Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

More important - lens or body?

Jun 25, 2005 8:04PM PDT

Forgive me if this question sounds foolish, but generally speaking which is more important - the lens of a camera or the camera body?

I've been reading reviews on the Sigma 18-125mm lens and it seems that people attribute poor image quality, slow focusing speed and image distortion to the lens, as opposed to the camera body.
For example, reviewers were saying how the Sigma 18-125mm has "distortion on the wide and long end", and how it wasn't "fast" enough in low light situations.

But aren't these all issues that are dependent on the camera body (eg Canon DRebel XT) and not the lens? I'd always thought that the lens was secondary to the body, since all the camera functions (speed, autofocsing etc) are part of the body.

thoughts?

fast lens low light

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
On a plane, which is most important? The left wing or the
Jun 25, 2005 9:38PM PDT

right? You can have greatness in one part, but, without greatness in the other, you won't get a great result. The camera body cannot record what it doesn't see.

- Collapse -
Well....there are factors to consider on both fronts..but
Jun 25, 2005 11:18PM PDT

Check out www.photo.net for some rabid photo discussions....the net of my experience and research says that it is better to spend less on the body and more on the lenses. I have a Canon 20d (awesome) and several lenses. GENERALLY, the zooms that try and cover a large focal range (like the one you mention) have some shortcomings on the short and long end. Doesnt mean it isnt PRACTICAL, it means depending on how "picky" you are, it may not be as sharp as a zoom with a shorter range or a PRIME (fixed focal length) for example. I have a $90 Canon 50mm 1.8 that is awesome, so you can get very good quality for less in some cases. If you are a Canon fan (or considering) the Rebel XT is an excellent choice, and despite online criticism of the "KIT" lens (18-55) I think it is a good value. Check out www.bobatkins.com for a great overview of Canon DSLRs and lenses.

- Collapse -
Lens - body
Jun 26, 2005 1:13AM PDT

Focus is accomplished by the body sending commands to the lens. Both are important.

Exposure is handled by the body, but the lens determines how much light is available.
If the lens is rated at f4.5, the body will have to make adjustments to compensate for lower light availability.
A lens rated f1.8 is better for low light situations.
A f1.8 ZOOM lens does not exist.
Such a lens would be prohibitively expensive.

Image destortion is caused by the lens.

Image stabilization is done by the lens.

Here is a link to a site in the UK.
Sue Tranter uses a $4500 body and a $5500 lens for most of these shots:

http://www.suesbirdphotos.co.uk/bird_species.htm

...
..
.

- Collapse -
Hmnn...
Jun 26, 2005 6:25AM PDT

so since I'm getting the DRebel XT as opposed to the pricier 20D, does it justify me to get a more expensive lens? Happy

i really really like the focal range offered by Sigma 18-125mm, and only wish Canon had a similar lens with IS!! Am deciding then between the Sigma 18-125 and the Canon 28-135 IS - any recommendations?

I mean, if Sigma isn't THAT much worse than Canon, i'd probably go for the Sigma coz i have more wide angle...

- Collapse -
Sigma 18-125
Jun 26, 2005 8:39AM PDT

You are looking for a 18-125 lens because of the convenience of using only one lens. That is why most people like this lens.

Such a lens will not suit everyone, and since it is covering such a wide range, it will not be perfect in every way.

The point is, will those imperfections even be a factor in your use of the lens?

There are a lot of happy users of the Sigma 18-125.

You should check out a few pictures taken with the 18-125. If you like what you see, that is all that counts.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=14020374

...
..
.

- Collapse -
One lense is not for kind of shooting
Jun 27, 2005 4:05PM PDT

Even though 28-135 IS is a good lense, it doesn't cover all kind of shootings. I suggest that you spend for what you have and need now. Get started with a wide angle lense ( such as Canon 17-40mm F4 ), mid-range zoom-lense (24-70mm F2.8L), and telephoto lense ( 70-200 F4L). These lenses are the must if you'll get serious in photography.The pictures' quaility taken by Canon lenses are quite different from Sigma or Tamron lense. Distinctively, considering color, distortion, and contrast. But, I don't suggest that you buy these lenses all at once. Get started on one of them at a time. See what kind of picture you shoot more frequent. In the long term, these lenses will outlast your camera for years to come. It's quite an investment. Any way, some used lenses are also available, find them at your nearby camera & lense shops.