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.