Lens or body first?

[benmacphoto]

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!

That's usually what gets me.
Finding a good deal on a lens makes it hard to resist, and I usually buy it.
The thought being if I don't like it I could always sell it and come out even or ahead.

I've always bought the body and lens that I wanted, not one or the other first, just what comes along at a great price.

 

[farlymac]

It's how I bought my Nikon S2 rangefinder, Sara. I kept getting these box lots that would have odds and ends from the Nikon rangefinder system, and just decided to hang on to them, that one day I would be able to purchase a body. What really got my appetite going was when a lot showed up, and there was a 2.0/8.5cm in the box.

Right now, I have two Nikkor DX format lenses that I'm hoping to finally settle on what camera to get for them. And of course, I can also use my D lenses on higher end models, though in reality I bought those for current film cameras. Still, if I decide to sell off the film stuff and go digital, I'll have a raft of lenses I "invested" in.

PF

 

[michaelwj]

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.

Agreed. The body is the bit you hold and interact with.

If I don't gel with the body, the lens mounted to it is a moot point, because I'm not even going to use it.

 

[michaelwj]

If we're talking about Leica lenses, they will all go up in price, and thereby value, over time.

Not so much if you take inflation into account. They more just hold steady.

(of course there are always exceptions but speculating which ones will skyrocket is gambling rather than photography)

 

[giganova]

For film: the lenses make the images, the body just holds the film. It's different for digital because of the rapid advances in sensor technologies. But we've reached a state where all sensors produce outstanding images.

I've had a collection of Nikon AI-S lenses that survived many generations of film and digital bodies, and when I sold them many years later, I even made a little profit. So I've basically used these outstanding lenses for some 10 odd years for free 😉

 

[csb5858]

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."

other than buying what you can afford and use it makes no difference.

over time, your choices in lenses and bodies will most likely change.

today's dream lens will be replaced by tomorrow's dream lens.

 

[Hannes]

When I get a new system I always start with body and lens. Later I add more lenses or another body with the same mount.
Sometimes it is cheeper to buy a lens with body than the lens alone.
Right now I focus on 5 systems. Nikon F, Olympus OM, M39 with Russian cameras, Contax/Kiev and M42.

Hannes

 

[David Hughes]

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

This is difficult to agree with...

Lenses last until they are dropped, or the fungus gets them or the elements separate. Then the repair will cost a small fortune, if you are unlucky... On two occasions I've been quoted more than twice what I paid for the lens to repair it and on several occasions I've been told I was lucky and it wouldn't cost much and there would be no postage to pay as it was with the camera. Add in that some charge for telling you that and returning the camera.

Then you must add in something like the cost of the correct case, rear lens cap and front lens cap and correct lens hood to make a lens an "investment" and some of those little bits and pieces can really wreck your budget but, otoh, you might be lucky and realise it.

As for the bodies, I don't know your experience of cameras and don't know how fixed your views on bodies may be; luckily most of them have the lens more or less in the middle and the shutter button on the right... The problems, if that is the word, really arise when you've got used to one camera and another turns up with (well known example) something important turning or going the other way.

BTW, some lenses match their body and won't match the next camera because it has more pixels and shows up the lenses limitations; or character as some say...

BTW (2), what was the lens or body that started this diversion?

Regards, David

 

[Ronald M]

Rent a quality lens and use it what you have. That should tell you.

Then buy the quality lens

 

[Huss]

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...!

Cut to the chase. What lens/lenses are you talking about and how much so we can see if it is a good 'investment'..
🙂

The only time I've seen good 'investments' is if you buy a perfect condition used lens. The original owner has taken the depreciation, and you can flip it with no loss if you decide to move on to something else.

 

[jsrockit]

I'm a body first then lens second type. Everything can be so easily sold these days that I don't care about "for life" purchases. Investments? ... rarely do common photographic items go up in value.

 

[aizan]

when people say they are going to invest in photographic equipment, they're usually talking about spending a significant amount of money to support their creativity. it's about whether something expensive is worth buying, or if they could do just as well by spending less on something else.

the decision depends a lot on the creative activity you're going to be doing, which is as volatile as stock markets can be. you'll just have to weigh the risks and do some research to make the best decision you can.

 

[Talus]

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.

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.

These two.

Maybe we are nitpicking your choice of words, but the best investment is in yourself. In terms of tools, I'd say glass over body as stated above.

 

[colonel]

you need at least one lens and body to start so the question is a bit redundant

 

[michaelwj]

you need at least one lens and body to start so the question is a bit redundant

Not really.
You could be deciding between Canon and Nikon. Do you pick the body you like, or the lenses you like? That choice happens before any $ has been laid down and can be a big choice to make.

 

[rbsinto]

Not really.
You could be deciding between Canon and Nikon. Do you pick the body you like, or the lenses you like? That choice happens before any $ has been laid down and can be a big choice to make.

Really and truly, your life won't change because you choose one system over another.
You are overthinking the problem.
But to get back to the original question, one cannot take photos without at least one of each, body and lens.

 

[tightsqueez]

Think of it as a marriage... would you pick a bride or the groom first? It simply doesn't work this way either with a camera and lens; they must work together as a perfect union.

An amazing lens and a great camera doesn't necessarily mean they will "work" together. They need to feel right, balance accordingly to YOU, etc. There's a lot more to the craft than MTF charts and specs.

One such combo that didn't work together as a unit was the Nikon F6 and Zeiss Otus 55mm. What a joke!

 

[jsrockit]

So, you guys can never see a scenario where someone likes a body so much, that the lens is chosen second or vise-versa?

 

[Richard G]

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.

Interesting. The saying I heard was they you date your cameras but marry your lenses. None of any of this is true in practice necessarily. Unless, like me, you never sell any lenses. It's all about the glass they say. Depends. I have lots of lenses, new, old, expensive and cheap. To me it's the camera that's most important, the ergonomics and the simplicity and familiarity. A good shot with an average lens is still a god shot. Really sharp or perfectly straight might sometimes be important. Very few lenses are special like the Zeiss C Sonnar.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Historical accident. I started with a Leica IIIa and 50/3,5 (neither being much use without the other). Then I bought an M2 and used it (via adapters) with my old Leica screw-mount lenses. Then I bought M-mount lenses. Then I bought newer bodies. Currently using lenses 5-75 years old on Ms from M2 to M9.

Cheers,

R.