what is more important? lens or camera..?

of 3Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 52 matches.
mturhanlar
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Sun May 5, 2013 6:16AM
Hi!!

I have canon eos 1000D beginner level dslr and have canon EF-S 18-200mm lens.

And nowadays Im thinking to buy Canon EF series lens maybe 24-70mm f2.8 second version.. but I cant afford a new camera.. for you it will be ok to buy new lens before buying a new camera.. Im thinking it will ok beacuse I will get the same sharpness with my old camera..

what do you think first camera or good lens?

(Edited on 2013-05-05 08:01:26 by mturhanlar)
RobMattingley
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusiveForum Moderator
Posted Sun May 5, 2013 7:04AM
Posted By mturhanlar:
Hi!!

I have canon eos 1000D beginner level dslr and have canon EF-S 18-200mm lens.

And nowadays Im thinking to buy Canon EF series len maybe 24-70mm f2.8 second version.. but I cant afford a new camera for you it will be ok to buy new lens before buying a new camera.. Im thinking it will ok beacuse I will get the same sharpness with my old camera..

what do you think first camera or good lens?

If money is an object, then yes, just getting a new lens would probably help your photographs.  As for which lens, the one you mentioned is pretty expensive, but there is one lens that is inexpensive and will help your photographs - and that is the 50mm 1.8 (which is around $120 in North America - not sure where you are located) and is a great low light and sharp lens - but if you are looking for a zoom then this wouldn't help.

I'm sure more experienced photographers will come in and give you some advice, but I just thought I'd also give you my two cents.  Good luck with your decision!
kelvinjay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has won a contestForum Moderator
Posted Sun May 5, 2013 7:38AM
Before spending that huge amount of money on that lens, I'd first really ask yourself what it is that you want to photograph. Seriously, the first version of that lens performs pretty well and I would take a good look at the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, which is only half the price and has stabilisation too. The 24-105 f/4 IS is always worth a look too.

The lens and body are part of a system, but to be honest the 1000D is perhaps not the best body to build a system around. Even a Rebel/650D would be a big step up in quality. If I were a hobbiest, I'd probably upgrade the body to that series of bodeis and see what change I had left to spend on lenses.
mturhanlar
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Sun May 5, 2013 8:24AM

Im new at stock photography and earlier I was just shooting for hobby but now I want more serious on that, maybe after Im making some money I can make much better system Because I know that I cant afford two of them at same time ( and lots of tax in my country )


as I said actually I want to upgrade both lens and body but I must choose one of them first for upgrading my photographs and my system..


and I'm not sure that lens will fix on my camera without any problem. Did anyone tried it?
kelvinjay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has won a contestForum Moderator
Posted Sun May 5, 2013 9:31AM
You can fit any Canon EF lens onto any Canon DSLR body, whether it's a full frame or APS-C sensor, however, only the APS-C bodies will accept Canon's EF-S series of lenses. If you try to put an EF-S 18-55 lens on a full frame body, the back of the lens will get smacked by the mirror when you try to take a shot and can cause damage, but you should be able to put any Canon Lens on your current body.
AlbertoSimonetti
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun May 5, 2013 10:00AM
In my opinion lenses is where you should put your money into. They usually last longer that any given camera and their impact on the quality of your pictures is greater.
HeliRy
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun May 5, 2013 10:01AM
For the same price as the 24-70mm f2.8 II lens, you could buy a new 650D and a 24-105 lens. That combination would serve you far better and be a great starting point for a new stock shooter. Or go with a 600D and the 24-105 and have about $400 left over to play with (or cover the taxes)
mturhanlar
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Sun May 5, 2013 11:18AM
yeah I think I will buy new lens first and later change camera body..  which one is much sharper photos give? 24-105 f4 L or 24-70 f2.8 II L lens?
kbwills
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun May 5, 2013 1:03PM
I don't know which lens is sharper...  I can say that the 24-105 f4 L gives results acceptable to iStock and has a very useful zoom range. 
kelvinjay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has won a contestForum Moderator
Posted Sun May 5, 2013 5:04PM
In lab tests, I'm sure the 24-70 II is a bit sharper. In the real world and even viewed at 100%, I doubt many people would be able to spot any significant difference between the shots taken on the two lenses. Don't get me wrong, the 24-70 is a great lens and will work well on your 1000D and when you upgrade the body, you will be able to get even more out of it.

The Canon L lenses retain their value pretty well too, so even if you decide that it's not the right lens for you and you decide to sell it, you'll probably not lose any more than it would have cost you to rent one for a week.

If you are looking for reviews and comparisons of camera equipment, check out the stick thread at the top of the Photography forum here, it has loads of useful sites linked.

Useful Photography Sites

(Edited on 2013-05-05 17:06:16 by kelvinjay)
slobo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Sun May 5, 2013 7:06PM
I would also discourage you from buying 24-70 II. Way too expensive from your stand point of view. As suggested, get better camera and 50 mm f1.8 (or even better 50/1.4 if you have money). That will do the trick for MOST stock photos. Also, look at Tamron lenses. They are less expensive than Canon but still very good and sharp. I am talking from personal experience. My first stock camera was 5D and now I shoot with 5D mkII. I have almost 20 lenses, many Canon L models, but I do have Tamron and Sigma and even Russion ones that work just fine.
mturhanlar
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Mon May 6, 2013 2:21PM
Actually I also thought about buying 50mm 1.8 Lens but I wasnt sure about their quality because when I bought 18-200mm lens I just happy with " yeah I can use that lens everytime on street at home ex." but later I do understand that just flexibty is not enough and I learned L serie lenses of Canon and their quality.. so I dont want to make same mistake.. first of all I must search every detail
esp_imaging
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue May 7, 2013 9:51AM
Posted By slobo:
As suggested, get better camera and 50 mm f1.8 (or even better 50/1.4 if you have money). That will do the trick for MOST stock photos.



I strongly disagree with the recommendation to buy a 50mm f/1.8.  This has the advantages of being sharp, fast and cheap, but the grave disadvatage of being fixed focus, and (in my opinion), not an enormously useful focal length. It's too short to be ideal for most  product / still life photography, and it's not the focal length of choice for most portrait photographers either. Landscape / interiors / architectural etc photographers want something wider, and sports, wildife etc want something much longer.

Given a choice I'd definitely buy a decent standard zoom instead. The huge advantage in versatility that a variable focal length gives (whether you go for 24-70, or 24-105, or whatever) to me massively outweigh the advantage of being a stop of 2 faster.

Someone may chip in and say that 50 mm is ideal on a APS size sensor for head and shoulder portraits, or some product shots or whatever, but I'd disagree. It's a poor compromise of a focal length in my view, when decent affordable zooms are available.

(Edited on 2013-05-07 10:04:25 by esp_imaging)

(Edited on 2013-05-07 10:56:57 by esp_imaging)
slobo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Tue May 7, 2013 11:48PM
Posted By esp_imaging:

I strongly disagree with the recommendation to buy a 50mm f/1.8. ... It's a poor compromise of a focal length in my view, when decent affordable zooms are available.


are you calculating the price? 50/1.8 is around $100 while descent zoom is around $1,000.
ClarkandCompany
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed May 8, 2013 3:26AM

I don't understand the love for a 50mm lens on a full frame body either. Gotta be the most boring lens ever, on a crop sensor body, yes. I used a 50 macro a lot on mine but on a full frame go for a 35mm, if you have the budget go for the Canon 24-105 I would look to buy a used one if your budget is tight.
esp_imaging
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed May 8, 2013 5:00AM


Posted By slobo:

Posted By esp_imaging:

I strongly disagree with the recommendation to buy a 50mm f/1.8. ... It's a poor compromise of a focal length in my view, when decent affordable zooms are available.



are you calculating the price? 50/1.8 is around $100 while descent zoom is around $1,000.

The OPs suggestion was the 24-70 which is over $2000 (UK price), so I  didn't think "cheapest possible" lens was the requirement under consideration. To me, getting a 24-105 and a body upgrade would make sense.
slobo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Wed May 8, 2013 8:56AM
Posted By ClarkandCompany:

I don't understand the love for a 50mm lens on a full frame body either. Gotta be the most boring lens ever...


it probably depends on shooting preferences.


It is the cheapest fast lens (bellow f2.0) that will allow you to shoot under low light conditions and/or isolate subject from the background with nice bokeh when wide opened. Being very sharp throughout, it is ideal for shooting backgrounds (very few lenses are that sharp all the way in corners).
TexPhoto
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed May 8, 2013 11:33AM

Camera or lens?  Like asking me to choose between air and beer.  Can't live with just one.


For the price of a 24-70 F2.8 II, you could almost buy a Canon 6D + 24-105mm lens.  Solving both the camera and lens question.  For $110 more you could add a 50mm f1.8, and have a zoom and a prime. Yes the 24-70 F2.8 II is a little better in some ways, but the 24-105 is better in some ways too.
Bike_Maverick
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Wed May 8, 2013 12:14PM
For what it's worth, I'd say rent few lens options. Lenses are dirt cheap to rent.


One local shop is closed for the weekend, so if you rent on Friday for a day you only pay for one day and get until Monday. Something like 24-70 cost would be 30-35 dollars. And I don't really shoot outside of the weekends smile


I ended up with a belief that it's better to have a camera and rent lenses that you need. So, I'd say buy 5D Mk1 - you can find used one for as low as 500$, buy some walk-around lens and rent the rest. You'll be in the game for less than 1000$ with a fantastic body, full frame, no less.

(Edited on 2013-05-08 12:16:41 by Bike_Maverick)
1Photodiva
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed May 8, 2013 12:18PM
Sticking a cheap lens on any camera is like wearing a pair of prescription glasses that aren't yours, IMHO. If you put cheap glass on any camera, your results will not be very good. So my advice would be to buy the best name brand camera (Canon or Nikon) and one lens made by that company. Add to your lens collection as your needs change and money allows. I have both zoom lenses but have recently purchased prime lens and love them--such as an 85mm/1.2. Fast sharp lens great for portraits and low light conditions.
This thread has been locked.
of 3Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 52 matches.
Not a member?Join
Cart (0)