Robert McLaughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>CHEAPIE LENSES?
>>Another issue is that some people spend a lot of money on a good camera body
>>then use it with a poor lens. What is the point of doing that? That is like
>>buying a Ferrari and putting bicycle tires on it.
>When I wanted a hyper-wide angle lens my optionis were the Sigma 14mm
>($600) or Nikon 13mm ($12,000).
If the higher end stuff is simply not in your budget, that is fine. A Ferrari
certainly is not in mine. I am in the camp that says it is better to spend
less on the body and put that money into good lenses. Your example is extreme
and not a good one since there is no competition.
If something isn't in your budget then it may as well not exist no matter how
good it is and doesn't figure into the equation.
I bought crappy third party lenses (I am not saying all third party lenses are
crappy. 3rd party macro lenses and fast 80-200/f2.8 type lenses tend to be good.)
before. If I had to do it over again I still would buy them simply because good
lenses were absolutely unaffordable at the time I bought the 3rd party lenses.
(Actually, if I had to do it all over again, I would buy quality used lenses.
That would have cost the same or less and would have yielded better results.)
IMO, it is better to have a poor lens than to have
no lens at all. At the same time I would say one would get
better results (assuming one knows how to create good images) and save money
from a Canon A2e with a good lens than an F5 with a poor performing inexpensive lens.
Many people do buy very nice camera bodies and use very poor lenses on
them. My point is that this is a waste and there are better uses for their
money that would yield superior results.
Whenever I make a major purchase for photo equipment, I ask myself "Will this
expand my photo possibilities or result in noticeably better images?" If
the answer is no, then I don't buy it.
Some people with a tight budget don't consider that there might be better
alternatives. It is not just a question of Nikkor or 3rd party. Often times
it is the case that these people have never considered buying used. They are
more comfortable buying substandard new equipment than good condition
good performing used equipment. I was once this way but I have found that
there are used equipment available that are cheaper, perform better, and are
more durable than some corresponding new equipment. I don't think there is
as big a risk a some people think there is when buying used, especially if
that equipment is well built to begin with and has been handled with reasonable care.
David Johnson
