posted Sunday, 11 May 2008, 10:45 (+0800), by Martin
I've always believed that glass (ie, camera lenses) is more important than the camera body.
When I bought my first DSLR, a Canon 350D, rather than buy the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II kit lens, I
opted for the more expensive Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS lens.
I didn't see the point in putting a ~AUD$150 lens onto a ~AUD$1000 body!
Bill Wadman recently wrote about this in a blog post titled Glass (part one). He introduces the subject by saying:
Read Bill's article to see what else he has to say about choosing lenses.
Bill Wadman recently wrote about this in a blog post titled Glass (part one). He introduces the subject by saying:
If there is a place to spend the money, it's on the glass. I'd take a 5 year old 20D with a good lens over a top of the line 1Ds MkIII with a crappy lens any day of the week. I can't tell you the number of people I see who have this all wrong. Last year at the Grand Canyon, I saw a girl with a high-end Gitzo tripod, 5D body, and some crappy consumer level zoom lens on the front. Honestly, I almost pushed her over the edge.
Bill also goes on to discuss the benefits of prime lenses instead of zoom lenses.
Read Bill's article to see what else he has to say about choosing lenses.
Subscribe to RSS feed
Subscribe by email
wow, Bill is a bit harsh - pushing the poor girl because of crappy lens. anyway, I agree. Good glass is really needed to take great quality photos. but, then again, a good body is also needed. if you gotta choose something to buy, it'll have to be glass first then body, for sure :)