Cheap lens pro body VS Cheap body pro lens

  • Thread starter Thread starter GTG
  • Start date Start date
GTG

GTG

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,660
Edit My Images
Yes
Obviously this has been discussed to death on all photography forums and even long before the internet age.

It is well known that its better to invest in the glass long term but in the short term what produces the best results in general ?
 
Get the best glass you can get ... at all times. :)
 
As with all over simplified questions, the answer is 'it depends'.

Cheap lenses are variable in quality, and loads of them are very capable of producing excellent results in specific circumstances.

Likewise some quite inexpensive cameras are very capable (within the bounds of their ability).

The biggest contribution comes from the skill of the photographer, always has, always will.
 
GTG said:
Obviously this has been discussed to death on all photography forums and even long before the internet age.

...
Click to expand...

Before the Internet age, bodies were much less variable, they were largely light tight boxes into which we loaded film. ;)
 
My two pence. You cannot beat good lenses. Best upgrade I did was to canon 70-200is f4. Great lens and I have upgraded my body but not the lens.
 
Last edited:
First I would invest in a body that you want to invest time and money investing in good glass for. No point having an APCS camera with the best glass if you desire full frame for example.
 
GTG said:
Obviously this has been discussed to death on all photography forums and even long before the internet age.

It is well known that its better to invest in the glass long term but in the short term what produces the best results in general ?
Click to expand...

Most of your respondents have addressed the long term investment issue, which you specifically said above you weren't interested in, but rather in the immediate results, by which I guess you meant which of cheap glass and expensive body or cheap body and expensive glass would produce the best image quality. Most manufacturers make a cheaper body which contains the same image sensor as the their best (or second best) camera, saving money on reducing controls, features, waterproofing, etc.. That cheaper body will produce just as good images as its expensive sibling, but in the hands of an experienced photographer not always quite as quickly, as easily, as often, and in such awkward circumstances.

That argument can be pushed a little further. Many manufacturers of both full frame and crop sensor exchangeable lens cameras produce crop sensor bodies with sensors good enough that it's very hard to tell the difference in image quality between the crop sensor body and the full frame body -- at base ISO. The superiority of the full frame sensor starts to show itself as the ISO rises. In fact if you can be bothered to use a tripod so you can shoot at base ISO with your crop frame body, you may well end up with better quality images than your full frame competitor who was standing beside you, but using his camera handheld at a higher ISO. In other words, for some extra struggle and inconvenience, and only for subjects not involving fast movement, you can get better image quality from a crop frame camera than a handheld full frame camera. Plus of course the cost of a good tripod, which is far less than the cost difference between crop sensor and full frame sensor camera bodies.

The situation is different with lenses. Generally speaking cheap lenses are just inferior to expensive ones. There are however some interesting exceptions. Sometimes a manufacturer will offer two versions of a lens, such as an f2.8 70-200mm, and an f4 70-200mm. The f2.8 version is much bigger and heavier and more expensive simply because all the lenses have to be much bigger. Sometimes however the lighter cheaper version is of the same design and quality as its bigger brother, it just can't produce images at all at apertures larger than f4. So in poor light or where fast action is concerned it will therefore be forced to use a higher ISO and thus produce inferior images. But in good light at apertures of f4 and smaller it will produce just as good images as its bigger bother. In fact, rather oddly, sometimes the smaller cheaper f4 version is actually a bit better in image quality than the f2.8 version.

You will also sometimes find that in prime lenses there will be two versions differing in maximum aperture, often an expensive f1.4 version, and a cheaper budget f1.8 version. There too the much cheaper budget lens will sometimes be nearly as good in image quality as the more expensive one, and again, sometimes it will even be slightly better.

If you happen to have chosen a crop sensor camera, in the lower focal lengths there are sometimes crop-sensor-only lenses of just as good image quality as their full frame versions, but which are smaller and cheaper.

In sum, if you're prepared to go into the specific technical details of lenses and bodies, are prepared to spend time learning how to get the best from your gear, and are prepared to spend some extra time getting the best shot you can manage, you can spend a lot less money on camera and lenses and get as good or better image quality than the well heeled photographers who hope that by buying the most expensive camera body and lenses the manufacturer makes they'll get top quality photographs without having to bother reading the manual.
 
I'd take the Nikon f/1.8s and a fat wallet over the f/1.4s any day personally.
 
Going cheap doesn't have to mean bargain basement quality.

I've had lots of fun and got what to me are good results with a Panasonic G1 I bought off this forum second hand and old film era manual lenses off evil bay and other sellers.

I sold the G1 some time ago but I still have the lenses, you can get a 50mm f1.8 for under £20 and a 28mm f2.8 for anything from £15-30. That two lens set would keep me happy for a long time.
 
chris malcolm said:
Most of your respondents have addressed the long term investment issue, which you specifically said above you weren't interested in, but rather in the immediate results, by which I guess you meant which of cheap glass and expensive body or cheap body and expensive glass would produce the best image quality. Most manufacturers make a cheaper body which contains the same image sensor as the their best (or second best) camera, saving money on reducing controls, features, waterproofing, etc.. That cheaper body will produce just as good images as its expensive sibling, but in the hands of an experienced photographer not always quite as quickly, as easily, as often, and in such awkward circumstances.

That argument can be pushed a little further. Many manufacturers of both full frame and crop sensor exchangeable lens cameras produce crop sensor bodies with sensors good enough that it's very hard to tell the difference in image quality between the crop sensor body and the full frame body -- at base ISO. The superiority of the full frame sensor starts to show itself as the ISO rises. In fact if you can be bothered to use a tripod so you can shoot at base ISO with your crop frame body, you may well end up with better quality images than your full frame competitor who was standing beside you, but using his camera handheld at a higher ISO. In other words, for some extra struggle and inconvenience, and only for subjects not involving fast movement, you can get better image quality from a crop frame camera than a handheld full frame camera. Plus of course the cost of a good tripod, which is far less than the cost difference between crop sensor and full frame sensor camera bodies.

The situation is different with lenses. Generally speaking cheap lenses are just inferior to expensive ones. There are however some interesting exceptions. Sometimes a manufacturer will offer two versions of a lens, such as an f2.8 70-200mm, and an f4 70-200mm. The f2.8 version is much bigger and heavier and more expensive simply because all the lenses have to be much bigger. Sometimes however the lighter cheaper version is of the same design and quality as its bigger brother, it just can't produce images at all at apertures larger than f4. So in poor light or where fast action is concerned it will therefore be forced to use a higher ISO and thus produce inferior images. But in good light at apertures of f4 and smaller it will produce just as good images as its bigger bother. In fact, rather oddly, sometimes the smaller cheaper f4 version is actually a bit better in image quality than the f2.8 version.

You will also sometimes find that in prime lenses there will be two versions differing in maximum aperture, often an expensive f1.4 version, and a cheaper budget f1.8 version. There too the much cheaper budget lens will sometimes be nearly as good in image quality as the more expensive one, and again, sometimes it will even be slightly better.

If you happen to have chosen a crop sensor camera, in the lower focal lengths there are sometimes crop-sensor-only lenses of just as good image quality as their full frame versions, but which are smaller and cheaper.

In sum, if you're prepared to go into the specific technical details of lenses and bodies, are prepared to spend time learning how to get the best from your gear, and are prepared to spend some extra time getting the best shot you can manage, you can spend a lot less money on camera and lenses and get as good or better image quality than the well heeled photographers who hope that by buying the most expensive camera body and lenses the manufacturer makes they'll get top quality photographs without having to bother reading the manual.
Click to expand...

Yes that is what I tried to say in the 1st post, short term same day results.

For example, put a £100 lens on a Nikon D5 and put a £2000 lens on a Nikon D3300 who would come home with the better image quality on the day.
 
Way back down memory lane i moved from olympus om system to the Nikon F90X when the F100 came out. I Lusted for the F100 but got a realy good deal on the older camera. Money being an issue I could buy one "pro" nikon lens or 24mm and 105mm Sigma lenses. In spite being inferior to the expensive nikon glass I had the best years and pictures using those two cheap lenses.
Today Ive added digital to the bunch with an A6000, 12mm Samyang (cheap lens), 24mm Zeiss (veeeery expensive lens) and 60mm Sigma (cheeeeaaap lens). The optical qualities of the two cheap lenses does not stand much behind the expensive one, if at all so what im saying here is that best glass not always equates to most expensive or even just expensive glass but more to what will allow you to take your photography to the next level and/or deal with limitations without to much compromize in IQ. A 70—200 f/2.8 may be superior by lightyears to a 55—200 f/something but that doesnt matter if you spendyears in limbo trying to save for it and then never take it out shooting because its to heavy, doesnt balance well with camera, its to risky and..........
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: GTG
I think this thread is a good oportunity to try to deal with the filosophy that occurs in so many "lacking sharpness......", "which lens is better....." upgrade to FF?......" threads, the technical aspect of quality, only the best is good enough, its its gotta be pro gear...., any serious photographer shoots...... etc. TP is actually the first forum where ive seen voices putting things into a broader perspective but on other sites a noob question e.g. about d5300 vs 60d might well end up with 5DIV and the like recomendations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GTG
GTG said:
Yes that is what I tried to say in the 1st post, short term same day results.

For example, put a £100 lens on a Nikon D5 and put a £2000 lens on a Nikon D3300 who would come home with the better image quality on the day.
Click to expand...
Well in that it depends what you’re photographing. I would suggest (for example) you are likely to get better motorsports photographs with a Tamron 70-300 on the D5 than a Nikkor 80-400 on the D3300. Though perhaps the best photos would come from a D7200 with a Nikkor 200-500.

In other words somewhere in between might be the right answer!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GTG
GTG said:
Yes that is what I tried to say in the 1st post, short term same day results.

For example, put a £100 lens on a Nikon D5 and put a £2000 lens on a Nikon D3300 who would come home with the better image quality on the day.
Click to expand...

At the risk of sounding argumentative, it's still too vague a question.

What are you shooting?
What £100 lens?
What £2000 lens?
What's the conditions?
What do you want to achieve?

Though I think I covered it in my first post, most newbies think the gea is much more important than it actually is. Many of them will get into hugely convoluted arguments trying to find an answer to a pointless question. Photography is about making the best shot from a huge list of variables, which is why a group of photographers with the same brief in a similar situation will provide completely different images. Make the situation different and the range of outcomes becomes endless.

There are plenty of occasions a £150 lens on a £150 camera will produce exactly the same result as a £2000 lens on a £5000 camera. There are other times the difference will be night and day.


I've said it too often:
Beginners think it's about the camera
Enthusiasts think it's about lenses
Photographers know it's all about the light

;)
 
Try fitting a milk bottle to a d5! Then a zeiss lens on a d50 and look at the difference

But you could give my wife the d5 with Zeiss and she couldn't use it for toffee!
 
Last edited:
Mark twiglet said:
Try fitting a milk bottle to a d5! Then a zeiss lens on a d50 and look at the difference

But you could give my wife the d5 with Zeiss and she couldn't use it for toffee!
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be able to focus with the milk bottle so it's not a fair comparison.
 
Phil V said:
At the risk of sounding argumentative, it's still too vague a question.

What are you shooting?
What £100 lens?
What £2000 lens?
What's the conditions?
What do you want to achieve?

Though I think I covered it in my first post, most newbies think the gea is much more important than it actually is. Many of them will get into hugely convoluted arguments trying to find an answer to a pointless question. Photography is about making the best shot from a huge list of variables, which is why a group of photographers with the same brief in a similar situation will provide completely different images. Make the situation different and the range of outcomes becomes endless.

There are plenty of occasions a £150 lens on a £150 camera will produce exactly the same result as a £2000 lens on a £5000 camera. There are other times the difference will be night and day.


I've said it too often:
Beginners think it's about the camera
Enthusiasts think it's about lenses
Photographers know it's all about the light

;)
Click to expand...

Just to add to what Phil said if it's wildlife you are after what really matters is being in the right place at the right time
That is far more important than any differences in gear though good gear just makes it easier
 
LCPete said:
Just to add to what Phil said if it's wildlife you are after what really matters is being in the right place at the right time
That is far more important than any differences in gear though good gear just makes it easier
Click to expand...
And knowing your subject. If you want to photograph otters (for example) you can be on the right bit of river bank looking the right direction at the time the otter usually passes but if you do not know how otters behave you will never see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top