Why the resistance to buying new lenses?

Jonathan Mac · 03-19-2015, 01:17 AM

I have a couple of workmates who are interested in photography and have cheap/old Canon DSLRs. One of them, who now has a 1100D and a couple of kit lenses and produces decent results with them, asked me my opinion as he was thinking of upgrading. He presented his options as the 70D or original 7D, which are now around the same price.

My first response was that they both had one problem - they were made by Canon, who have the worst sensors on the market. A quick check of DXO ratings really took him aback: 70D - 68, 7D - 66, K3 - 80. His 1100D scores at 62. He knows I just bought a K3 and it goes for about the same price as the two Canons. Anyway, he doesn't want to change lenses, even though he just has cheap kit lenses.

My second response was that he would see a much clearer improvement in his images if he upgraded to a better lens rather than a better body, and that it would cost him much less (I had the Tamron 17-50 in mind). At that point he did what ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY I've ever suggested this to: the eyes glaze over, the mouth starts to move but no sound comes out, and the brain leaps into gear trying to think up valid reasons why the lens suggestion might not work and it had to be a new camera.

I pointed out it would be cheaper, the results would be better, his wife would see the results and not be so unhappy about the expenditure, nothing shifted him. He wanted a new camera and he was going to have one, and never mind the results. He even insisted it had to be a Canon, despite showing that the models he was looking at had markedly inferior IQ to similarly priced alternatives.

I don't understand. Why do people not prioritise results over new gadgetry? Why does a lens not qualify as a new gadget to play with? People won't see reason and it makes no sense

flaviopetrone · 03-19-2015, 01:33 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

I don't understand. Why do people not prioritise results over new gadgetry? Why does a lens not qualify as a new gadget to play with? People won't see reason and it makes no sense

Welcome to the 21st century, where is not important the result but to appear. If you show a new camera with a lot of new gadgets, everyone will say "ooohhhh", if you show a new lens, the most of the people will ask you "what's the difference with the old one?".

Macario · 03-19-2015, 01:44 AM

it is called marketing.

A new camera, will be faster, better sensor, newer firmware etc. A lens, well is just a lens. It has been on the market for years, so it cannot be a s good as a new camera.

that's how people see it, that's how marketing works. It is not in the interest of the camera companies to sell too many lenses, as when you buy one, it will be with you for years (mostly). So they make money out of it ones every million years or so. Well, camera bodies are like bread, you almost buy one every day. So that's where the money is.

abmj · 03-19-2015, 02:11 AM

It is actually not that surprising that the average home photographer does not even know that better lenses can produce better images. I can't count how many times folks who admire one of my images ask "what camera did you use?" Not what lens or technique, just what camera? They think the image is made by the camera and the lens is just a part of the camera. Why replace it if it isn't broken? Most never change lenses during the life of the camera unless they bought it as a "2-lens package." Even then, they just stay with the lenses that came with the camera as if something else would not "fit" as well as what came with it. These are the same type of folks who see no difference in other "tools of the trade" in other pursuits. "Why buy an expensive new guitar when the starter model I have works fine?" "Why invest so much in a high end tennis racket when the one I got at the local big box store works fine?"

They just don't understand and are not invested enough in the hobby to learn. They just want to take pictures of the kids or family vacation and don't care to delve further into the pastime. These are the folks the base models are for - the Canon Rebels and such. The kit lens is just fine for them. As long as they are happy, it is probably better to just let them enjoy what they have and get on with your life. Guys like that are probably happier in the long run than those of us who suffer from our irrational LBA or continual new camera lusts. :-D

**Rondec** · 03-19-2015, 02:45 AM - **1 Like**

This is just the way people think. I don't know how many times people will say "Oh, you must have a nice camera," or "How many megapixels does your camera have?" as though that's what produces the results. Probably some of it is marketing, some of it is that we are just gadget crazy (oh, look, the new K3 has an adjustable AA filter).

Even though I do trust DXO Mark's sensor evaluations, I still think this is a very tiny part of what it takes to get a good image. Yes, if you were shooting landscapes with a 7D, you would be a lot more inclined to exposure bracket than if you were shooting with a K5, but for most other purposes both cameras are quite capable. On the other hand, 50mm f1.8 lenses are so cheap at this point that I don't understand why everyone doesn't own at least one.

drypenn · 03-19-2015, 03:12 AM - **1 Like**

For most people, a lens is a lens is a lens (which is just a piece of glass), unlike a camera which can have as many features or eye candies as their manufacturers can cram in.

When Mrs. drypenn once asked me how much I bought my K50/1.2, and I told her: about $320, she was surprised and quickly remarked "How can it be so expensive when it's still a piece of glass?"-- a question I dared not answer!

Then more than a month ago, she asked how much my K3 was, and I told her: about $900, and all she said was: "That's nice".

Billk · 03-19-2015, 03:21 AM

The fundamental split in the photography world is between people obsessed with lenses and people obsessed with cameras. The Canon/ Nikon/ other split is nothing by comparison.

AldaCZ · 03-19-2015, 03:24 AM

I love when people scowl at my K30 with Tamron 17-50

Rupert · 03-19-2015, 03:54 AM - **2 Likes**

This whole article surprised and shocked me! I always thought that if you owned a Canon, the most vaulted name in photography, you didn't even need a lens? You just walk about with your Canon logo on your big Canon and strap, and when you get home and turn on your computer, excellent photos just pop on the screen ready for printing and framing?

Regards!

**Des** · 03-19-2015, 04:12 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Rondec

I don't know how many times people will say "Oh, you must have a nice camera," or "How many megapixels does your camera have?" as though that's what produces the results

Ain't that the truth. (I am so tempted to respond, "You know, people used to say to Rembrandt, "You must have good brushes".)

Maybe people relate to a DSLR as just another little computer, like their smartphone, laptop, tablet, satnav etc etc. There's no ready analogy for lenses.

**RobA_Oz** · 03-19-2015, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by Des

Ain't that the truth. (I am so tempted to respond, "You know, people used to say to Rembrandt, "You must have good brushes".)

Maybe people relate to a DSLR as just another little computer, like their smartphone, laptop, tablet, satnav etc etc. There's no ready analogy for lenses.

I think it was Annie Liebowitz who is said to have had the best rejoinder to a dinner party host who said that to her. She allegedly thanked the host for a lovely dinner and remarked that she must have really good pots!

Na Horuk · 03-19-2015, 04:32 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

My second response was that he would see a much clearer improvement in his images if he upgraded to a better lens rather than a better body, and that it would cost him much less (I had the Tamron 17-50 in mind).

I think most people on this forum would agree. Here we often recommend a new lens over a new camera because
a) cameras become "obsolete" as tech improves (sensor, AF, features), while even really old lenses can produce great photos. You can find examples of people using lenses from the 70s, 50s and make photos that rival anything taken with modern lenses
b) a lens will generally lose its value more slowly, so its more of an investment than a camera body, which loses value quickly as new models are announced

That being said, I think we have a lens revolution at hand. Lenses like Zeiss Otus, Sigma art series, new nanocrystal coatings, modern computers helping with lens engineering.. I suspect in the next few years the lenses might make a big leap, while cameras will not improve much beyond the current flagships. But this is just my silly idea

Anthen · 03-19-2015, 05:10 AM

I think better autofocus is, for the daily user, more convenient than the increase in sharpness or bokeh. Buying a DSLR for most is to take pictures to document things, not to make art. So I would say it does make some sense, to choose the camera over the lens.

**TER-OR** · 03-19-2015, 05:46 AM

First, branding. This is a very powerful force and we are all susceptible.

Second, low technical knowledge. Pentax isn't as bad about flooding a market but if you look at the Cannikon environment there are so many overlapping lenses a casual photographer really has no idea where to start. Where do you get honest information - not just fanboy rants? I think it's very difficult for someone to figure out which medium zoom is best for them - and which level of technology is even compatible.

Third - embarrassment. People will understandably get defensive when their choices are challenged. There is an art to challenging people, it has to start with a positive engagement.

Rupert · 03-19-2015, 05:49 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

I think it was Annie Liebowitz who is said to have had the best rejoinder to a dinner party host who said that to her. She allegedly thanked the host for a lovely dinner and remarked that she must have really good pots!

If you don't have a big Canon......you probably won't even get invited to the dinner party?

Regards!

03-19-2015, 01:17 AM	#1
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,910	Why the resistance to buying new lenses? I have a couple of workmates who are interested in photography and have cheap/old Canon DSLRs. One of them, who now has a 1100D and a couple of kit lenses and produces decent results with them, asked me my opinion as he was thinking of upgrading. He presented his options as the 70D or original 7D, which are now around the same price. My first response was that they both had one problem - they were made by Canon, who have the worst sensors on the market. A quick check of DXO ratings really took him aback: 70D - 68, 7D - 66, K3 - 80. His 1100D scores at 62. He knows I just bought a K3 and it goes for about the same price as the two Canons. Anyway, he doesn't want to change lenses, even though he just has cheap kit lenses. My second response was that he would see a much clearer improvement in his images if he upgraded to a better lens rather than a better body, and that it would cost him much less (I had the Tamron 17-50 in mind). At that point he did what ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY I've ever suggested this to: the eyes glaze over, the mouth starts to move but no sound comes out, and the brain leaps into gear trying to think up valid reasons why the lens suggestion might not work and it had to be a new camera. I pointed out it would be cheaper, the results would be better, his wife would see the results and not be so unhappy about the expenditure, nothing shifted him. He wanted a new camera and he was going to have one, and never mind the results. He even insisted it had to be a Canon, despite showing that the models he was looking at had markedly inferior IQ to similarly priced alternatives. I don't understand. Why do people not prioritise results over new gadgetry? Why does a lens not qualify as a new gadget to play with? People won't see reason and it makes no sense

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Northern Lights, Lenses and Weather Resistance	Wolframium	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	8	09-19-2014 08:42 AM
Weather Resistance of Good Non WR Lenses	kthornsberry	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	09-16-2014 01:29 PM
Why no new lenses or renewal lenses?	sunshine7913	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	23	08-26-2014 11:57 AM
Weather Resistance? yeah how about coke resistance?	redeleon	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	10-19-2010 12:32 AM
Renting New Lenses vs. Buying Old Lenses	ajtour	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	03-30-2010 06:39 PM

03-19-2015, 01:33 AM - 1 Like	#2
flaviopetrone Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Reggio Emilia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,153	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac I don't understand. Why do people not prioritise results over new gadgetry? Why does a lens not qualify as a new gadget to play with? People won't see reason and it makes no sense Welcome to the 21st century, where is not important the result but to appear. If you show a new camera with a lot of new gadgets, everyone will say "ooohhhh", if you show a new lens, the most of the people will ask you "what's the difference with the old one?".

03-19-2015, 01:44 AM	#3
Macario Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Hoek van Holland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,393	it is called marketing. A new camera, will be faster, better sensor, newer firmware etc. A lens, well is just a lens. It has been on the market for years, so it cannot be a s good as a new camera. that's how people see it, that's how marketing works. It is not in the interest of the camera companies to sell too many lenses, as when you buy one, it will be with you for years (mostly). So they make money out of it ones every million years or so. Well, camera bodies are like bread, you almost buy one every day. So that's where the money is.

03-19-2015, 02:11 AM	#4
abmj Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Central California Posts: 600	It is actually not that surprising that the average home photographer does not even know that better lenses can produce better images. I can't count how many times folks who admire one of my images ask "what camera did you use?" Not what lens or technique, just what camera? They think the image is made by the camera and the lens is just a part of the camera. Why replace it if it isn't broken? Most never change lenses during the life of the camera unless they bought it as a "2-lens package." Even then, they just stay with the lenses that came with the camera as if something else would not "fit" as well as what came with it. These are the same type of folks who see no difference in other "tools of the trade" in other pursuits. "Why buy an expensive new guitar when the starter model I have works fine?" "Why invest so much in a high end tennis racket when the one I got at the local big box store works fine?" They just don't understand and are not invested enough in the hobby to learn. They just want to take pictures of the kids or family vacation and don't care to delve further into the pastime. These are the folks the base models are for - the Canon Rebels and such. The kit lens is just fine for them. As long as they are happy, it is probably better to just let them enjoy what they have and get on with your life. Guys like that are probably happier in the long run than those of us who suffer from our irrational LBA or continual new camera lusts. :-D

03-19-2015, 02:45 AM - 1 Like	#5
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	This is just the way people think. I don't know how many times people will say "Oh, you must have a nice camera," or "How many megapixels does your camera have?" as though that's what produces the results. Probably some of it is marketing, some of it is that we are just gadget crazy (oh, look, the new K3 has an adjustable AA filter). Even though I do trust DXO Mark's sensor evaluations, I still think this is a very tiny part of what it takes to get a good image. Yes, if you were shooting landscapes with a 7D, you would be a lot more inclined to exposure bracket than if you were shooting with a K5, but for most other purposes both cameras are quite capable. On the other hand, 50mm f1.8 lenses are so cheap at this point that I don't understand why everyone doesn't own at least one.

03-19-2015, 03:12 AM - 1 Like	#6
drypenn Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 963	For most people, a lens is a lens is a lens (which is just a piece of glass), unlike a camera which can have as many features or eye candies as their manufacturers can cram in. When Mrs. drypenn once asked me how much I bought my K50/1.2, and I told her: about $320, she was surprised and quickly remarked "How can it be so expensive when it's still a piece of glass?"-- a question I dared not answer! Then more than a month ago, she asked how much my K3 was, and I told her: about $900, and all she said was: "That's nice".

03-19-2015, 03:21 AM	#7
Billk Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Posts: 349	The fundamental split in the photography world is between people obsessed with lenses and people obsessed with cameras. The Canon/ Nikon/ other split is nothing by comparison.

03-19-2015, 03:24 AM	#8
AldaCZ Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: North Bohemia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,251	I love when people scowl at my K30 with Tamron 17-50

03-19-2015, 03:54 AM - 2 Likes	#9
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	This whole article surprised and shocked me! I always thought that if you owned a Canon, the most vaulted name in photography, you didn't even need a lens? You just walk about with your Canon logo on your big Canon and strap, and when you get home and turn on your computer, excellent photos just pop on the screen ready for printing and framing? Regards!

03-19-2015, 04:12 AM - 1 Like	#10
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	Originally posted by Rondec I don't know how many times people will say "Oh, you must have a nice camera," or "How many megapixels does your camera have?" as though that's what produces the results Ain't that the truth. (I am so tempted to respond, "You know, people used to say to Rembrandt, "You must have good brushes".) Maybe people relate to a DSLR as just another little computer, like their smartphone, laptop, tablet, satnav etc etc. There's no ready analogy for lenses.

03-19-2015, 04:18 AM	#11
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,200	Originally posted by Des Ain't that the truth. (I am so tempted to respond, "You know, people used to say to Rembrandt, "You must have good brushes".) Maybe people relate to a DSLR as just another little computer, like their smartphone, laptop, tablet, satnav etc etc. There's no ready analogy for lenses. I think it was Annie Liebowitz who is said to have had the best rejoinder to a dinner party host who said that to her. She allegedly thanked the host for a lovely dinner and remarked that she must have really good pots!

03-19-2015, 04:32 AM - 1 Like	#12
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac My second response was that he would see a much clearer improvement in his images if he upgraded to a better lens rather than a better body, and that it would cost him much less (I had the Tamron 17-50 in mind). I think most people on this forum would agree. Here we often recommend a new lens over a new camera because a) cameras become "obsolete" as tech improves (sensor, AF, features), while even really old lenses can produce great photos. You can find examples of people using lenses from the 70s, 50s and make photos that rival anything taken with modern lenses b) a lens will generally lose its value more slowly, so its more of an investment than a camera body, which loses value quickly as new models are announced That being said, I think we have a lens revolution at hand. Lenses like Zeiss Otus, Sigma art series, new nanocrystal coatings, modern computers helping with lens engineering.. I suspect in the next few years the lenses might make a big leap, while cameras will not improve much beyond the current flagships. But this is just my silly idea

03-19-2015, 05:10 AM	#13
Anthen Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 79	I think better autofocus is, for the daily user, more convenient than the increase in sharpness or bokeh. Buying a DSLR for most is to take pictures to document things, not to make art. So I would say it does make some sense, to choose the camera over the lens.

03-19-2015, 05:46 AM	#14
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	First, branding. This is a very powerful force and we are all susceptible. Second, low technical knowledge. Pentax isn't as bad about flooding a market but if you look at the Cannikon environment there are so many overlapping lenses a casual photographer really has no idea where to start. Where do you get honest information - not just fanboy rants? I think it's very difficult for someone to figure out which medium zoom is best for them - and which level of technology is even compatible. Third - embarrassment. People will understandably get defensive when their choices are challenged. There is an art to challenging people, it has to start with a positive engagement.

03-19-2015, 05:49 AM - 1 Like	#15
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Originally posted by RobA_Oz I think it was Annie Liebowitz who is said to have had the best rejoinder to a dinner party host who said that to her. She allegedly thanked the host for a lovely dinner and remarked that she must have really good pots! If you don't have a big Canon......you probably won't even get invited to the dinner party? Regards!