Camera versus lens

[tim_brown26]

I'm on a pretty tight budget. I've got a Rebel K2 now and I'm looking to

upgrade to digital in a few months.

 

Where should my money be headed, lenses or a good body? I've got about $500 in

savings that I won't be able to spend for a few months, and $200 in disposable

income I can throw around right now. Since the camera is fairly new, all I've

got is the kit lens; I was going to run out and pick up a 75-300mm for about $110.

 

What am I better buying once I go digital? Assuming, in the months to come, I

could afford either a 350D, 400D, 450D, or a 40D (with the price dropping closer

to the 450D), would I be better of buying a higher-end camera and saving for

lenses, or buying a lower-end camera and getting some decent lenses? I'll be on

an even tighter budget (I'll be entering college with a freshmen's Ramen budget)

after this purchase, so I'd like something that would give me quality over time.

 

Thanks in advance.

[beauh44]

Hi Tim, A few thoughts: When you say "quality over time" I think of good glass.

Digital SLR body prices don't seem to hold their value like a good lens. That's not to

say you'd be happiest with a really expensive lens and the cheapest DSLR body

though.

 

In fact, even a relatively cheap, consumer zoom, when stopped down a little and

used by someone competent, can give excellent results. Another thing to think

about: your camera dollar buys much more camera for the money than it did 5 years

ago, for about the same price - more resolution and features with less noise at high

ISO settings, dust removal, live-view, etc. The price and features of most good

lenses has remained about the same.

 

Canon makes a pretty amazing piece of glass - the 50mm f/1.8 - for around $70,

brand new, last I looked. It won't hold much value because you didn't pay much for

it, but it's quite sharp and no one looking at the shots you take with it will know or

care, probably. And you'll have a warranty for a while.

 

So, if I was on a really limited budget and wanted something that would give me

very professional results, I might look at the 450D and as many relatively

inexpensive primes as I could afford. Most are still quite sharp and some are real

gems. Again, the resale probably won't go down on the lens(es) but it will on the

body, eventually. Good luck!

[photo_dark]

for the money, there's certainly nothing wrong with a 350D. I have one, as well as a 40D... the 40D is better, but the 350D is just fine as well.

 

Realistically, you are probably better off just getting a 350D or 400D and then saving your remaining money towards some better glass as time goes on. Even just the kit lens will get you by on your limited budget for the time being.

[William Michael]

I think 1/3rd on the body 2/3rds on the lens was pretty OK for film days.

 

Now I think maybe 6:1 ratio: seriously!

 

My daughter has a 400D . . . just started a two year course.

 

She borrows my L lenses: amazing results . . . she`d get the same results with a 350D and the L glass, I am sure.

 

The upper end bodies are specialist tools no doubt: and no doubt worth the money for those special tools they have.

 

But you can get great results with good glass and a 350D, IMO.

 

For complete disclosure I have a 20D and a 5D, and two Powershot 5IS, (which I use a lot) and I borrow my daughters 400D, too.

 

I have a truck load of film gear, rarely used, except for the 645, at Weddings: about twice a month.

 

Spend the money on glass, but get a basic DSLR body and get into the digital game . . . sooner rather than later.

 

WW

[mark_audacity_romberg]

Lenses, lenses, lenses.

A good body will never make up for bad glass, but good glass still makes great images

on a low-end body.

Figure out what lens you need, and then figure out what body you can afford with

what's left.

 

Also, consider getting a used rather than new body. KEH has a 10D for $275, and with

good glass megapixels aren't that big a deal.

[johnson_d.]

What's your total budget and what do you plan on doing with it? If it were me, I'd probably chose a 40D + good non-zoom lenses over anything less + good zooms.

[matthijs]

If I were on a budget I'd probably buy a Canon 28-135 IS and either a 350D or a 30D. Camera and lens both second hand.

 

(Example: I saw a 30D plus 28-135 on ebay for $560.)

 

Regards,

 

Matthijs.

[matt_needham]

"...350D, 400D, 450D, or a 40D..."

 

Obviously there are a few newer features available in some of these bodies that may make one a better choice than another for a particular photographer. In my opinion though, and for my shooting (pretty typical subjects: people, places, events), the image quality differences are minimal compared to the differences I see between a f/3.5-5.6 zoom and a f/2.8 zoom. At f/8 either would be fine, but I do a lot of shooting at f/2.8 to f/4. That's a much more important feature to me than larger LCD, sensor cleaning, live view, etc... Don't forget the 20D and 30D; they should be going cheap. One thing I like about the ##D series over the D Rebels is the layout of the buttons and menus.

[kasperhettinga]

I just bought a 20D to save some money for nice lenses. 20D 2nd hand is (in the Netherlands) much cheaper than a used 30D, whereas the 30D is not that much better. I chose the 20D over the Rebel series for ergonomy (especially the rear dial button and easy access to different settings)

[tdigi]

Consider the XSi with the IS kit lens. I have seen it on Amazon from $800 - $900.

[JDMvW]

I think the body choice is MORE important today than it was in the film days. In film cameras, so long as the mount and the pressure plate worked correctly, there was no difference between the image produced by the cheapest and the most expensive body made by a given manufacturer.

 

Today, the sensor is as integral a part of the equation as the lens. This is not merely a question of megapixel counts, but also of the accompanying electronics, packing of sensors, and so on.

 

Of course, ergonomics counts too, and that part is not changed.