Quote:
|
Originally Posted by footfootfoot
Bullitt,
I refer you to http://photo.net for up to the minute discussions about lenses for the 30D. I don't do digital, those shots were made with a c.1954 Leica, a c. 1939 Rolleiflex, and a couple of more modern view cameras, mostly with schneider lenses.
But, regardless of the camera body, the most important link in the chain (besides you) is the lens. You'd do better to buy a box of quaker oats and a $3,000 lens than buying a $3,000 camera and a p.o.s. aftermarket lens.
Would you want to drive into the sun with a dirty, pitted windshield? It doesn't much matter what kind of car it is if you can't see where youa re going.
Unless of course, you shoot exclusively soft and atmospheric shots. 
That's my spiel on lenses. They are the thing that focuses the light, the rest is just a fancy light proof box.
Ask Spexxvet what he thinks. |
Okay, that is the kind of response I am getting from alot of people in other photography forums. I'm thinking of getting a used nice digital, then getting one nice lens, then building up. I'm aborting the film route I learned in high school because I would rather have a nice digital which can do 5 shots per second, then have to shell out for a nice scanner and printer in order to digitally archive my photos