Lens or body first?

[sara]

Has there been a thread on this? 🙂

Anyways! I was having a discussion with a friend who said I should invest in lenses before a camera body...like it would be a good investment.

Would this be true with you?

I can see what he meant as if you changed the body, you would still be able to use the lens (for life I suppose). It's just that I'm eyeing this lens (on sale at a good price haha), and I'm thinking, "ok it's a lot of money but you know what, I'm going to use it forever."

 

[michaelwj]

Mechanical or electronic? The first it doesn't matter, but I'm a body man, the second rapidly depreciates to nothing.

 

[lynnb]

A good lens will last a lifetime and will not need updating (perhaps the exception being modern electronic digital lenses?). Few film bodies need updating if you buy quality to start with; but digital camera bodies are usually updated every 2-4 years, depending on manufacturer. That isn't to say older digital bodies aren't still capable of good results within their limitations (usually high ISO, and focus performance).

Lenses are my priority, but they're not an investment, they're a tool, so it makes sense to acquire quality tools that deliver the results I like.

 

[unixrevolution]

A saying I picked up years ago on another forum was, "Cameras come and go, lenses are forever."

I would go for quality glass first. That quality glass can be slapped on pretty much anything and make a good image. But a crap lens will always be a crap lens, even on the best body out there.

 

[View Range]

I have a Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S lens that Nikon can't fix due to lack of new focus motors. At least it works manually.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Has there been a thread on this? 🙂

Anyways! I was having a discussion with a friend who said I should invest in lenses before a camera body...like it would be a good investment.

Would this be true with you?

I can see what he meant as if you changed the body, you would still be able to use the lens (for life I suppose). It's just that I'm eyeing this lens (on sale at a good price haha), and I'm thinking, "ok it's a lot of money but you know what, I'm going to use it forever."

I tend to agree, broadly, but to an extent it probably depends on the sorts of cameras and lenses you're referring to. For instance I use some M42 SLRs. If anyone with a crystal ball had told me six to eight years ago that the prices of certain M42 lenses was going to go into orbit with the arrival of adapters for some makes of DSLR, not to mention the mirrorless options now available, I would have bought some of them when they were still really cheap. Fact is, a lot of vintage lenses continue to rise in price, even in mounts that not so long ago were considered "orphan" types. Prices ebb and flow, of course, but generally, there's no sign this is going to change any time soon, with a finite supply of certain desirable lenses if anything it may get worse. So yes, I'd say kit up the the glass you have your heart set on today, if you can afford it, because (depending on what you're into, to some extent) tomorrow...that may not be the case.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[Baby of Macon]

Everything wears out eventually but lenses are a better "investment" than digital film bodies, that's for sure. The post manual era screw drive auto focus Nikkor primes are tremendous value for that system. But continuing Lynn's theme, the best investment is time spent making pictures.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Winogrand was OK for years with Leica cameras and non-Leica, not expensive lenses. He did it so well, I went to see his own prints and it was lovely.

From Leica 2.8 big Elmarit boy perspective I could tell what it is important to find the lens which is great for quick handling and kinda important to have lens which also feels great and build to lasts. It isn't as easy to find as with cameras, where all Leicas are just great. 🙂

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I wouldn't use the word "invest" if I was you, especially as you are thinking of buying and using.

And are we talking digital or film? AF or manual or what?

Regards, David

 

[BillBingham2]

I'd go camera first for film.

In many cases you can start with a less-than-perfect lens and move up.

No experience with removable lens AF or digital (yet).

B2 (;->

 

[Huss]

The most important must have lens that people should be using is whichever one I am currently selling.

I don't understand how you should invest in lenses before a camera body. You need both to take pictures with.

 

[ferider]

I'd rather use a 1000$ body with a 50$ lens than the other way around.

That being said, I have plenty of both. I suggest to forget the "investment" part.

 

[narsuitus]

I was having a discussion with a friend who said I should invest in lenses before a camera body...like it would be a good investment.

Would this be true with you?

Yes, it is true with me. I have subscribed to that philosophy for decades. One of the main reasons I "invested" in the Nikon system was because Nikon had a history of not leaving you stranded with an obsolete lens collection. Today, I am still using two of the first three Nikon lens I purchased (85mm f/1.8 and 180mm f/2.8). The only reason I am not using the third lens (35mm f/2) is that I replaced it with a newer and faster lens (35mm f/1.4).


Nikon F2 by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[icebear]

Hi Sara,
do you want to take photos with your equipment or is it supposed to be an "investment" to store the money?
If you want to actually take photos, then apparently it's very easy:
You will need both at the same time😉
Obviously you need to do some research into which camera body suits your needs and abilities best and then you need to figure out which lenses are available for this camera mount.
film / digital
manual focus / auto focus
fully manual metering and setting aperture / some kind of auto settings by body and lens

 

[mpaniagua]

As a whole, I think that, normally, top of the line lenses keep their value better than same tier cameras, so if we are talking about investment, as in buy and sell for the same amount of money or a little more, lens is the way to go. That being said, I would buy the camera I like first with a non so ideal lens. Lens will come as a second upgrade to me, mostly because I could look for the perfect lens at a reasonable price and with no hurry.


Marcelo

 

[helen.HH]

For Me it's the Body first ....
after it 'feels' Good to the Eye & Hand
then comes the Glass obsession 🙄
One long slipoery slope

Ahhh, falling under the Seduction of Glass:
Whether the rendering is soft, sharp, cresmy, busy, on and on

It's never an Investment, Always a Love, yay to Film !

Digi I might consider an Investment since I rarely use it

 

[Jdi]

I can only tell you where my wife is at the moment. She's thinking of going back to film. Settled on a mount (Leica M/M39) and is now buying lenses. No body yet. For both of us, the body is simply a means of mounting a lens. I don't view these purchases as an investment. However, there's little downside risk of recouping her money at any given point in time.

 

[sara]

Hi all 🙂

Haha the word "investment" was suggested by my friend as in I would buy it now and use it forever, so as of a good value for money over time.

And of course not, I would not be buying lenses and not using them!

It's more of buy this lens now because of a good price and you might regret it - that sort of thing. If you get what I mean!

Personally, I never thought about lens or body first. I think with Leica, I went with the body first...then the lenses...!

 

[Merkin]

First, there is no such thing as a "good investment" in photography anymore, unless you are talking about collectors editions or rare cameras from 30 years ago or more, and maybe not even then. Prices are down considerably on any number of cameras and lenses that were supposed to "hold their value" or even go up in value over time.

With that said, the answer to your question, IMO, is that it depends on whether you are talking about film or digital. The things that matter the most are the lens and the recording medium. Hence, with film, pick the lens first, since the recording medium isn't intrinsic to the camera. With digital, you have to pick them in tandem, since the recording medium is intrinsic to the camera. If anything, with digital, pick the body first, as digital cameras tend to be a bit more varied in their methods of operation than film cameras.

 

[Mute-on]

If we're talking about Leica lenses, they will all go up in price, and thereby value, over time.
Leica digital bodies depreciate like any other digital body, but not as quickly.
Leica film bodies are slower to appreciate, but don't depreciate much, if at all.
As with anything there are exceptions, but this is a reasonable guide.
For me, lenses first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk