The "Catch-22" of camera buying is that you need to have experience with a camera to know what kind of camera you should buy. You can't determine which camera will fit your photographic needs without knowing what kinds of photography you want to do. You can't know that without actually doing some photography. So until you buy and use a camera and do some photography, you can't know what kind of camera you should buy. That's "Catch-22".

Most folks will recommend either what they have, or the newest very pricey model that they wish they had, rather than what you probably need for your photography hobby. This form of advice giving is called "self-validation", meaning they recommend to you what they have decided to buy as a way of validating their own decisions.

The first requirement to giving good advice is to identify and understand your probable goals and needs in photography. We can't do this by telepathy. We have to ask you many questions and usually explain some issues to make even a good start at answering your questions. If someone starts to give you advice without asking a lot of questions about what you want to do, now and in the future, and your budget for doing it - Watch Out!

People often develop a "religious" devotion to their brand of camera(s) and lens(es), and argue vehemently against other brands (usually on the basis of little or no actual experience). Again, this is a form of self-validation.

Camera brand devotion is also usually a sign of limited experience with other brands and formats of cameras. Those of us who use dozens of different cameras from six or eight brands tend to be a bit less dogmatic.

The secret is that no manufacturer is the "best" at everything - each camera and lens is a compromise of price and features generally defined by a highly competitive market. Each brand has its share of great lenses - and not so great lenses. Many low end cameras have lots of capabilities, but often seem to be lacking some features which justify spending lots more money on the more professional models. That's marketing for you.

Are lenses racist? Do they know they are being made in Germany or Japan versus China or Canada? Probably not, huh? You might wonder, since many photo gearheads will argue that a Leitz camera or lens made in Canada is inferior to an identical design and specification lens made in Germany. Others believe that only German-made lenses, or just those made by Zeiss, can really deliver good quality. Nonsense! Lens quality is not determined by who makes them, but by how and from what the lenses are made.

The basic format or type of camera determines much of your approach to photography, style of shooting, and potential capabilities. A 35mm rangefinder (RF) will handle and produce very different results from a 4x5 inch tripod mounted view camera. Each format choice will determine a lot of your options in what you can do and how you will go about doing it. So "FORMAT MATTERS".

Unfortunately, the vast majority of photographers only have experience with 35mm cameras, so they aren't aware of the potential of other formats such as medium format and large format cameras. Conversely, most 35mm single lens reflex users will tend to recommend 35mm SLRs rather than 35mm rangefinders or point-and-shoots (P&S), let alone the smaller APS or mini-film formats. Someone with broader experience in photography, including use of different formats, may be a better source of advice than someone limited to one format or brand of camera, IMHO.

Brands don't matter much. All of the major Japanese 35mm single lens reflex (SLR) makers have similar capabilities in design and manufacturing, and often share patents and technology. A study of independent lens test ratings of Canon, Nikon, and Minolta zoom lenses found these 3 makers had remarkably similar average zoom quality (3.1) and variability (0.5) (see Myth#31). Features on comparably priced models are remarkably similar too. Despite all the "religious" fervor for one brand or the other, nobody can reliably tell the difference between images made with a Canon versus a Nikon or Minolta or any similar 35mm SLR.

Some lens brands command a huge premium in price (up to 300% and more) for delivering the ultimate performance possible in that format. So you will find Leitz and Zeiss and other big name brand lenses which cost far more than similar focal length and aperture lenses. Oftentimes, independent lens tests show that these lenses provide only modest improvements in resolution (often 10 to15% or so) and measurable factors over much less costly OEM and third party lenses. Is it worth it? Only you can answer that question, based on your finances and photographic needs.

However, if you are considering paying huge amounts for slightly better 35mm lens performance, may I suggest you look into some medium format alternatives. The larger medium format film size provides an inherent extra quality factor. Compared to a similar cost pro level medium format camera, absolutely no 35mm camera by any manufacturer can deliver equal results. Bigger is better. Actually, many $250-500 used budget medium format cameras can substantially outperform the very best 35mm cameras available in terms of enlargeability and related quality factors (shadow detail, accutance..). In other words, you will get a far greater improvement in quality factors by switching formats than by spending more money on slightly better "ultimate" lenses in 35mm.

The mix and match approach suggests that you should get a variety of cameras and formats to provide the best support for each kind of photography that you do. If you are doing street photography, perhaps a rangefinder or P&S is what you need? Or maybe you are doing landscapes, where a 4x5" camera reigns supreme? Or you need the quality of medium format cameras for weddings and portraiture? Naturally, your 35mm SLR is an ideal long telephoto photography rig for bird photography.

If this sounds overwhelming, it can also be fun and a great learning and using experience too. There are lots of low cost medium format and 4x5" cameras too, for little more than the cost of a midrange 35mm SLR body (e.g., $500 or less). A 35mm rangefinder may cost under $50-100 US to add to your range of capabilities too. By comparison, a 35mm shift lens to overcome converging lines often costs more than a low cost 4x5" camera. And a $100 used Rolleicord twin lens reflex 6x6cm camera can provide superior image quality for portraiture over the most pricey 35mm pro camera setup. In other words, sometimes "mix and match" is the lowest cost and best way to solve photographic problems, rather than try and get 35mm SLRs to perform the same task with enough quality.

Pick any cheap 35mm SLR or RF camera, buy it, use it, and learn about photography with it. Don't make any major investments in lenses or accessories until you have learned more about photography. Upgrade to a final system only when you have identified what your photographic needs are, and which camera system can meet those goals.

Among the hidden benefits of the cheapy camera approach is the chance that the first cheapy camera and lens will turn out to be sufficient to meet the needs of the user. See our single lens photography pages for more pointers.

Ask around and let your friends know you are looking to buy an older camera with associated lenses and bagful of accessories. You will be surprised at how many folks have a camera bag filled with lenses, flash, filters and other accessories gathering dust in their closets. You may also run across "divorce sale specials" of an older 35mm SLR with lenses, often for $100 US for an entire bagful of camera gear. These unwanted camera kits can be great bargains while you are learning more about photography. You can later recover your investment by reselling, or hang on to the gear as a backup camera.

The "recycler" camera buyer is much beloved by retail camera dealers. S/he comes in and buys some usually expensive camera, based on a friend's recommendation (see self-validation above) or the store clerk's advice. The pricey camera fails to deliver pictures that look like the ones in Ansel Adams posters and the photo magazines, so it gets traded in the next month. And that camera only lasts another month or two before the next trade-in. Need we mention that the dollar cost of such trade-outs are often substantial - from 25% to 50%+ of the original cost? After cycling through Canon and Nikon and Minolta and Pentax, the buyer decides s/he really wanted a Hasselblad after all. The "recycler" gets a good bit of passing experience with different cameras and formats, but at a huge cost.

Surprise! The most limiting factor in photography is usually found about eight inches behind the camera - namely, the photographer. Most of us never manage to fully exploit the capabilities of our cameras and lenses. We are far more limited by our (lack of) photographic vision and inspiration than by any technical limitation in our cameras.

Some photographers suggest that you save up until you can afford to buy the better (OEM) pro quality lenses. But if your budget is quite limited, it may be years before you can afford to put kilobucks into buying some pro quality OEM lenses. If you are planning on selling your images, you may be able to justify borrowing costs and other tax deductible costs in acquiring needed gear. But if you are an amateur photographer, money spent on expensive lenses is money you don't have for film, developing, travel, photobooks and courses, and life's other activities.

I think it often makes sense to buy some lower cost third party lenses or older used OEM lenses in the interim. A lesser quality lens in the hand beats having nothing while you are saving up for that pro quality lens. You can learn how to use long telephotos or very wide angle lenses only by using them too.

And you can always sell the third party or used OEM lens if you elect to trade up to a higher cost pro lens later on. If you buy a used third party or older OEM lens, chances are good you won't lose much money during the months or years of saving up to buy that super-lens.

In the meantime, you may discover that you don't like hauling around a long telephoto and sturdy tripod while camping out, or don't really like using an 8mm fisheye lens. This discovery will be a lot cheaper if you are using a low cost fisheye adapter ($50-100 US) or low cost used third party fisheye lens than a brand new (i.e., undepreciated and undeductible on taxes) kilobuck OEM fisheye.

See our Lens Lusting Selection Tips. Basically, you can use a slide mount or cardboard cutout and tape measure with millimeter rule to simulate the effect of various lens focal lengths. Looking thru a 35mm slide mount held 200mm from your eye shows the same scene you would get with a 200mm lens on a 35mm SLR. Slide the slide mount up and down the millimeter tape to show how different lenses would see the scene. Simple! This trick works best for normal and longer lenses.

You can also use the zoom lens approach. Borrow or buy a low cost zoom lens. For example, you can buy a 28-200mm or 28-300mm zoom lens and use it to quickly discover what kinds of lens focal lengths you tend to use in making your kind or style of photographs. Similarly, a low cost ($120 US) 17-35mm ultrawide zoom will let you take a variety of photos, while learning how each focal length impacts your shooting style.

With these experiences in hand, you will have a better basis to decide which lens(es) you will need. You can sell off the zoom lens(es), or keep them if you prefer (e.g., as a light weight low cost travel kit). You may decide that the quality difference for a pricey 18mm lens over the more distorted and flare prone ultrawide zoom isn't worth the costs to you too.

Lenses are usually the major investment of most photographers. It is easy to have $2,000 US in lenses for a $200 US camera body. So the buyer picks a common and low cost lens mount, such as the Pentax-K bayonet mount, for which many low cost manufacturer (OEM) and third party (Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, Vivitar..) lenses exist.

Over time, most of the lens mounts have been radically changed, so older lenses won't work on the latest autofocus bodies. If your camera has an obsolete mount, you can't buy new lens designs. If your camera brand (Minolta..) changed lens mounts (e.g., for autofocus models), you can't use older and cheaper lenses on your newer camera model.

Since older lenses are generally much cheaper than new ones, picking a current lens mount that can use older lenses is one way to minimize the cost of buying lenses and overall camera system costs. Sadly, only Pentax and Nikon offer some degree of compatibility between newer and older lens mounts. In medium format, Hasselblad enjoys considerable popularity thanks in part to compatibility of older (C mount) lenses from the 1950s with some of their latest bodies.

Pentax helped pioneer the Pentax Universal M42 screw mount design, in which lenses simply screwed onto the camera bodies. Many dozens of companies made cameras and lenses in all price and quality ranges for this early mount. Unfortunately, M42 screw mount cameras were obsoleted in favor of the later Pentax-K bayonet mounts. Many of the older Pentax M42 screw-mount lenses can be used on the newer Pentax-K bayonet mount bodies using a lens adapter ring. However, such adapters lose automatic operation, and even metering has to be done manually using stop down metering modes.

Pentax upgraded the M42 designs to the Pentax-K manual focus lens mount, for which dozens of cameras and hundreds of lenses were made by scores of manufacturers. The OEM Pentax multicoated lenses are often very good, but lower cost alternatives abound on the used market.

Pentax-K mount manual focus lenses can generally be used on some newer autofocus Pentax bodies, but obviously only in manual focus modes. Many newer Pentax autofocus lenses can be used on some older Pentax-K mount manual focus bodies too. Generally, you have to scope out compatibility issues and metering modes for any given body, but the lenses will physically mount and often work in one or more modes.

This compatibility makes it possible to have a newer Pentax autofocus body with a few desired autofocus lenses, but continue to use any older manual focus Pentax-K mount lenses you have on the newer AF camera bodies (in manual modes only since there aren't any motors in the manual focus lenses). Even better, you can use the newer lens designs in manual mode on your older or backup Pentax manual bodies. This logical up and down AF/MF compatibility is unique to Pentax.

Some Nikon owners will claim that all Nikons use the same original Nikon F bayonet mount, so any Nikon F mount lens will mount on any F mount camera. Perhaps so, but quite a few modern cameras will suffer $150 US in damage if I should try to mount one of my older (pre-AI or IC) lens (from 1950s to 1977) on the newer bodies. To be safe, you need to use at least AI or AF lenses with many newer Nikon bodies. Curiously, you can mount and use practically all the new lenses on the older Nikon manual focus bodies (e.g., I use an AF-D 35mm f/2 nikkor on my 40+ year old Nikon F body).

So you have backwards compatibility for AF lenses on older MF bodies, but not the reverse. This one-way backwards compatibility is good news if you prefer older manual focus Nikon bodies but want to use the latest APO glass lens designs (e.g., in telephoto and ultrawide angle lens designs, as I do ;-). But if you want to use older and cheaper manual focus nikon mount lenses on the newest models, you run into problems on many non-pro newer autofocus Nikon body models. (see compatibility table)

Many of the newer Nikon autofocus bodies will only work and meter with the newest autofocus lenses. A few new consumer Nikon bodies use low cost AF lenses without manual aperture control rings, so you can't use their lenses manually on older cameras. Many current and recent Nikon AF models won't meter properly unless the lens has a CPU chip in it to tell the camera its maximum aperture (e.g., N80, N60, N50, N5005, N4004 and N4004s). Naturally, none of the older manual focus lenses will have these chips (though a few folks offer to install these for a fee). The result is to encourage or force buyers of newer autofocus Nikon bodies to also buy matching autofocus lenses, even if we already have the same lenses in manual focus Nikon mounts.

Since lenses are the biggest investment most photographers make in their gear, Nikon's one-way compatibility of new lenses on old bodies, but not old lenses on new bodies, is a major problem. I emphasize this problem as many Nikon fans will highlight Nikon's supposed compatibility with older bodies and lenses, without being aware of all the problems that really exist.

Postscript: A few transitional (FE) and expensive current pro cameras (F4 and F5 models) offer compatibility with both the older and cheaper pre-AI lenses and the newer AI and autofocus lenses. In a pinch, some services offer to convert pre-AI lenses into AI versions for a fee (circa $25-50 per lens). But you should try to stick with either AF nikkors (for autofocus bodies) or the AI/AIS lenses for the widest range of manual and autofocus body compatibility.

Used photogear dealers in the USA like to stick to the major brands, like Canon, Nikon, and Pentax (K/KA and M42). Olympus, Minolta (SR/Maxxum), Leica R, and Contax/Yashica mounts are often found more from the larger dealers, or those who specialize in these mounts.

You will find it harder to find used dealers who stock "unloved" lens brands like Konica, Topcon, Ricoh, Chinon, Miranda, Fujica, Exakta, Mamiya, Praktica, Rollei 35mm, Konica, Sigma, and Cosina. Many of these lenses are really standard M42 Universal screw thread or Pentax K/KA mount lenses. But you have to be careful, as some manufacturers made some camera bodies and lenses using the Pentax K mount, while they also made other cameras and lenses that had a proprietary lens mount(s) too.

Others like Konica and Rollei 35mm may be proprietary lens mounts, with a rather thin market of available lenses. Prices for these "unloved" proprietary lens mounts may be quite attractive. But you may find it hard to find particular lenses such as exotic ultrawide angle or long telephoto lenses. Check to see if there was any third party lens mount support (a plus). Look into T-mount lenses, especially for low cost longer telephotos. If you anticipate making a major investment in exotic optics, you may want to careful check lens availability on the second tier OEM brands, as well as availability and costs. What you may save on the camera body and a few lenses may be lost in finding a rarer and more costly exotic lens you want later on. As one example, many of the Konica proprietary mount lenses have recently gone up rapidly in price, especially for exotic wide angles and long lenses [fourth quarter 2000].

You might think so, given the shrill ads and glowing reviews in most (US) photo magazines. Most of the improvements have been made in reducing production costs (raising profitability) rather than optical design improvements, in my view. Very few photographers can reliably identify which brand, let alone model of lens was used to make any given photo. Lots of professional photographers use lenses that are 30 or 40 years old. Most lenses made in the last 20 or so years will perform very similarly, within a given cost and quality range. In fact, there are a number of "cult classic" lenses which include some low cost lenses that produced outstanding results.

You will find that newer pro zoom lenses, especially the wide angle ones, will often perform optically rather better than pro models from the pre-1985 era. The use of modern apochromatic (ED..) glass in longer pro telephotos has also resulted in some improvements in contrast, while internal focusing (IF) has reduced telephoto lens size and weight. For a few very fast and expensive pro lenses (50mm f/1.2..), the use of aspheric elements has improved optical performance, especially in the image edges. But the typical consumer zooms and non-pro fixed lenses of today are not greatly improved over those of a decade or more ago in terms of resolution and usability.

Fully automatic cameras prevent you from exercising full control over the creative photographic process. So a camera which has manual setting features, letting you control the shutter and aperture settings manually, is often required in photo classes. Personally, I think it is okay to have a camera with automatic exposure electronics, provided you also have full manual exposure settings too.

If you must buy a fully automatic camera without manual exposure controls, look for ones which have an "exposure compensation" dial that lets you vary exposures (usually +/- 2 stops) to adjust for common backlighting and subject/background conflicts (e.g., black cat on white snow). You may also be able to achieve similar control using the film speed (ASA) dial on some models.

Personally, I suggest that such automatic-only cameras make good low cost backups to a more full-featured body with manual controls. For example, a Nikon EM with automatic aperture exposure mode only would be a good backup to a Nikon FE with both auto-aperture and manual modes of operation. You can have different film types (e.g., ASA speeds, color/b+w, slide/print..) loaded in each body, and swap out lenses as needed. Not only is such a combo more flexible, but you have a built-in backup camera capability.

Many people start out buying the basic camera and lens (normal lens or short zoom). Then the crafty sales clerk shows them the dramatically different views they can get with this super-telephoto zoom for only $299 extra. Now take a look at the strange photos you can get with this fisheye lens for only $389. Wow! Naturally, you end up with the highest markup lenses in the store, only to discover the novelty wears off fast and you rarely use them.

The incremental approach has you start with a single lens, then add lenses only when you find yourself limited and unable to pursue some form of photography you want to try out. For example, I bought a 55m macro lens when I found myself doing a lot of closeup nature shots (with diopters). I later added a 50mm f/1.4 lens to my kit to better handle night time and available light photography. While both lenses overlap my regular 50mm f/1.8 normal lens, each adds a capability I found was missing in my photography. If you only add lenses when you find you really need them, you will save lots of money over being a "lens-aholic". The same is true of filters and other photo gadgets too!

The "lens kit" approach is a way of buying lenses that maximizes their utility with either the 1.4X or 2X teleconverters readily available. Our lens kit pages outline the utility of selecting different lens sequences when used with the 1.4X or 2X teleconverter.

For example, start with a 50mm "normal lens" and buy alternating lenses of 28mm, 100/105mm, 200mm, and 400mm (skipping inbetween 35mm, 85mm, 135mm, and 300mm). If you add a 2X teleconverter, you end up with only one new focal length, a not very useful 800mm. But take the "other" lens sequence based on using the 35mm lens as your "normal" lens, alternating lenses again (yielding 24/35/85/135/200) and add the same 2X teleconverter. Now you end up with 50mm, 70mm, 170mm, 270mm, and 400mm new focal lengths.

By skipping the 50mm "normal" lens in favor of a wider 35mm "normal" lens, you can alternate lenses to yield a kit of 24/35/85/135/200 fixed lenses. Used with a 1.4X teleconverter, you get 50/70/120/280 focal length equivalents. The 24mm is often a favorite wide angle, easier to control than the 20mm, usefully wider than the 28mm for landscapes and interior shots. The 200mm f/2.8 is relatively lighter and cheaper than a 300mm f/2.8 or f/4, yet yields a similar 280mm f/4 with the 1.4X teleconverter.

Many folks bypass the faster and optically superior prime or fixed lenses for slower and heavier but more convenient zoom lenses. Unfortunately, the longer zooms (e.g., 70-300mm) tend to do poorly at the longer telephoto end where you might hope to use them to displace a heavy and costly longer telephoto lens. Similarly, the ultrawide zooms tend to perform more poorly at the shorter end, with poorer close focusing distances and more light falloff and distortion. A related problem is that many of the more popular consumer zooms use a very wide 4:1 or larger zoom ratio, such as 28-135mm or 70-300mm zooms. It is harder to get high optical quality at low consumer lens price points in such wide ratio 4:1 or larger zooms.

My suggested solution is to divide and conquer. For higher optical quality, don't rely on the ultrawide 7:1 or larger zoom ratio lenses (such as 28mm-200mm or 35-300mm). Instead, carry at least two zooms, splitting up the range. So a 28-85 and 85-210mm zoom pair will be optically better than a single 28-200mm zoom.

At the lower end, add in a 24mm fixed focal length (prime) lens with superior close focusing and wide angle distortion handling. At the long end, a 300mm f/4 will be much better quality than most long telephoto consumer zooms. You can use the 300mm with a 1.4X teleconverter, and still have a good quality 420mm f/5.6 for little extra cost and weight.

Similarly, I would tend to add in a fast normal lens of at least f/2 (35mm) or f/1.8 (50mm), which is often the fastest, sharpest, lightest, and cheapest prime fixed lens you can buy in most lens lineups. If you are unhappy with the macro performance of your zoom lens, a low cost and light weight extension tube is another useful addition here.

In a word - reliability. A mechanical camera can operate even if the battery for the meter goes bad (if it has a meter). With many electronic camera failures, the user gets no indication of a problem until the film is returned either unexposed or badly exposed. Most mechanical cameras will give some indication of problems to their users, including advance warnings of impending failures (e.g., grinding noises). Mechanical cameras will also work in conditions such as cold weather where electronic or battery operated cameras can't operate. Most mechanical camera problems can be fixed by local repairers, even in remote and foreign locations. Electronic camera failures often require more access to specialty parts and test gear. Finally, the same amount of money spent on mechanical cameras (e.g., with fewer features to go wrong) is likely to produce a more robust and simpler to operate camera.

The majority of built-in camera meters are of the reflective metering type. Hand-held meters usually provide ambient light as well as reflective light metering, with optional flash metering available on some models. Ambient light metering measures the actual light falling on the subject (or a similarly lighted nearby scene). The meter then uses that measurement to make a proper exposure. Reflected light meters set their exposures on the assumption that the scene is "18% grey", an average for many but not all lighting situations. If you are photographing skiers on snow, many reflected light meters will try to turn the snowy white scene into an average 18% grey scene. Ooops!

So the ambient light handheld meter often performs much better in tricky lighting situations or with non-average grey scenes. The flashmeter option extends its utility to mixing light sources and balancing flash lighting too. But for many even pricey mechanical cameras (e.g., Hasselblad 500 c/m), the camera doesn't have a built-in light meter. Adding a light meter (e.g., with a metering prism) may cost more than many handheld light meters too.

T-mount lenses use a simple low cost ($10 up) adapter to mate these lenses to different brands and models of camera bodies. So a T-mount 400mm f/5.6 telephoto lens can be shared between my Nikon, Pentax-K, M42, Minolta, Topcon/Exakta, and other camera brands and lens mounts. The down side is that the lens has to be used in manual or preset modes, since there is no coupling to any autodiaphragm mechanism. Now add in a 12mm prime fisheye lens, a 200mm, 300mm, 350mm, and 500mm T-mount lenses. How about a T-mount zoom slide duplicator? Or use a T-mount adapter to take photos with your microscopes and that 2400mm f/8 telescope too. So investing in one T-mount adapter opens up the use of a wide variety of equipment I already have, even if the new camera lens mount is not compatible with any models I already have.

Unfortunately, many modern consumer cameras will not meter properly with T-mount lenses, sharply reducing the range of low cost accessories and lenses I can use with them. This capability is usually available on the more upscale consumer and serious amateur cameras, and on almost all pro cameras too. So be sure to check that your new camera purchase can work in "stopped down" metering or other modes which will work with the many low cost T-mount lenses out there.

Tamron has pioneered the T-mount and a series of autodiaphragm mounts, including the T4 and later TX mounts and their own line of Tamron adaptall lens mounts (Adaptamatic, Adaptall, and Adaptall-2). The use of a lens mount adapter (cost $25 US and up) enables converting these lenses to work with a variety of different brands of camera and types of lens mounts. The earlier T4 and TX mount adapters are found used ($10-15 and up), with a range of T4 and TX prime and zoom lenses (some of which are surprisingly great buys used). The Tamron adaptall mount lenses are especially handy for some models (e.g., Rollei QBM lenses) where used lenses are limited in type and numbers available or otherwise rather pricey. Unfortunately, these flexible lens mount adapters only work with the older manual focus camera mounts, rather than the autofocus camera models.

Afocal lens adapters screw into the filter threads on your regular camera lens (typically the normal lens, e.g., 50mm lens on 35mm SLRs). You may need an adapter ring to convert the lens adapter to fit onto your lens filter threads (e.g., Series VII to 52mm filter thread adapter). Unlike T-mount and similar lenses, these adapters will work with many cameras (including autofocus) simply by altering the coverage of the regular lens. My favorite adapter is a fisheye adapter ($50-100 US) which provides a true 180 degree fisheye view. Other adapters provide a superwide (0.42x) view, converting the 50mm normal lens into a very wide 21mm lens (albeit with substantial distortion as part of the fisheye effect). I like these low cost adapters partly because they also work on fixed lens cameras (e.g., Rolleiflex twin lens reflex camera) and on medium format cameras where fisheyes are unavailable or super expensive (e.g., Bronica S2A, Kowa 6/66, Hasselblad 500C/CM..). While the results aren't as sharp as a prime lens, the cost can be many thousands of dollars less, making these effects quite affordable.

Phew! We take several pages just to list the major problems with many autofocus cameras. The short answer is that autofocus cameras are surprisingly less flexible than many older manual focus cameras for many types of photography. Unless you are doing a lot of action shots (e.g., fast sports), you may find non-autofocus cameras will fit your needs better. However, very few magazines filled with autofocus camera ads will point this out! If you are concerned about failing vision, there are alternatives too.

The "resale value approach" suggests that you should buy the higher priced OEM lenses, since they hold their resale value better than third party lenses. The first problem is that OEM lenses are often 200% to 300% or more costly than their third party equivalents, which are often nearly as good and sometimes better optically if sporting a less prestige ladden name. Not only that, but your opportunity cost (lost interest income..) and insurance costs will also be proportionately greater too.

The second problem is that your losses are measured in dollars (or GBP, or pesos, or..), not in percentage of sale price. So a new $6,000 600mm f/4 OEM lens that you sell used for $3,000 has cost you $3,000 in depreciation (50%). A $3,000 Tokina 600mm f/4 lens that sells used for $1200 has higher depreciation percentage (60%). But your depreciation losses are only $1,800 versus $3,000 for the OEM lens. The OEM lens may be better and have a higher resale value, both in dollars and as a percentage. But the OEM lens in this case costs you nearly twice as much ($3,000 versus $1,800) for each day of ownership. Ouch!

The third problem is "price compression", in which the prices of older OEM lenses falls rather close to third party used competitors (see below). So my Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 lens sells used for $50-75. The OEM 200mm f/4 nikkor-Q pre-AI lens from the same time period sells for circa $60-125 US. So the cost difference for the OEM lens has become compressed by hundreds of dollars and 100-250% premium to nearly the same price. So the resale value argument for OEM lenses doesn't hold for many older or obsolete lenses.

The rapid changes in lens types, new autofocus designs, VR and stabilized lenses, and other improvements is rapidly obsoleting even relatively recent lenses. When a new model or updated AF design comes out, your older or obsolete lens may lose from 25% to 40%+ of its "resale value" overnight! Ouch!! Conversely, a new lens such as the 12mm ultrawide Cosina may cause owners of 14mm Sigma lenses to sell at a loss to buy the newer widest ultrawide lens. You may end up with a nearly new lens for half of the current discounters street price. Their loss on "resale value" could be your gain!

Like used cars, the latest cameras and lenses quickly lose a substantial fraction of their value from the instant you start using them. On the other hand, you can often buy a few year old model camera that is no longer current on the used market for 50-60% of its price new. The savings on lenses can be even more dramatic, especially for some third party lenses and exotic optics. When the new 14mm Sigma lenses came out, the price of the previous model lenses dropped nearly 30%. Oouch!

If you compare a new Nikon prime lens against a similar Vivitar prime lens, you might not be surprised to see that the Nikon lens costs twice as much. If you compare the price of a used Nikon prime lens against a similar age used Vivitar prime lens, you might be surprised to discover that the Nikon lens only commands a modest 20-30% premium in price. This process of closing the gap in prices for used lenses is called price compression. With the older OEM lenses, the lenses originally sold for far less pre-inflated dollars in the 1970s and 1980s. So you can sometimes buy Nikkor lenses for under $100 US when similar quality OEM lenses are selling for much more today. In some cases, the optical designs are identical too, only the more modern lenses are made with lighter weight plastic instead of metal. So this price compression factor can bring very high quality used lenses into your camera bag for prices little more than the price of used third party lenses.

Some time ago I wrote a page on lens faults, and I wanted to illustrate the effect of scratches and cracks in a lens on its performance. So I started looking for some ultra-low cost junk lenses to scratch up and destroy. Surprise! I found a lot of cheapy $10 and $15 lenses, ranging from 28mm f/2.8 no-name optics to a 400mm f/7.7 Tamron T-mount. But every time I tested the lens, I found that they worked surprisingly well for a lens that costs less than most filters. Some lenses worked as well as my OEM lenses at their "sweet spots" - the optimal middle range of f/stops (circa f/4 to f/11) on most (but not all) lenses, as determined by on-film testing.

Since then I have bought a goodly number of cheapy lenses for use as backups (in case of theft or loss). Most of these lenses won't work as well as their pricey OEM cousins when used wide open, or they may be a bit less sharp in the corners below f/4. But the side by side comparisons with the OEM lenses on the same camera body and subject (same roll of slide film) confirms the surprisingly good results you can get from many ultra-budget lenses, used at their "diffraction limited" sweet-spots. Many budget lenses will work suprisingly well when stopped down a bit, which reduces a number of lens aberrations to acceptable levels.

If your budget won't allow top of the line optics, take heart. Many of the lesser lenses can deliver surprisingly good results, if you invest the time and effort in learning how to use them optimally.

See our camera and lens testing pages.

Surprise! The top earning pros of the Advertising Professionals of America ranks, with average photo sales of $378,223 annually, had a total investment in 35mm cameras and lenses and other gear of only $9,900 US. The average full-time professional photographer only takes home $21,000 US (U.S. Dept of Labor 1998 wage stats). So don't feel bad that you can't afford or justify that pricey new lens in the magazine ads. Neither can many of the pros. But it is what you do with what you have got that counts!