Does it make sense for SLR entry machine to be equipped with high-end lens?

First, the level of SLR determines a lot of things, not as good as the low end. The maneuverability is simply incomparable, and the low-end functions attached to it are gone. There are some hidden things, such as shutter time limit, optimized calibration, photometric accuracy and so on. For example, the film produced by D3XXX's automatic white balance is more or less yellow. There are also some tolerances. For example, the brightness range of an environment is 1- 100, and your D3XXX may only record the range of 20-80, and other ranges are invisible, just like people can't see infrared rays and ultraviolet rays. Then D7XXX and so on may be 10-90. DXXX may not be 1- 100. These may not be felt by your novice, but you will know the difference in PS color. Other functions, such as AF fine-tuning, virtual level, dual card and so on. Even the step size of ISO adjustment is different. The midrange starts from 1/3. If you think the function and operability of the mid-range and low-end are poor, then the full-length and mid-range are mainly poor in image quality, with more delicate color transition, higher ISO available and smaller aperture, so don't worry about diffraction. But for a threshold camera, the gap is really not too big. As for the processor, hehe, let's take a look at the gap between Canon 600 d, 60 d and 7 d films, and I won't explain much else.

To sum up, if you don't have much money, it is most practical to buy a mid-range lens with a mid-range lens. If you decide to change the full-frame lens, I suggest you borrow some money and wear the full-frame lens+high-end lens directly. Borrowing 1W can solve many problems. If you can't even borrow 1W, then I suggest you buy an entry SLR+entry lens. Don't go too deep, you can't afford it. Will I say that my accessories only cost 5000+? And I can save some money to get together every month. Ordinary filter from 250+. What about the high-end 1000+?