For starters: Good lens & cheap body or vice versa?

nigel_b · #1 (**permalink**) 01-02-2010, 04:46 PM

Good lens & cheap body or good body & cheap lens?

I have this real quandry about how to move forward. I picked up a s/h Sony A100 from a good friend quite cheaply and matched it with a Minolta 70-210 Beercan lens off ebay but I want to move on, particularly because I have received a photographic commission for some work. It wont be highly paid, but it will allow me to offset some of the equipment cost against income tax.

I'd like to go either Nikon or Canon, honestly because that's what most people seem to be using, and because the lenses and bodies seem to come around s/h quite regularly.

The first choice is whether to get a good lens or a good body first?

My instinct is "good lens".

I think Nikon is going to be too many ££££s to be honest so I'm probably looking at Canon, unless you know better!

Any advice please? Budget wise I'd be looking at s/h probably about £1000 total to start with.

Ollie · #2 (**permalink**) 01-02-2010, 04:55 PM

I would definitely say good lens before good body. You can put a poor lens on a first class body and you will get poor photos, however put a first class lens on a cheap body and you will get good photos.

The lens isn't everything but in my opinion the lens counts much more than the body. You didn't mention what sort of thing you are going to be photographing, scenery, wildlife or portraits so I can't advise as to what lens would suit you best.

BillyPilgrim · #3 (**permalink**) 01-02-2010, 05:04 PM

Always go for the good lens.

If I were starting out again and with your budget I'd buy a 2nd-hand Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L (assuming your main subject will be birds) and depending on much was left, a 2nd-hand 30d or 40d.

Boddie · #4 (**permalink**) 01-02-2010, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyPilgrim

Always go for the good lens.

If I were starting out again and with your budget I'd buy a 2nd-hand Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L (assuming your main subject will be birds) and depending on much was left, a 2nd-hand 30d or 40d.

I agree 100% with this advice

david156 · #5 (**permalink**) 01-02-2010, 05:36 PM

I went for the cheap body, canon 1000d and the good lens, canon 100 - 400L, as I am a novice photographer, and to be honest I am pleased with some of the photo's but some are rubbish. But this i'm putting down to experiance and getting to know how the camera works properly.

Cheers David

Geoff F · #6 (**permalink**) 01-02-2010, 06:33 PM

To be honest, my first thoughts were secondhand Canon 30D or 40D, as Billy suggested.

They are both strongly built cameras and have easy to use controls and display. They will comfortably take a bigger lens and remain well balanced. I wouldn't be happy using a heavy lens on a lightweight camera; even if it means buying secondhand for the same price as a cheaper new camera.

But I wouldn't rule out secondhand Nikon equipment which sells for virtually the same price as Canon.

The lens will depend on exactly what you want to photograph so we really need more details before giving any firm advice.

AndyElliott · #7 (**permalink**) 01-02-2010, 07:07 PM

Good lens first, always.

I would go for an Olympus E-30 + the 70-300 (f4 to f5.6) zoom. This will comfortably fit in your £1000 budget and give 140mm to 600mm effective reach (35mm equivalent) with a 12MP camera as opposed to 160mm to 640mm with the Canon 100-400. Although the 70-300 is only in the 'standard' range of Olympus glass, it is easily the equal of the Canon 100-400 in terms of AF speed (which frankly, with either lens isn't exactly stellar, but is 'okay'), sharpness and contrast as well as being lighter to boot. The downside is it doesn't have its own tripod mount - the Manfrotto 293 lens support addresses this need. The E-30 is a more modern design than the 30D or 40D, also has an articulated screen (folds out and can be positioned in a variety of positions). The AF system is much more sophisticated too (11 point AF with all points cross-type AF sensors) and will give better performance for birds-in-flight. Given that the E-30 and E-3 camera bodies are just about to be replaced, there are some excellent deals on both of these at the moment.

Don't forget about a decent tripod and head - long lenses need steady support or less than sharp pictures will be the result.

Andy

wizzo · #8 (**permalink**) 01-02-2010, 09:15 PM

For what it's worth, I'm with everyone else on this one. Good lens every day of the week - Wizzo

nigel_b · #9 (**permalink**) 01-02-2010, 09:40 PM

Thanks for the advice. I've spotted a s/h Canon 20D for sale with EF 28-105 macro lens for a reasonabl price.

Is there really much difference between the 20D and 30D?

I'll mainly be taking wildlife shots, birds and mammals principally.

BillyPilgrim · #10 (**permalink**) 01-02-2010, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nigel_b

Thanks for the advice. I've spotted a s/h Canon 20D for sale with EF 28-105 macro lens for a reasonabl price.

Is there really much difference between the 20D and 30D?

I'll mainly be taking wildlife shots, birds and mammals principally.

The 20d is still a very decent camera but I suppose it depends on how much you would be paying for it. You can get a s/h 30d for around £250.

If you're intending to take bird and mammal shots I'm not sure what use you would get from the 28-105 though?