Camera - Lens Rules?

Getting good glass is definitely more than just 'new rims'. I would consider it as a huge suspension upgrade... Sure you may not have a lot of power under that hood, but the 'sporting' potential will increase dramatically.

What good is it to have 500hp, if you can't keep it planted... Kind of a waste of all the power, unless you just want to go straight.

Besides, when you do upgrade to a better body, you can rest assured that you'll have some good glass. So in my opinion, purchasing good glass is really an investment.

themadman wrote in post #11440720
There is a simple rule, Glass is supreme. There is close to no such thing as too good of glass for any body.

There is such thing as a body that somewhat defeats the purpose of the glass, though. For example the 24L is a near $2000 lens because it is an really fast, really wide lens on FF and is uniquely capable of creating subject isolation at a very wide angle. Put it on a crop body and it is like a 40mm semi-normal prime with considerably less subject isolation capabilities.

Likewise if someone is buying a 70-200 f2.8L because it is an excellent lens for action sports, pairing it with an XS with mediocre AF and burst rate might dampen the utility of the lens.

So normally I agree that glass is most important, but as always it depends on your goals.

Glass over body, IMO.

tkbslc wrote in post #11442407
There is such thing as a body that somewhat defeats the purpose of the glass, though. For example the 24L is a near $2000 lens because it is an really fast, really wide lens on FF and is uniquely capable of creating subject isolation at a very wide angle. Put it on a crop body and it is like a 40mm semi-normal prime with considerably less subject isolation capabilities.

It might not use the full capacity of the lens, but it doesn't defeat the purpose. After all is there an alternative 24mm F/1.4 to use on crop bodies? Or do you think someone should buy a 5D + 35 F/2 or something just for those particular shots?

phreeky wrote in post #11442768
It might not use the full capacity of the lens, but it doesn't defeat the purpose. After all is there an alternative 24mm F/1.4 to use on crop bodies? Or do you think someone should buy a 5D + 35 F/2 or something just for those particular shots?

That's the point I was trying to make, you have reduced the lens to the equivalent of a fairly common and inexpensive lens on FF. Sure it is still a phenomenal lens, but you stripped it of most of it's "magic" by using it on crop.

You can run into problems with the lens and camera not physically balancing well (i.e. centre of gravity), especially if you put a big lens on a small body.

melcat wrote in post #11443143
You can run into problems with the lens and camera not physically balancing well (i.e. centre of gravity), especially if you put a big lens on a small body.

I always hear this but still am totally unable to understand it. Most photographers I know will hold a camera/body pair one hand, left, underneath the lens supporting 100% of the weight of the camera/lens pair. The other hand operation the controls is there for stability. Where the hand is held depends on the lens/body configuration but from heaviest body to lightest I would be surprised if it moved more than an inch. But say it is true and a heavy lens with light body causes the system to become unstable and unbalanceable. Then why would a heavy camera not cause the same issue as the center of gravity will now move back. Is there an ideal weighted body? Does the weight of the body change per lens? Should Canon start including that in their specifications? (This lens is designed to operate with a 443gram body)

I often wondered that too. Maybe canon should sell counterweights threaded for the tripod mount to balance the camera.

I am in similar situation to OP - I have Rebel XS, and I love it, and recently bought some decent glass (Tamron 17-50mm, and Canon 135mm F2L). There is only one potential issue you have to be aware of: these fast lenses are super-sensitive to mis-calibrations of the camera's and / or lenses AF systems; with more expensive cameras, you can calibrate all this yourself (AF micro-adjust feature), but Rebel XS cannot do that. I discovered my both expensive lenses are either front or back-focusing with the camera. If this is the case, you could either live with it (use slow Live View focusing, or MF), or send the camera and the lesnes for calibration (as I did).

TomCross13 wrote in post #11440645
I have a Rebel XS and either going to buy a 70-200 2.8L or 4.0L but just for fun I was wondering if there are any "rules" you guys go by about cheap cameras with expensive lenses? Kind of like a busted ass car with new rims.

The XS is an extremely capable camera. And no, that rule about not putting a cheap lens on a good camera is also false. Great photos can be achieved with any Camera/Lens combination, whether it be a 1Ds w/ 50mm f/1.8 or XS w/ 800mm f/5.6L... it does not matter.

The main reason to go with lenses before a better camera is for the versatility and features like Aperture/FocalLength/I​S.

I bought the 70-200mm F/2.8L when I still had my XS. Right now I am using that and two other L series lenses with my T2i. Not even counting the kit lenses, my 3 L's cost 5x what my body cost. Only now am I considering something like a 5D and only because I would like to have full frame and higher iso for landscapes at night. Most likely I will wait for the 5D Mark iii and buy a couple more nice lenses before them.

With a stereo system the rule used to be that you spend 50% of the money on speakers. I've never seen a ratio for photography.

tkbslc wrote in post #11442868
That's the point I was trying to make, you have reduced the lens to the equivalent of a fairly common and inexpensive lens on FF. Sure it is still a phenomenal lens, but you stripped it of most of it's "magic" by using it on crop.

I completely agree with what you're saying, but there aren't a lot of other options for that scenario, and either way you're going to be able to make very nice images and be spending the same amount of money. A 5D2 and a 35/2 or a 50D and a 24LII would run around 2200 on the used market. Both would give you plenty of resolution, the ability to MFA, essentially the same FOV and effective subject isolation, and probably even a nod to the xxD/24L combo with regard to autofocus.

Personally, in this particular example I'd go with the 5D2 and 35 (which I have) but I couldn't tell anyone they were wrong for owning a xxD camera with the 24LII because regardless of the camera body it's still the best wide angle autofocus prime that Canon makes. Just because you shoot APS-C doesn't mean there's some better choice (you can make the better value argument with the Sigma 30/1.4 but the FOV is different by about 10mm).

Same thing with the 70-200 for sports example. If you currently own a XSi and a Nifty 50 and think "I'm going to buy one item for $2000" I'd rather shoot sports with an XSi and a 70-200L IS2 than a 1D3 and a Nifty 50. Obviously these are extreme examples and the "right" thing to do is somewhere in the middle (like a 1D2 & 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS).

Having great glass may make you want a better camera, but there's no reason to think you can't pair essentially any kit together.

gjl711 wrote in post #11444025
I always hear this but still am totally unable to understand it. Most photographers I know will hold a camera/body pair one hand, left, underneath the lens supporting 100% of the weight of the camera/lens pair. The other hand operation the controls is there for stability. Where the hand is held depends on the lens/body configuration but from heaviest body to lightest I would be surprised if it moved more than an inch. But say it is true and a heavy lens with light body causes the system to become unstable and unbalanceable. Then why would a heavy camera not cause the same issue as the center of gravity will now move back. Is there an ideal weighted body? Does the weight of the body change per lens? Should Canon start including that in their specifications? (This lens is designed to operate with a 443gram body)

Perhaps, precisely because the CoG does move back - closer to the body. It's easier to hold a 10 lb dumbbell closer to your body than it is to hold it at arm's length because the lever arm is shorter when it's closer to your body. Supporting the heavier camera with the arm that's closer to your body should be easier than supporting the heavier lens farther away from your body.

I mentioned in a recent thread about the use of grips that I have recently removed mine form my cameras after four years of using them; and I definitely notice the difference in balance when using my 24-70 L or Sigma 70-200.

The body will serve you well enough with the great lens, but I will say this, the XS mounted to a 70-200 f/2.8L IS (I or II) will look and feel like a lenscap on that heavy lens. The most likely issue you'll face is balance. The lens is heavy and the body is super light... get the grip for your XS for sure or you might find the lens unwieldy. Other than that... go for it. Be aware that you will lust for a heavier body to mate to that lens in no time, plus you'll want more MP's and FPS depending on what you intend to shoot and how.

So here's something I've been wondering about. Are there any combinations that won't physically fit? I happened to be sitting next to a guy this weekend who had a 5dm2 and either a 50 1.2l or an 85 1.2l. The lens was huge and it looked like there was no way that it could fit on my little t1i. Is it possible?