DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Why does this lens cost so much?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 11 of 11, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
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
It's a nikon :D
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.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/15/2021 10:57:45 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/15/2021 10:57:45 AM EST.