Is it worth using an expensive lens on an entry-level camera body?
Asked 2/24/2016
31 views
2 answers
0
I’m trying to understand whether lens price and camera body price should be in the same ballpark. Does it make sense to use a high-end lens on a cheap or entry-level camera, or do you only get the benefit on a similarly expensive body? In other words, is it normal for a lens to cost much more than the camera, or are the prices largely unrelated because they pay for different things?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
10y ago
2 Answers
40
This is mostly an anecdote but here you go. At one point I was shooting on a Canon Rebel XT. New I believe I paid in the range of $500 for the camera. By the end of what I found to be the useful range of the body, I had used a $2,200 70-200mm lens, a $1,500 85mm lens, and a $1,200 50mm lens on multiple occasions.
The lenses all performed wonderfully, and if anything just exposed the limitations of the body I was using. I found that pairing great glass with a not so great body is well worth the exercise for two reasons:
- To capture great images
- To understand where my camera body is holding me back
The lenses I give as my own personal examples only have a price difference of 2-4x. A price difference of 10-15x is in a completely different realm. The body itself may not be quite up to the task and may immediately be exposed for its weaknesses. It is possible that it fits your skill set and vision just fine, but only you would know.
Further, if you really can afford a $2,500 lens, why buy a $250 camera? I'm surprised that such a camera will actually fulfill the requirements that a user of such a lens has. In other words, would someone that has a discerning enough eye that needs a $2,500 lens to get the quality that they need actually be happy with a very inexpensive $250 camera? That would be far from typical.
My recommendation would be to bring the price multiplication factor a bit closer to the 2-3x range; I.e. If a $250 body suits your needs, check out $500-$750 lenses as a rough starting point. It is a good idea to spend a great percentage of your investment on lenses, but I think that 1 to 15 is far too great of a gap in all but the most extreme cases.
Originally by user4892. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user4892
10y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes—often it does make sense. In general, a great lens on an average body will usually give better image quality than an average lens on a great body.
Lens and body prices are not directly tied together. They affect different things: lenses strongly affect sharpness, aperture, depth of field, and bokeh, while bodies affect things like autofocus features, controls, sensor performance, and handling. Both can matter for low light and AF speed.
A good lens can also reveal the limits of a cheaper body, which helps you learn what you’d actually gain from a future upgrade. Another practical point is longevity: lenses usually change more slowly than camera bodies and often stay useful across multiple body upgrades.
So yes, it is normal for a lens to cost as much as, or more than, the camera body. The real question is whether that lens solves your photographic needs. The only caution is that at extreme price gaps, the body may not let you fully exploit everything the lens can do.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI10y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why do DSLR bodies at different price levels cost more, even with similar megapixels?
Why do Fujifilm X-mount lenses often cost more than comparable Canon lenses?
Should I upgrade my Nikon DSLR body or replace my 18-200mm lens first?
Why do Micro Four Thirds primes seem more expensive than Canon’s 50mm f/1.8?
Is a newer Nikon D5100 "better" than an older higher-end D200?