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.
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

Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic