Why people buy decent SLRs and crappy lenses

[bigi]

I've seen so many people/friends who got 5D and Sigma 28-300. It is like f/6.4 @ 300mm.
I don't even elaborate on its optical quality.

People, read reviews. Don't get kit lenses, etc. Your new shiny multi $$$ SLR will suffer.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

It can depend on the situation. When I need something light (hiking) or if photography is just a secondary thing at some point and I don't want to deal with changing lenses, you'll see me with my 18-200mm. If I had a 5D I'd probably buy a 28-300mm as well. But would I use it for serious stuff? Hell no.

 

[corkyg]

Sometimes the "why" is a simple matter of economics, i.e., affordability.

I remember several years ago when I got my first DSLR - a Canon EOS 60D. I used a couple of Sigma and Tamron lenses because they were all I could afford at the time.

Now, those are gone (along with the 60D) and I am enjoying a family of Canon L lenses.

 

[jpeyton]

I like Nikon's kit lens, and I still use it on occasion even after I've bought better glass.

While I agree that it makes no sense pairing a $2000+ body like a Canon 5D with budget glass, someone with a sub-$750 body (like a D40, D40x, D60, etc.) isn't too bad off with a kit lens. I would rather see a person take a kit lens to its limit rather than think they can turn out pro-quality shots just by purchasing expensive glass.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: corkyg
Sometimes the "why" is a simple matter of economics, i.e., affordability.

I remember several years ago when I got my first DSLR - a Canon EOS 60D. I used a couple of Sigma and Tamron lenses because they were all I could afford at the time.

Now, those are gone (along with the 60D) and I am enjoying a family of Canon L lenses.

Well, economics should also dictate that you should spend your money where it will hold its value the best. A camera body depreciates immediately and substantially in this digital world, but lenses rarely do while some even appreciate (for discontinued ones).

The retail value (not what I paid!) for my most expensive lens is equal to what I paid for my two DSLR bodies, the A100. The total of the rest my lens collection exceeds that value by at least a factor of two (again, not what I paid, I'm cheap and lucky). I don't have a problem spending money on a lens because if I decide not to keep it, more than likely I can get back what I paid when I resell.

The OP's point is a valid one -- given a certain budget, spend the money on lenses, not the best camera body. The only caveat I would add is that if a certain camera body contains a feature that you must have for your desired photography (superior high ISO, faster shutter, wireless flash, etc.) then that would merit spending extra money on a body.

 

[corkyg]

No disagreement at all, AndrewR. Sometimes it is just a case of bad judgment - like dummies who buy more house than they can afford . Bad choices are always available.

You are right - bodies come and go - a family of lenses stays around much longer.

BTW - the "kit" lens that came with my 5d is a EF 24-105mm L IS f/4. It is adequate for most tasks.

 

[virtuamike]

The same could be said about tripods. Or lighting. Or location choice. Or subject choice. And then there's processing. And printing. Where do you draw the line?

There always going to be a bottleneck somewhere. Whether or not it's actually a factor is the real question.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: virtuamike
The same could be said about tripods. Or lighting. Or location choice. Or subject choice. And then there's processing. And printing. Where do you draw the line?

There always going to be a bottleneck somewhere. Whether or not it's actually a factor is the real question.

I would venture to say that many people who buy DSLRs never use tripods especially those that are using their cameras for family gatherings, holiday snaps, etc. It has taken me some time to get used to dragging along the tripod because I've seen the real benefit from it. Unfortunately, my experience has also told me that I should get a better ballhead than what I have, but the expense is prohibitive.

I know that my wife and my bank account hope that I find "the line" you mentioned.

 

[Jawo]

Good Question and one I wonder frequently about.

Another good question is why do people buy dSLRs only to leave it in AUTO mode with the kit lens?

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: corkyg
No disagreement at all, AndrewR. Sometimes it is just a case of bad judgment - like dummies who buy more house than they can afford . Bad choices are always available.

You are right - bodies come and go - a family of lenses stays around much longer.

BTW - the "kit" lens that came with my 5d is a EF 24-105mm L IS f/4. It is adequate for most tasks.

heh, adequate seems like an understatement depending on what you're shooting.

And nothing wrong w/ a good tamron/sigma. For a while, there was nothing in the 17/18-~50 range that was relatively fast. And even now with canon's 17-55, that's pretty damn expensive.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: Jawo
Good Question and one I wonder frequently about.

Another good question is why do people buy dSLRs only to leave it in AUTO mode with the kit lens?

They have more money and dSLR's have much better iso/shutter time performance then point and shoots.

Several of my coworkers, friends and family members do this. They have small point and shoots that they bring along with them, but at home, taking pictures at family events, dslrs give them better memories.

 

[cvrefugee]

Why do people spend more than $1000 on a silly camera? What's better, feed starving children or take fabulous photos of them dying on your $4K dSLR?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: cvrefugee
Why do people spend more than $1000 on a silly camera? What's better, feed starving children or take fabulous photos of them dying on your $4K dSLR?

Here's a concept worth noting: some people are so successful in life that they can buy expensive cameras (or expensive cars, expensive houses, expensive computers, etc.) and still afford to donate money to charity.

In fact, they probably donate more to charity than people who are less successful and can't afford those luxuries in the first place.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: cvrefugee
Why do people spend more than $1000 on a silly camera? What's better, feed starving children or take fabulous photos of them dying on your $4K dSLR?

Here's another concept: Stop trolling.

Apparently you own a computer, and have internet access. What's better, feed starving children or trolling on internet forums?

 

[dug777]

Back in the real world, I don't entirely agree with the OP's premise that you can't take decent photos with kit lenses, or that you're really 'hamstringing' your DSLR by using a kit lens.

I've taken what I think are some superb pictures with my 18-135mm Nikkor, and the flexibility means a lot to me.

Just look at dpreview's shots with the new Nikkor 18-55mm VR, or the Canon equivalent. At their sweet spots I doubt most people would be able to tell the difference between a shot from the 'kit' lenses, and something much more expensive.

'Good' lenses make taking great photos easier, but if you can't take a great photo with the kit lens, a hyper-expensive lens isn't going to do anything meaningful for you.

 

[soydios]

I have to agree with dug777 here. If you know the limitations of your kit lens (i.e. stop down to f/8), you'll be able to take some photos that equal lenses 10x the price. Some of my favorite photos were taken with the camera on Auto with cheap kit lenses when I first bought it.

 

[theblackbox]

why do people worry about what other people buy or do? maybe these people buy things for their own needs or wants, and don't worry about them making a life out of it. Maybe some do it for a hobby, maybe others for posterity.
Most the pro's i know don't worry too much what other people or photographers are doing, they just do their own thing.
I think that i have seen some great photographers using a pentax 1000 manual 35mm with a ten dollar lens lay out better work then people with the most expensive digital camera and the best lens, tripod and lighting.
i think it's more about the person then the camera.
I go back to the main question, why do so many people worry about what other people do? If they enjoy taking pictures, thats all that should matter.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: theblackbox
why do people worry about what other people buy or do? maybe these people buy things for their own needs or wants, and don't worry about them making a life out of it. Maybe some do it for a hobby, maybe others for posterity.
Most the pro's i know don't worry too much what other people or photographers are doing, they just do their own thing.
I think that i have seen some great photographers using a pentax 1000 manual 35mm with a ten dollar lens lay out better work then people with the most expensive digital camera and the best lens, tripod and lighting.
i think it's more about the person then the camera.
I go back to the main question, why do so many people worry about what other people do? If they enjoy taking pictures, thats all that should matter.

I worry about what other people are doing because it can help me take better pictures. I know that's not what you meant, but I felt like adding that!

 

[cvrefugee]

Originally posted by: theblackbox
why do people worry about what other people buy or do? maybe these people buy things for their own needs or wants, and don't worry about them making a life out of it. Maybe some do it for a hobby, maybe others for posterity.
Most the pro's i know don't worry too much what other people or photographers are doing, they just do their own thing.
I think that i have seen some great photographers using a pentax 1000 manual 35mm with a ten dollar lens lay out better work then people with the most expensive digital camera and the best lens, tripod and lighting.
i think it's more about the person then the camera.
I go back to the main question, why do so many people worry about what other people do? If they enjoy taking pictures, thats all that should matter.

That's what I was getting at, but the earlier posters just pissed me off with their snobbery so I went the troll route.

 

[Deadtrees]

It all depends on what kind of images you're trying to get.
If you are into sharp details, yes you shouldn't think about super zoom lenses and crappy lenses but that's not the only thing photographers aim for. For an instance, photographers like Sally Mann uses large format cameras with crappiest possible lenses as those creates unique looks. Field photographers are okay with super zoom lenses as you know why.
It's just silly to push people into certain directions by saying that xxx lenses aren't good because of this and that.

 

[bigi]

Back in the real world, I don't entirely agree with the OP's premise that you can't take decent photos with kit lenses, or that you're really 'hamstringing' your DSLR by using a kit lens.

I have never ever said that you cannot take 'good' pictures with kit lens.
In my example of 5D and substandard lens, the point was that such lens cannot even resolve (take advantage) of resolution 5D provides. Also substandard lenses optical imperfections will be very highly exposed with full frame that 5D offers.

 

[soydios]

the 5D (and D300) don't actually have an exceptionally high "resolution". sure they capture a wider field, but my D50 has denser pixels than the D3, and the D2X(s)/D300 have the highest pixel densities on the market.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: bigi

Back in the real world, I don't entirely agree with the OP's premise that you can't take decent photos with kit lenses, or that you're really 'hamstringing' your DSLR by using a kit lens.

I have never ever said that you cannot take 'good' pictures with kit lens.
In my example of 5D and substandard lens, the point was that such lens cannot even resolve (take advantage) of resolution 5D provides. Also substandard lenses optical imperfections will be very highly exposed with full frame that 5D offers.

No, 5D has rather low pixel count/larger photon when considering its sensor size and that larger photon helps substandard lens to become quite good in terms of resolution. It's the same deal as it was for medium format(film) cameras: medium format lenses are not as good as 35mm lenses but thanks to the greater size of the film, it generates better images than 35mm camera setups.

This is why 4/3 has to make good lenses in order to compete with 35mm setup: Their smaller sensors thus having to utilize smaller photon will make substandard lens to be really substandard.

On the other hand, what you've said would be correct if you're talking about other issues such as vinetting or corner sharpness.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: soydios
the 5D (and D300) don't actually have an exceptionally high "resolution". sure they capture a wider field, but my D50 has denser pixels than the D3, and the D2X(s)/D300 have the highest pixel densities on the market.

the pentax k20d begs to differ

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: soydios
the 5D (and D300) don't actually have an exceptionally high "resolution". sure they capture a wider field, but my D50 has denser pixels than the D3, and the D2X(s)/D300 have the highest pixel densities on the market.

the pentax k20d begs to differ

oops, forgot about that.
let me rephrase: a D2X(s)/D300 paired with a bloody long Nikkor lens is the best wildlife kit out there. and since the D300 has superior almost everything compared to the D2Xs, I'm gonna go with that.