-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
which one did you buy first?
- Thread starter Aero
- Start date
DavidP #28649
Forum Pro
A body without a lens is useless. So is a lens without a body.
I bought my EOS-3 and 70-200/2.8 and 28-70/2.8 at the same time.
If you just HAD to buy one first, buy the lens first. The lens won't go down in price much over 6 months. A digital SLR body can drop substantially ($500 to $1000) in that time frame.
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
I bought my EOS-3 and 70-200/2.8 and 28-70/2.8 at the same time.
If you just HAD to buy one first, buy the lens first. The lens won't go down in price much over 6 months. A digital SLR body can drop substantially ($500 to $1000) in that time frame.
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Trevor Ash
Well-known member
It depends on if you have any other lenses you can use with the camera or not.
Otherwise, what's the point buying one or the other if one can't operate without the other?
Otherwise, what's the point buying one or the other if one can't operate without the other?
Mike Flaherty
Senior Member
Don't buy it if you can't afford it. "It" consists of a usable camera. If you can't afford to buy both camera and lens, wait until you can. To do otherwise borders on ridiculous, IMHO. Best to you...
Mike Flaherty
http://imageevent.com/mflaherty/mikesgallery
--
Mike Flaherty
http://imageevent.com/mflaherty/mikesgallery
Ned Bunnell
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 441
- Reaction score
- 0
tjcad--
Don't get me wrong, I'm not making fun of you... but if you couldn't afford the car would you buy the tires
If this is your first camera purchase, rather than getting a DSLR, you might want to consider a good, point and shoot like the PowerShot G2 or new G3 ($600-$700) They offer auto controls and a good zoom lens. The G2/G3 also has more advanced features that you can experiment with and learn before plunking down a lot of cash for a DSLR.
If you really know why you want a DSLR, get the body and then at least get a basic 50mm lens that would only set you back an additional $70-90.
HTH,
--Ned
Don't get me wrong, I'm not making fun of you... but if you couldn't afford the car would you buy the tires
If this is your first camera purchase, rather than getting a DSLR, you might want to consider a good, point and shoot like the PowerShot G2 or new G3 ($600-$700) They offer auto controls and a good zoom lens. The G2/G3 also has more advanced features that you can experiment with and learn before plunking down a lot of cash for a DSLR.
If you really know why you want a DSLR, get the body and then at least get a basic 50mm lens that would only set you back an additional $70-90.
HTH,
--Ned
Lam Nguyen
Forum Enthusiast
If it takes only 2-3 weeks to get the body, I'd like to have at least one lens handy for testing. But if it takes month or months, I'd wait until I got the body before I buy the lenses because when you have the lenses sitting there for months waiting for the camera, you're wasting the warranty on the lenses. You can get most lenses within a day.
Just my 2 cents
Just my 2 cents
J
John-G
Guest
I agree completely. Your decision process is completely rediculous. Like buying a $1500 film body and waiting 6 months to buy film. At the very least, buy the camera and SOME lens. If you can afford a $2000 camera body you can certainly afford $69 for a NEW EF50/1.8 lens from B&H. This is a wonderful lens for the money and will take some great photos. What are you going to store the image on ? You do know the D60 doesnt come with a memory card ?
Perhaps a used D30 would be more realistic for the time being ?
Perhaps a used D30 would be more realistic for the time being ?
If you don't have enough money, then keep on saving.
Buying a lens today and having no body to use it with is kinda pointless. Plus, you have a lens sitting there, warranty ticking away, and no way to use it.
Buy a DSLR body without a lens? May as well give half your money to charity instead -- at least then someone will get some use out of the money you'd otherwise be wasting.
On the other hand, you might get a less expensive but still good lens like a 50mm f/1.8 plus the body and have something you can use and enjoy while saving for more lenses.
-- Lew
Buying a lens today and having no body to use it with is kinda pointless. Plus, you have a lens sitting there, warranty ticking away, and no way to use it.
Buy a DSLR body without a lens? May as well give half your money to charity instead -- at least then someone will get some use out of the money you'd otherwise be wasting.
On the other hand, you might get a less expensive but still good lens like a 50mm f/1.8 plus the body and have something you can use and enjoy while saving for more lenses.
-- Lew
robert41723
Leading Member
robert
Native Eye Photography
mitakuye oyasin
('we are all related'. Lakota language)
http://www.pbase.com/nativeeye
Canon D-60, 'L' lens membership card holder, good eyes.
Native Eye Photography
mitakuye oyasin
('we are all related'. Lakota language)
http://www.pbase.com/nativeeye
Canon D-60, 'L' lens membership card holder, good eyes.
Thomas Gardner
Veteran Member
That's easy, the body? Why? Because five seconds after you have the body in your hand, you'll want to go out, buy a 50mm 1.8 for some $66 bucks plus shipping and start shooting. You can't do that the other way around
http://www.hotbuyselectronics.com/canon_ef_50mm_f18_standard_lens.htm
Adam-T
Forum Pro
I bought the body a used Mk1 50mm Prime and a used 35-135USM - then 2 days later returned the 35-135 as it made the thing take worse pics wide open than my C2100UZ with grease on the lens - the prime knocked my socks off
--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300, Canon D60.
My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855
--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300, Canon D60.
My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855
Andrew Cawte
Leading Member
...both? As others have said, one is completely useless without the other (unless you buy the body and make a pinhole in the lens mount cover...)
I bought a second hand 28-105 from the store to go with my new D30, because they didn't have the lens I wanted (28-135IS) in stock. A week later I returned the 28-105 for a refund and collected the 28-135 instead.
Why on earth would you even consider buying one SIX MONTHS before the other?
Andy.
I bought a second hand 28-105 from the store to go with my new D30, because they didn't have the lens I wanted (28-135IS) in stock. A week later I returned the 28-105 for a refund and collected the 28-135 instead.
Why on earth would you even consider buying one SIX MONTHS before the other?
Andy.
--
- Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment.
- http://www.pbase.com/jchung/portfolio
...it makes no sense. Technology goes forward so fast that
it would be better to keep that money saved and then buy
both at the same time.
But if you can afford a 1500-2500USD dSLR then you surely
can afford the cheapest second hand lens you find,
e.g. 50/1.8 or 35-70/4-5.6 or such.
Vesa
M
Michael Salzlechner
Guest
of buyig a body and no lens ?
Get a 50 1.8. You can get it new for $85 or so and used for even less.
WHat about memory cards additional batteries, bag, tripod and all the other goodies that are nessecary ?
Maybe getting that kind of camera is not the right decision ?
--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging
Get a 50 1.8. You can get it new for $85 or so and used for even less.
WHat about memory cards additional batteries, bag, tripod and all the other goodies that are nessecary ?
Maybe getting that kind of camera is not the right decision ?
--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging
JohnM31499
Veteran Member
I originally bought this lens with my D30. I may have had a bad copy(there seem to be an awful lot of bad copies of this lens)but I exchanged it for a 28-70 2.8L before the exchange period was up. The 28-70 continues to be my everyday carry around lens on my 1D
-John
JohnM31499
Veteran Member
Adam-T
Forum Pro
I don't think there is such a think as a GOOD copy of this lens - the really sad part is that it's fitted with VERY** FAST Ring USM complete with FTM - I mean Probably faster than the 28-70L ! - what a damn waste! if that wasn't enough, contrast was poor and Bokeh was awful too..
the 35-135 came out about 1991, they fit Ring USM to that but NOT to the 80-200L or 100-300L of similar vintage! weird and totally illogical - I can't remember if it was Trop or Davkrat but one of them tested their copy and it was every bit as bad as mine and as bad as yours evidently was.. I've avoided ALL 35-??? Canon lenses ever since (even the 35-350L which seems to perform more like a big 28-105 than a "real" L if you know what I mean)
I'm glad I got the 50mm as initially I thought my Sensor must be misaligned ;-)
--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300, Canon D60.
My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855
Since the original poster is new to DSLR, they could purchase a cheaper lens along with their camera body to get started. Do you need to spend a couple of grand on your very first lens?
Roog
Roog
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum