Quoted By:
I read on /p/ that generally, lenses are an investment while bodies are a money pit.
however, it would seem that a number of people here and elsewhere are using budget lenses on their top-of-the-line full frame bodies.
is this rule of thumb only true for film?
a personal example: I'd like to try shooting digital but I would be looking at $1,000 minimum for a half-decent Pentax body, only to mount my ancient old 50mm manual lens.
isn't that a waste? especially when in 5 years the body will be worth $200 while the 50mm will probably have retained its value.
can someone please explain this to me? am I thinking too much about cash value instead of a camera's capabilities?
