Lens budget versus camera budget

[Hawkypuck]

A 50mm nify fifty is far less practical than an 18-55, for most people

 

[yardcoyote]

Less practical, but a much better learning tool. The big question is whether you want to take outdoor snapshots now or learn the basics of photography while still being able to take a wider variety of pictures, including indoor pictures of moving children. This is one of the main reasons people buy cameras and a slow zoom is pretty bad at it, particularly in the hands of a beginner who is unskilled at managing slow shutter speeds.

(Note that I was talking about a fast fifty on film/full frame. On a crop sensor a 35 may be more generally useful.)

Anyway, I never mentioned abolishing the slow wide to normal kit zoom, only suggesting that it might be better to offer options. Especially these days, when a dedicated camera is not a basic consumer item but more of a tool for enthusiasts, there's no need for every new camera to be packaged in a single box with the same very basic lens. Manufacturers could offer a discount on the first lens, or offer a choice from a short list.

 

[Hawkypuck]

I always see these posts about how a prime lens is much better than a zoom because it forces you to work with one focal length, thus, supposedly, making you more creative with your shots......imo, just imo, it is kinda BS!!!

 

[Hawkypuck]

Why make life inconvenient for yourself on purpose?

 

[Guy Parsons]

It took me years to realize that, with every ILC budget you need separate lens budget, especially if you are at the beginning and have nothing to start with.

With system cameras it always has been and always will be about the lenses. Otherwise, what's the point of buying a system camera?

What about you? How much do you spend on lenses and accessories versus the camera body alone?

Over the years have spent an absurd amount of money on digital camera/bodies/lenses. At most of that time the cost was mostly cared for by my sales of print display stands to camera clubs. Plus of course no more film and processing/printing so that big cost eliminated but offset somewhat by needing to buy notebook computers and USB drives every so many years to keep up with processing and storage needs, but still cheaper than film costs.

Plus of course it's my money and in retirement I do what I like. Naturally some goes out to help kids and grandkids but the bulk stays there for me to play with. Next I really need a brick cutter and they start at about AU$1000 and make life so easy.... but I'm digressing.

OK on an average day out I will only carry my Sony compact. On a major busy day and on any major overseas trip I may carry a fairly complete M4/3 kit, plus the Sony of course always. Here's what I might carry and the prices in rounded Aussie dollars...

• Only the Sony in a small belt pouch $1357
• Busy day M4/3 body $454 + lenses $3345, plus of course the Sony $1357

Horrifying when seen like that, what I carry is worth far more than I am. Always of course the lenses worth way more than the camera body, it's the way the camera makers survive.

Why do you think they sell $50 printers? So they can sell you $100's of dollars of ink over the years. It's the same deal.

Sure there's a big bunch of other bodies and lenses in my dry cabinet that probably doubles the totals or more, for example I bought two Olympus E-P5 at huge discounts so have one that cost $454.50 and the next one $462.73.

To get a rough idea of equivalence multiply my Aussie dollars by 0.7x to get to USA dollars.

 

[yardcoyote]

Once I dissect out the fact that I personally *loathe* shooting with a zoom and don't use them at all except for long telephoto, I agree with you.

It's not zoom vs. prime that's the issue here-- it's fast vs. slow. If it were technically possible to build an f/2 or f/2.8 zoom with a reasonable range in a compact size at a popular price, I would say that would make an ideal kit lens for almost everyone. I might have kept it myself. Someone higher up the thread mentioned they had gotten a fixed max aperture f/4 zoom in a kit; even that would be better.

But if I had to choose between access to a comparatively wide range of focal lengths and being stuck at f/5.6 at 55mm, I would shoot with one prime for the rest of my life.

--
Instagram: @yardcoyote

 

[Mackiesback]

Once I dissect out the fact that I personally *loathe* shooting with a zoom and don't use them at all except for long telephoto, I agree with you.

It's not zoom vs. prime that's the issue here-- it's fast vs. slow. If it were technically possible to build an f/2 or f/2.8 zoom with a reasonable range in a compact size at a popular price, I would say that would make an ideal kit lens for almost everyone. I might have kept it myself. Someone higher up the thread mentioned they had gotten a fixed max aperture f/4 zoom in a kit; even that would be better.

But if I had to choose between access to a comparatively wide range of focal lengths and being stuck at f/5.6 at 55mm, I would shoot with one prime for the rest of my life.

That was the kit lens offered with the Nikon Z6 and Z7 at launch. The kit was offered from Nikon, something not as common these days, but probably because the camera was a new mount and Nikon wanted people to get their hands on their first S series lens rather than having them have to buy the adapter. Come to think, Nikon may have also offered a kit with the FTZ adapter as well.

Now, especially online at places like B&H, there are a host of store created kits. If you look up the Nikon Z6ii with the Kit 24/70 F4, there is actually a drop down menu where you can sub a host of other applicable lenses as your kit.

While the F4 kit lens is certainly not as bright as most primes, the IBIS lets me get away with more than I was able to shooting a DSLR with pro 2.8 zooms, all at half the size.

 

[Hawkypuck]

Ok, i understand you now

 

[PhotoMac503]

Also consider the length of time it takes to become proficient with a body or lens.

If you are paid to shoot your time is money. I can't have clients waiting while I RTFM to figure out something that changed on me. I need reliable gear.

While I agree with the sentiment of the OP, a meh kit lens is fine for some, as long as they are aware they are limited.

What bothers me is people here who rave about $99 mediocre lenses.