Subscribe and save with our all-new image subscriptions.

Learn more
Close

what is more important? lens or camera..?

First pagePrevious pageof 3
Displaying 41 to 52 of 52 matches.
AlbertoSimonetti
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu May 16, 2013 1:11AM
That's a great comparison mphillips007 : a picture is worth a thousand words
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 Thu May 16, 2013 2:04AM
Posted By AlbertoSimonetti:

I'd never thought I would read people downplaying the 50mm lens. It's been praised for decades as the lens of choice of the serious photographer.


Not that I'd trade a 24-70 for it though...

There are DOZENS of 50mm lenses. Which lens in particular was the lens of choice of the serious photographer? Which photographer? Was he shooting stock?
AlbertoSimonetti
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu May 16, 2013 3:22AM

I didn't mean to start an argument. I just thought it was funny the way things change over time.


I'm sure that if you pick up one of your older photography books you'll find that a reflex and a cheap good 50mm is all you really need to take good pictures. Then the zoom lenses have become better and better and it finally seems we've got to the point when we don't even consider the old good 50mm any more...
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu May 16, 2013 3:35AM

It's a good comparison from mphillips007, but it doesn't tell the whole story of what is being discussed here. It's comparing a very good quality mid range zoom with one of these wide range zooms which are generally known not to be all that sharp.


I've just bought a Tamron 28-75 F2.8 for my Pentax K-5, which probably gives comparable "real world" results optically at about a quarter of the price.


 
Joesboy
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun May 19, 2013 6:28AM

If you have a crappy lens and a cheap camera and upgrade the camera, you still have a crappy lens on a good camera and you won't know how good the camera is. If you have a good lens and cheap camera you get the most out of the camera and if you upgrade the camera you have a good lens and a good camera. 


Of course not all good lens are created equal and you need to have access to a good camera to determine if the lens you get lens is one of the good ones
DPimborough
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Wed May 29, 2013 11:21AM

Glass everytime.


 


Oh and of course being a good photographer as no amount of money spent on gadgets will make for good photos
KolaczanCLOSED
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Wed May 29, 2013 11:25AM
I must have got a horrible copy of the lens then. It is almost unuseablly soft at f1.8 (which results in not only shallow DOF but really no DOF) and it doesn't get really sharp until almost f8.

Posted By slobo:

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).



Posted By slobo:

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).
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 29, 2013 9:52PM
Posted By DPimborough:

Glass everytime.


 


Oh and of course being a good photographer as no amount of money spent on gadgets will make for good photos

It's a very common misconception. Very nice and romantic but also not true.
mturhanlar
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Thu May 30, 2013 1:08PM
Posted By Bike_Maverick:

Posted By DPimborough:

Glass everytime.


 


Oh and of course being a good photographer as no amount of money spent on gadgets will make for good photos


It's a very common misconception. Very nice and romantic but also not true.


very common misconception is glass ( lens) ? or


spending money on gadgets ?
bradscottphotos
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloads
Posted Sat Jun 8, 2013 2:45PM

There are some great videos on youtube about this same question. The good thing about buying good lenses is that they are a great investment for the future. You have to change camera bodies every couple years anyways so invest in good glass and you can't go wrong. Obviously the upgraded camera body will help you print larger photos etc but as far as image sharpness and effect you get a lot out of a good lens. The only reason I would tell anyone to get the new camera body first is if they are looking to do night photos and need a better camera body for noise reduction and better ISO capabilities. 


 


Hope that helps
MircoVaccaCLOSED
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Sat Jun 8, 2013 3:48PM
I always say to be short. Better a good lens with "bad" body then bad lens with good body. .
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 Jun 9, 2013 11:02AM
Posted By MircoVacca:
I always say to be short. Better a good lens with "bad" body then bad lens with good body. smile.

This was not a question about good/bad body/lens. All cameras and lenses suggested here are considered good, it is just that some are better than others.
This thread has been locked.
First pagePrevious pageof 3
Displaying 41 to 52 of 52 matches.
Not a member?Join
Cart (0)