Awhile back DigitalRev did a vid about bad glass on a good body vs good glass on a bad body. Short verdict was good glass always wins.

I would tend to agree.

I would also add, GOOD LIGHT and good glass can produce fantastic results even on the older, less capable bodies. A decent lens and the right light with even a lowly body like a D40 can make some stunning images.

tcole1983 said:
Hmmm my ratio of lens money to body money at this point is about 10:1 and if I ever upgrade my body will be around 4:1...so sticking with lenses here. Now you still have to keep up with the lately technology I think. Several generation newer bodies can do wonder for picture quality from what I have seen, but at the same time putting junky glass on an expensive body seems like a moot point also.

But now for years to come I can still use my glass I have invested in already...and my body is already out of date and needs (or I want to) upgrading.

I am with you as far as my own personal purchases go, tcole.

Only problem for me, is that my money doesn't go as far as my eyes tell me it needs to ;-)

Hmmm my ratio of lens money to body money at this point is about 10:1 and if I ever upgrade my body will be around 4:1...so sticking with lenses here. Now you still have to keep up with the lately technology I think. Several generation newer bodies can do wonder for picture quality from what I have seen, but at the same time putting junky glass on an expensive body seems like a moot point also.

But now for years to come I can still use my glass I have invested in already...and my body is already out of date and needs (or I want to) upgrading.

AA is indeed famous for his landscapes but early in his career, he could not support his family, solely with his creative work. Like many "creative " photographers he did "commercial" photography and like most commercial photographers, he took whatever work he could get and that included portraiture, see Ansel Adams an Autobiography

sevencrossing said:
Do look up his portaits of Albert Bender, Georgia O'Keeffe & Orville Cox, Robinson Jeffers, Mary Austin, Beaumont Newhall, Cedric Wright, Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston

Yes, I have mispoken....what I meant to say, was, his landscapes generally did not include people....and I believe this was quite intentional in sharing the scene as he saw it. It was to my understanding, the importance in his work was on the natural resources in the landscapes and the portraits he did snap were of far less importance. This is only my understanding and I could be in error here as well. But my knowledge is based on discussions from years ago..

Thanks sevencrossing..

msmoto said:
Probably important to understand, Ansel Adams lived in a time which was technologically limited. ........ he made little attempt to photograph people.......Just a few thoughts to encourage more comments :-)

Do look up his portaits of Albert Bender, Georgia O'Keeffe & Orville Cox, Robinson Jeffers, Mary Austin, Beaumont Newhall, Cedric Wright, Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston

Probably important to understand, Ansel Adams lived in a time which was technologically limited. No digital, no computers capable of what we can do today, and most important, his passion was the landscape. While his images are the highest form of photographic art, he made little attempt to photograph people.

If one is a "paparazzi" and is interested in recording life, then the camera's capabilities become very important. The high ISO, rapid frame rates, rapid interchangeability of lenses, and portability of the camera body are in some cases critical. So, in one senses asking which is more important is like asking which is more important in the car...the engine or the transmission....

Just a few thoughts to encourage more comments :-)

For me? I believe in lenses. Fast glass.

I took a note from reading about Ansel Adams some years back and it made sense to me. He said, all other things being equal, the lens is the most important. If it does not get through the glass, you'll never see it on the image.

As an example, I bought the Nikon 70-200mm ED VR II f/2.8 early in 2012. Fast glass. In the middle of shooting a season of local baseball, I could suddenly see very detailed fine dust/dirt particles in my images just as my eye did as the players moved or from the catchers glove. Others were just as amazed at the 'new' images.

Before that I was using an f/4.5 Nikon zoom/tele. Both good lenses, but the VR II f2/8 internal zoom was better from all my reading and seeing it could be f/2.8 through its focal range was something to be said.

I've the same experience with my Micro Nikkor 60mm and two other very good lenses.

Fast glass rules for me as I love hearing people's breath being taken in at the sight of my pictures. :-) It just makes a good camera better.

I'll get a new body in 2013. My investments in glass that I have made will only improve even more then.

You know what?

Working at a uni myself, this year, we started to use the Journo and art students to do more assignment work than ever before. It gives them much more 'real-world' experience as the student newspaper has deadlines four days a week as do the TV and radio stations every single day.

Almost none of the kids we have on our 'assignment list' use Nikon! This is good news for me as the line we had last year for the fast glass doesn't exist this year :) We have one outstanding girl that uses a Sony she is really good at capturing emotion and action - like in union meetings when people are shouting and waving hands and stuff.

A good camera maker like Nikon, will have lenses that will work with several generations of camera bodies. With only a 2 to 4 year life cycle for the bodies now that reinforces the value of good glass that doesn't cost quite so much in the long run.

If you're taking at least one photography class, you can have your equipment costs included in student loans. If you haven't maxed out your subsidized student loan amount, that's a great option to buy now and pay when you're actually making money. However, it wouldn't make sense to use unsubsidized student loans for that purpose, as the interest would make the equipment cost much more by the time you graduate.

File your FAFSA then talk to the financial aid department at your school.

I'd also recommend students talk to the marketing/PR people at whatever college or university they attend and ask if they're looking for a student photographer. Most schools hire student to cover events for them (and if you can write in AP style, all the better). They'll probably have equipment for you to use that you might not be able to afford on your own. Even if they don't though, it's an invaluable resume and portfolio building opportunity.

At a larger university, each area of campus might have its own PR/marketing people, so you can ask around in each area. At a smaller college, those functions will probably be centralized in one department. Regardless, make sure to bring a portfolio and resume whenever you ask about jobs. I work for the Marketing Communications department at a small college, and we are always on the lookout for talented student workers, but I'm also often surprised by just how little they know about how to find a job.

As for the original question, lenses won't only last longer, I think they will have more effect on the images you create than bodies; however, that can also depend on what type of shots you want. I shoot a lot of events for work with my personal (and hopefully soon-to-be replaced) D5000, which I bought as a starter so I could afford good glass. My more experienced coworker shoots with the office D300s, which he invariably pairs with a slow lens and a good flash. I won't deny his studio portraiture is better than mine, but my event and sports images are better than his because I've built a collection of f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms over the last couple years.

kyoshinikon said:
Lenses... and as to $10 a day, every student can do without 3 Starbucks fraps...

I support my camera and violin hardware requirements on $60.00 a week. In one year you have a D800, in two years you have a D4. in 8 months you have a 24-70 mm, etc. It is a lot easier now than it used to be, because there is no need to buy film!

jonnyapple said:
2 packs of ramen noodles: $0.40. That's what I'm talking about, shade.

Do you know that when I was a college student 35 years ago ramen was about the same price as it is today? But a Nikon F2 with an 50 mm lens was about $500, which was almost as much as my annual tuition. I still have (and use) the camera and 50 mm lens. To buy a new 50 mm manual focus lens would be $400.00.

My thought is to buy the best FX lenses you can get, and go with a cheaper DX body for now, as you will always be able to, and want to, buy better bodies in the future, and as others have said, your lenses will wait for you.

And don't eat too much Ramen: it has way too much sodium!

Yep Lenses have it, and they don't depreciate like camera bodies

I'd add lenses to anything D300 and up instead of bodies unless you are into DSLR video and I have found the D7000 is very good. The 16-85 lens and a few other variable stop lens work just about as well as the 2.8s. I use 2.8s though exclusively in macro. I have had better luck with Nikkor in 35mm. Larger format glass is a whole different matter. Most lens seem to last forever. I have had a couple that it became an issue if the body or the glass was done for and it turned out to be the lens.

I stray away from Nikkor and use Zeiss glass instead nowdays. But then again, if i need a speciality lens (except for Macro), I obviously go for Nikkor.

Agreed, lenses over bodies, but eventually your body would be so old your body would be holding back your lenses.

I would say a safe time to upgrade your body is ever other generation at the soonest. If you can hold off, you'd be even better.

Upgrading from a D70 to a D80 would not have gotten you very far.

From a D70 to a D7000 though, that'd be a huge leap.

I hope I take that leap later. :D

jlmphotos said:
First of all, cameras and lenses are not investments. With that said, I say "invest" in the best lenses you can afford. Cameras, as you can tell by reading here and other sites come and go every six months. Lenses, if you stay with say Nikon, or Canon or whatever pretty much will last you a lifetime assuming you take care of them.
My vote is invest in the best glass you can get.

If you make money with your camera then sure they are investments. Of course lenses last longer and are the "better" investment in the long run, but there is a point where if you are really serious then you have to spend the money on a body as well. Of course there will always be new technology being developed, but with a pro level body even years down the road it should still be able to produce suitable pictures even if it doesn't have the newest AF system or high ISO capability.

I really think that most dSLR cameras are at the point where unless you are making huge posters then all the bodies produce high enough quality pictures for just about any need.

First of all, cameras and lenses are not investments. With that said, I say "invest" in the best lenses you can afford. Cameras, as you can tell by reading here and other sites come and go every six months. Lenses, if you stay with say Nikon, or Canon or whatever pretty much will last you a lifetime assuming you take care of them.
My vote is invest in the best glass you can get.

kyoshinikon said:
Get the old AF 17-35mm f/2.8 instead

agreed!!

Get the old AF 17-35mm f/2.8 instead

I ended up ordering a refurbished D3 and a new 24-70 f/2.8, I am holding off on the 14-24 to see how the reviews are on the new 16-35. Thanks again all for the suggestions

Lenses... and as to $10 a day, every student can do without 3 Starbucks fraps...

so true. . .I've decided to stash away $100 a month for camera gear, and starting in February, I would've spent everything I saved (lol. . .)

Willis said:
Tj- that's an easy one: Spend less than you earn. Put away $10 a day and you'll have a d3x before you graduate.

Thanks, Willis. I'll take that to heart.

If you can work, and you are single, then you can scrape together $10 a day. If not make it $5 and you still get a nice stash by the end of four years. Im spoiled because I got to skipp the ramen and go straight to totinos pizza and ranch style beans. Both will set you back about $1.

Strangly, I earned most of college income welding and reffing basketball games. I'm terrible at both. Fourtuneatly it only cost me about $600 a month for food rent and bills. Almost makes me want to re-enroll.