Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Price Difference

  1. #1

    Default Price Difference

    EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM - CP selling $269
    EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM - CP selling $320

    Since the range of the 1st lens is more, why is it still cheaper?

    Hope someone can give me more understanding on this.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Along the Eastern Coast
    Posts
    316

    Default Re: Price Difference

    you have to look at the build and optics too...dont just look at the focal range. Just for your info, the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS USM is retailing above 2.8k in the market now. the range is EVEN lesser but the price is x 10~!

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Tanjong Katong
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Price Difference

    Quote Originally Posted by yangbeng View Post
    you have to look at the build and optics too...dont just look at the focal range. Just for your info, the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS USM is retailing above 2.8k in the market now. the range is EVEN lesser but the price is x 10~!
    But you can see that's f/2.8 lens .

    Regards,
    Arto.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Price Difference

    Quote Originally Posted by yangbeng View Post
    you have to look at the build and optics too...dont just look at the focal range. Just for your info, the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS USM is retailing above 2.8k in the market now. the range is EVEN lesser but the price is x 10~!
    that one I know lah that one f2.8 and IS mah... comparing apple to apple lah...

    EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6
    EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6

    that f0.5 difference price difference so much ?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    卧龙岗
    Posts
    2,736

    Default Re: Price Difference

    built quality plays a part, as well as image quality, af speed among others.
    by any case, i would prefer getting a 3rd party sigma 70-300mm for the same price which the 90-300mm is selling

  6. #6

    Default Re: Price Difference

    Quote Originally Posted by kynoe View Post
    that one I know lah that one f2.8 and IS mah... comparing apple to apple lah...

    EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6
    EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6

    that f0.5 difference price difference so much ?
    just fyi... /4.5-5.6 is the spec range for the max aperture of the lens.

    /4 is actually a larger aperture (simplistically, this usually means better) than /4.5 by 1/3 of a stop. the smaller the number under is, the larger the aperture.
    eyes | head | feet | flickr | APAD: straight from camera

  7. #7

    Default Re: Price Difference

    Quote Originally Posted by FilterFunk View Post
    built quality plays a part, as well as image quality, af speed among others.
    by any case, i would prefer getting a 3rd party sigma 70-300mm for the same price which the 90-300mm is selling
    why would u get sigma rather than canon 70-300mm?

  8. #8

    Default Re: Price Difference

    Quote Originally Posted by oneheart View Post
    why would u get sigma rather than canon 70-300mm?
    From what I gather from fellow photographers, the Canon 70-300mm is a total let down in terms of picture quality as compared to Sigma. A lot of Canon users have recommended me to buy Sigma and not Canon for that range, otherwise save up a fortune and buy 70-200mm f2.8L.

    Just my 2 cents worth.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Price Difference

    Quote Originally Posted by moriahphotos View Post
    A lot of Canon users have recommended me to buy Sigma and not Canon for that range, otherwise save up a fortune and buy 70-200mm f2.8L.
    70-200mm /4L (non-IS). light, sharp, fast focusing. bought second-hand for under $1k. love it!
    eyes | head | feet | flickr | APAD: straight from camera

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    NTU and Wdls
    Posts
    2,622

    Default Re: Price Difference

    Quote Originally Posted by oneheart View Post
    why would u get sigma rather than canon 70-300mm?
    If you're a equipment collector, best to get the Canon 70-300mm.

    If you're looking at image quality, the Canon 70-300mm easily trashes most other lenses at producing bad images. the Sigma version produces significantly better images..

  11. #11

    Default Re: Price Difference

    Does this apply to the IS version? The image quality, that is.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Price Difference

    Quote Originally Posted by fireframe View Post
    Does this apply to the IS version? The image quality, that is.
    Apparently the IS version is supposed to provide a leap in IQ, though I honestly do not think that it's worth the 1k+ pricetag for such a slow lens.
    My Personal Folio (of random events and things)

  13. #13

    Default Re: Price Difference

    Quote Originally Posted by varf View Post
    just fyi... /4.5-5.6 is the spec range for the max aperture of the lens.

    /4 is actually a larger aperture (simplistically, this usually means better) than /4.5 by 1/3 of a stop. the smaller the number under is, the larger the aperture.
    Understand that.. hmm, so that's partly why it's more exp ?.. hmm..

  14. #14

    Default Re: Price Difference

    Quote Originally Posted by kynoe View Post
    Understand that.. hmm, so that's partly why it's more exp ?.. hmm..
    i'm not sure but i don't think so.

    the general case is that for the same focal length, the lens with the larger aperture is more expensive to make. but for the lenses that you are describing, they are close in terms of range, so i doubt the price difference is related to that.

    in any case, if i remember correctly you mentioned that the lens with the reduced range and smaller max aperture is more expensive -- which already doesn't tally with the general case.
    eyes | head | feet | flickr | APAD: straight from camera

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •