The Old Adage Is Out of Date

[JTL]

Well...it only took a few recent "should I get a cheap body and a better lens or a more expensive body and a cheaper lens" questions for me to come to the conclusion that with the advent of cheap consumer lenses of reasonably quality that the old adage of "invest in the glass" is no longer true...unless you're a pro...or have very deep pockets to support your hobby. Now, even middle tier consumer lenses are just as disposable as bodies.

For example, are we really going to tell someone who doesn't know the difference between an Canon XS and a 1Ds that they should buy the XS and get a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom? No. We're going to tell them to get the 55-250 and be done with it. And, we are not going to feel like we gave compromised advice because, for what it is, it's a very good lens. And for the person asking the question, it's probably a fine choice. Same on the Nikon side. Crop cameras and cheap but competent zooms have changed the game...and have changed the way and type of advice we're giving.

Just as "buy and hold" is no longer relevant (yet those who can't evolve/adapt still repeat it), "invest in the glass" looks like an arcane philosophy when you're talking to the P&S crowd dipping their toes into the DSLR waters...because it's no longer a choice between crappy consumer lenses and pro glass...the crop-camera consumer lenses have for the most part grown up...

This evolution is great for consumers because now people buying at the low end and even middle of the market need not be overly tied to any one brand anymore. Because now the whole system...body and lenses need not be a huge investment in order to obtain reasonable quality.

[DonSchap]

Are the waters muddied, now?

[JTL]

Are the waters muddied, now?Well...I'd prefer to look at it as the currents have changed...

I think that most of the camera companies that have both P&S and DSLR lines have managed the upselling brilliantly. It's a wonder to behold. They have gotten almost every single move right.

[Rhys]

Given that almost every lens will perform to the same quality at f8-f11, as long as you shoot only at those apertures, a cheap lens will look very little different from an expensive lens.

In terms of focussing speed and accuracy, this varies between lens models and indeed is affected by the body upon which the lens is mounted.

I have a Canon 17-85 IS which a lot of people decry as being bad. I get pretty good photos out of it and would not hesitate to use it at a wedding or some other function. It focuses quickly because it's USM. It's plenty sharp. Sure - there can be a little distortion at 17mm but not enough to worry about. Mostly, at events, you'd be surprised how much time that lens spends at 50mm or thereabouts.

No lens should ever be used wide open - not even L glass - as that's where it performs at its worst. Generally, if you shoot between f4 and f16 you will get the most flexibility out of most lenses without sacrificing quality too badly.

I have always held that you don't need top-quality glass to get top-notch results. On the other hand, some budget glass doesn't perform as well as expected. My 70-300 Canon is one such example, I'll swear my Tamron 70-300 was sharper but the Tamron kept throwing ERR99 (which I noticed always happened between 4pm and 6pm when it was beginning to get dusky).

[cdifoto]

No lens should ever be used wide open - not even L glass - as that's where it performs at its worst. Generally, if you shoot between f4 and f16 you will get the most flexibility out of most lenses without sacrificing quality too badly.
Hm. Someone is speaking outside of his circle of experience.

Rhys, one of the main reasons to go with L glass is that it can be used wide open. L glass is actually very good wide open. Of course it's usually not as good as it is stopped down, but that doesn't mean wide open is to be avoided. The differences between f/2.8 and f/4 are of no real consequence.

[TenD]

Hm. Someone is speaking outside of his circle of experience.

Rhys, one of the main reasons to go with L glass is that it can be used wide open. L glass is actually very good wide open. Of course it's usually not as good as it is stopped down, but that doesn't mean wide open is to be avoided. The differences between f/2.8 and f/4 are of no real consequence.
+1

#$&#, I'll give you your 10 Characters...

[TenD]

I have softened on my good glass first stance lately. Not necessarily because I don't still believe this is true, but because most don't really care. They just want a DSLR, and after the initial burst of photographs after their purchase, it goes in the closet and collects dust. Most are also satisfied with the images they get with consumer glass, are happy with the results from the onboard flash, don't shoot at the edge of light, don't need the wide apertures.

Also, with the huge influx of cash into photography, and the advent of forums just like this one, all of the companies producing glass have been somewhat forced to produce a better product. Technology has improved too. The 3rd party manufacturers have really made great strides, they have made great improvements in IQ. I am still a brand name lens guy, but I'll admit that Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina have improved their lines since the day I rejected them 15 years ago.

I would still say, "If you feel you are serious about this and want the best your new camera body can offer, buy great glass". I told one of my best friends this 5 or 6 years ago. He bought the original Drebel a 17-40, and a 70-200 f/4. He is still thrilled by the images he gets and feels no need to upgrade his body. I can tell when he sends me photos taken with the Drebel, or with his P&S.

So I would say the statement is still true, glass before body, but for most this just doesn't matter.

[JTL]

Rhys...I'm talking about the new crop of consumer lenses...not those antiques.:rolleyes: It's the new consumer lenses that are changing the game.

...all of the companies producing glass have been somewhat forced to produce a better product. Technology has improved too. That's directly to my point. Good glass can now be cheap glass, therefore disposable...thus no longer locking the budding casual DSLR photographer into a prematurely painful investment decision...

And advice is being adjusted either consciously or unconsciously to accommodate this new reality...

I, for one, no longer think there is any rational point in talking to a first time/causual DSLR buyer about buying "pro" glass as an "investment"...(unless of course their need is so specific that only a pro lens will do...or...you happen to be an eltiist snob who can't separate what might be best for others from what you think you need or want for yourself! :D).

[Rooz]

lol @ Rhys. man that was funny stuff. never shoot a lens wide open ? i have a bunch of glass that would disagree with you. i can shoot any of my lens' wide open and get excellent results. you have some very strange views on photography rhys.

i generally agree with your theory JTL, except where you need or want large apertures. there is definately an IQ and functionality improvement with great glass, but the gap is nowhere near as wide as it used to be. thank Sony for this new consumer lens quality upgrade. it seems a strange coincidence that with Sony's entry to the market, CaNikon all of a sudden lifted their consumer lens quality..especially stabilised lens'.

[cdifoto]

I don't recommend cheap stuff mostly because it usually offers no aperture advantage over a P&S lens. Yeah there's a hot shoe and such so you can bounce flash but most starters don't even want to get into that because it's an extra $200+.

If you only have a budget for a cheap body and a cheap lens and nothing more, I'm gonna direct you to a good P&S.

[Rooz]

yepp, and if you always shoot at f8-f11, then you lose one of the most improtant creative options in dsl, may as well get a g9.

[cdifoto]

Yeah and I don't even shoot my P&S at f/8 very often because I have too much depth of field at wide open apertures.

[JTL]

Shooting any one one of the newer high-quality consumer lens even at f/3.5 is going to give you a HUGE quality advantage over ANY P&S on the planet. I would think such "smart" guys would know such a simple little thing as that! So, in my most humble opinion, your P&S arguments suck necrotized donkey bits.

You guys need to stay after class! :D

[cdifoto]

Not necessarily. A digital SLR is better if you pixel peep but most people aren't in it for that. They just want well balanced photos...ie good color and good exposure in a relatively responsive camera (ie no click...wait...wait...wait...capture).

[JTL]

Not necessarily. A digital SLR is better if you pixel peep but most people aren't in it for that. They just want well balanced photos...ie good color and good exposure in a relatively responsive camera (ie no click...wait...wait...wait...capture).You're not drinking sterno again are you? :D

[cdifoto]

There's a whole world outside of enthusiast forums.

[JTL]

There's a whole world outside of enthusiast forums.Don...you are really way off point. My whole point is about advice to first time DSLR buyers...and has less than nothing to do with P&S cameras. My point deals specifically with when someone asks the question "sholud I by a cheap body and a pro lens or a more expensive body and a cheap lens?". And my point is (since you've seemed to have spectacularly missed it) that the advice some of us give has now changed because there are some damn good cheap lenses. Don's answer: get a P&S!

You must really be bored if you can turn this premise into an argument! :p:p:p

[cdifoto]

I am bored. :p

I do agree with your premise that it's not always necessary to direct people to the top end glass if someone is hell bent on a digital SLR or already has a digital SLR.

However, I'm not so sure people who are buying a digital SLR and the low end glass* really need(ed) that digital SLR in the first place. Especially if they're not willing to also add a flash with bounce/swivel capability.

A digital SLR with a slow lens and built-in flash offers very little over a good point & shoot...especially if the end result is the web and/or small prints and/or a scrap book.


*by this I mean, those who would be satisfied with slow aperture lenses as a final solution.

[cdifoto]

I guess what I'm really trying to say is this:

If it's not too late, I'd try to save them money.

[JTL]

Now I understand. Thank you, kind sir, for clarifying for me! :)

[Clyde]

I guess what I'm really trying to say is this:

If it's not too late, I'd try to save them money.

You can get a Pentax K200d for around $500, it'll use f/2.8 lenses that you can get used off ebay for $20. You could get a stellar IS'ed kit of primes with a good DSLR for around $600. The only draw back is the old pentax lenses would be manual focus, but the K200d has a decent viewfinder, and I have a friend who is a better photographer than I am who uses precisely this setup.

Recently I've been wishing I hadn't given away all my old K1000 lenses...

Ta,

[cdifoto]

Now I understand. Thank you, kind sir, for clarifying for me! :)

Noooo problem!

You can get a Pentax K200d for around $500, it'll use f/2.8 lenses that you can get used off ebay for $20. You could get a stellar IS'ed kit of primes with a good DSLR for around $600. The only draw back is the old pentax lenses would be manual focus, but the K200d has a decent viewfinder, and I have a friend who is a better photographer than I am who uses precisely this setup.

Recently I've been wishing I hadn't given away all my old K1000 lenses...

Ta,
Of course there's always a workaround...if you're willing to put in the effort. I would venture to say that most people do not want to put in that effort. ESPECIALLY if they're starting out and have the misinformed mindset that a new dSLR and whiz-bang lens will solve all their problems.

This is not the type of user to whom I would recommend old manual focuses lenses.

Besides. I wouldn't wish a Pentax digital SLR on even my worst enemies. ;) :eek: :p

[ghost]

Hey now!!! (:

[Nickcanada]

yeah, my 18-55 kicks ass.

[JTL]

You tell 'em, Nick! :D

[cdifoto]

yeah, my 18-55 kicks ass.
N00b. :D :p

[cdifoto]

Hey now!!! (:
Oh. My bad. I didn't know there were actual Pentax users in existence. :eek: :o :D :p

[JTL]

Oh. My bad. I didn't know there were actual Pentax users in existence. :eek: :o :D :pHoly crapoly! I just busted a gut! :D:D:D

[Screenclutter]

Maybe a better way to put the choices with a limited budget is:

1) Cheaper dSLR with two kit lenses/kit lens with a prime or a better kit lens
2) More expensive dSLR with only one kit lens

Unless you are doing something like long-distance indoor telephoto action shots, a flash is waaaay cheaper than getting a whole bunch of f/2.8 lenses. I've been taking great sneak shots of people with my consumer telephoto and flash without them even knowing it.

[Rhys]

It used to be that only prime lenses were good and that zooms were horrible compromises. Zooms still do compromise - usually weightwise.

I remember the rule of thumb that 35-70 was the most you could get from a wide zoom and you;d still get distortion at each end. Now I think zooms are better.

[Nickcanada]

N00b. :D :p

Yeah, I can't wait till the next wedding I shoot and someone asks me what lens I'm using and I tell them the kit lens and then a week later I'll read a thread about a snot nosed kid shooting a wedding with a kit lens and he'll talk about what a hack I am... that will be great....

[Nickcanada]

It used to be that only prime lenses were good and that zooms were horrible compromises. Zooms still do compromise - usually weightwise.

I remember the rule of thumb that 35-70 was the most you could get from a wide zoom and you;d still get distortion at each end. Now I think zooms are better.

my zoom is the lightest lens I own! hahahah... it does have it's limitations though but as long as I work within those limitations it's great. That's sorta the point though. Once you know what you want to do you can easily pick the gear that best suits your needs. The problem is when you first start out you have no idea where to start..... well.... I am the person who just went through buying and returning a whole bunch of stuff.... so maybe you never really stop looking for stuff....

[JTL]

Yeah, I can't wait till the next wedding I shoot and someone asks me what lens I'm using and I tell them the kit lens and then a week later I'll read a thread about a snot nosed kid shooting a wedding with a kit lens and he'll talk about what a hack I am... that will be great....How do you know that even if you were shooting with three bodies, each with a different L prime lens attached, that he still wouldn't call you a hack? :p

Oh, that's right...Don S says that if you shoot with good gear, you're automatically a good photographer! My bad! :D

[DonSchap]

No, what I said was (or words to the effect of) ... if you have good gear, YOU DON'T LOOK LIKE A HACK!

Now, I will admit that if you are mounting a crappy lens on a EOS 1D MkIII ... someone might just call into question your photographic judgment ... and rightly so. :p

If you pop up, photographing a wedding or some such with a P&S ... someone might question if you are a family member or an overseas relative. Sure, we cannot all afford relatively decent equipment and you have to make excuses somehow to reason out your level of investment. That's the game ... making due with what you have, because in the next four years ... there's going to be a lot less of it.

GO OBAMA GO! Democratic Party on!

[cdifoto]

Yeah with good gear you can be a poser.

[cdifoto]

Yeah, I can't wait till the next wedding I shoot and someone asks me what lens I'm using and I tell them the kit lens and then a week later I'll read a thread about a snot nosed kid shooting a wedding with a kit lens and he'll talk about what a hack I am... that will be great....
I can't wait to read that thread. :D

[JTL]

Now, I will admit that if you are mounting a crappy lens on a EOS 1D MkIII ... someone might just call into question your photographic judgment ... and rightly so. :pWell, you got me there...:D. It would be pretty funny, though, right?

[JTL]

Yeah with good gear you can be a poser.Yeah...good gear and your latest "For Dummies" book (couldn't find the post and picture :().