spend.