| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/23/2006 05:15:15 AM · #1 |
| Given that the lens weighs over 6 pound I think they are charging by the ounce :-) |
|
|
|
09/23/2006 02:02:47 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
09/22/2006 10:25:58 PM · #3 |
| It's also a VR lens. That adds to the cost. VR meaning vibration reduction of course. |
|
|
|
09/22/2006 07:04:45 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
When a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 cost about $800. Just trying to learn lens types.. |
f2.8 is what we call a "fast" lens. The faster, the better, the more expensive (unfortunately).
Message edited by author 2006-09-22 19:05:46.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2006 07:00:19 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by deapee:
or a 2x and you have a 240-600 f/5.6 and still retain autofocus (although I've never used a 2x, so I don't know how good the quality would be). |
I have one with my 70-200 2.8, still not much loss in quality. But, you WILL need a tripod, or at very least..a monopod.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2006 06:44:13 PM · #6 |
| Doctornick explains it well. BH is a good place for price reference as mentioned. Personally, when I scrape up patience to order online and have it shipped (next day heheh), I check the price on BH and almost always find sigmaforles.com to be a hundred bucks cheaper. No problem with them on quality of product and they don't hassle you about returning it even if your reason is 'I don't like it'. |
|
|
|
09/22/2006 06:31:19 PM · #7 |
Also need to remember that the 300mm f2.8 is a prime lens, so the overall quality of the image will be AMAZING and 100% or your money back razor sharp.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2006 06:19:53 PM · #8 |
If you're ever unsure of something, I'd check //www.bhphotovideo.com -- they always have only the newest stuff and pretty much the best prices...
but yeah, 300 f/2.8 is a lot more than 80-200 2.8. If you're looking for a 300 2.8, the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is a damn good lens and very versatile...toss on a 1.4x teleconverter, and you have a 168-420 f/4 and focus speed will be just about unaffected and image quality is great ... not bad ...or a 2x and you have a 240-600 f/5.6 and still retain autofocus (although I've never used a 2x, so I don't know how good the quality would be).
|
|
|
|
09/22/2006 06:07:52 PM · #9 |
This is why: f/2.8 and the glass.
Message edited by author 2006-09-22 18:08:41.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2006 06:04:39 PM · #10 |
Well it's a 300mm f/2.8...Huge difference. A 400mm f/2.8 will be even more expensive and a 600mm f/4 even more so...
It all comes down the the size of the lens elements needed to get such huge apertures at such a long focal length. |
|
|
|
09/22/2006 05:56:40 PM · #11 |
When a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 cost about $800. Just trying to learn lens types..
Here's the lens.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 06:18:07 PM EDT.
