Price Difference


Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 23, 2006
361
0
16
38
#1
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. :D
 

#2
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~!
 

Artosoft

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2005
3,710
0
0
Tanjong Katong
#3
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.
 

Oct 23, 2006
361
0
16
38
#4
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 :bsmilie: 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 ?
 

FilterFunk

Senior Member
Apr 1, 2006
2,736
0
0
卧龙岗
#5
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 :)
 

varf

New Member
Nov 14, 2003
1,092
4
0
Visit site
#6
that one I know lah :bsmilie: 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... ƒ/4.5-5.6 is the spec range for the max aperture of the lens.

ƒ/4 is actually a larger aperture (simplistically, this usually means better) than ƒ/4.5 by 1/3 of a stop. the smaller the number under ƒ is, the larger the aperture.
 

oneheart

New Member
Oct 27, 2006
382
0
0
West
#7
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
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.
 

varf

New Member
Nov 14, 2003
1,092
4
0
Visit site
#9
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 ƒ/4L (non-IS). light, sharp, fast focusing. bought second-hand for under $1k. love it!
 

unseen

Senior Member
Dec 14, 2004
2,622
0
0
NTU and Wdls
#10
why would u get sigma rather than canon 70-300mm?
If you're a equipment collector, best to get the Canon 70-300mm. :thumbsup:

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..
 

fireframe

New Member
Dec 5, 2003
174
0
0
#11
Does this apply to the IS version? The image quality, that is.
 

Oct 23, 2006
361
0
16
38
#13
just fyi... ƒ/4.5-5.6 is the spec range for the max aperture of the lens.

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

varf

New Member
Nov 14, 2003
1,092
4
0
Visit site
#14
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.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom