Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Different Lens'
- Thread starter brendanryder
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's longer because it has a constant aperture of f/4. The 75-300 is f/4 at 75mm and f/5.6 at 300mm.
And I guess that makes it more expensive.
Just like it happens with the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 and the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6.
EDIT: this means it is a faster lens, still, it would be nothing compared to a f/2.8. Not a very good buy I'll say, but I really don't know the Canon lens lineup.
And I guess that makes it more expensive.
Just like it happens with the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 and the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6.
EDIT: this means it is a faster lens, still, it would be nothing compared to a f/2.8. Not a very good buy I'll say, but I really don't know the Canon lens lineup.
The 70-200 you posted contains "L" grade glass, which is an optically superior glass to ordinary "run of the mill" lenses and more expensive to produce. The "L" grade glass produces sharper, clearer images than regular glass and is all around more fancy and nice.
The 70-200 line of Canon lenses is among the best zoom lenses made. The 70-200 you were looking at is actually the cheapest and lightest of the series. There is also an f/4 IS (image stabilized), an f/2.8 (which I own and love), and an f/2.8 IS. The prices of these go at $1100, $1200, and $1600 respectively.
You're still thinking about big lenses meaning bigger zoom. This is actually rarely the case. The bigger the lens, the more light it will let it (ie- larger aperture (smaller f number)). I think my 24-70 is actually bigger than the 75-300. Cheap consumer zooms such as the 75-300, are smaller because they are "slower", allowing less light than some of the faster lenses.
Your next possible question would be why would you need a lens that costs more, covers less of the zoom range, and is bulkier. Fast glass (especially when you get into the 2.8 zooms and any primes) allow you to hand-hold shots at dimmer light conditions, have better bokeh (background blur), are built like tanks (think- no plastic pieces), have less optical defects (less pincushion, chromatic, etc. aberations), are virtually dust proof, and produce sharper pictures. To some, myself included, that's worth having a shorter (focal length-wise) and heavier lens, that I won't grow out of.
You're still thinking about big lenses meaning bigger zoom. This is actually rarely the case. The bigger the lens, the more light it will let it (ie- larger aperture (smaller f number)). I think my 24-70 is actually bigger than the 75-300. Cheap consumer zooms such as the 75-300, are smaller because they are "slower", allowing less light than some of the faster lenses.
Your next possible question would be why would you need a lens that costs more, covers less of the zoom range, and is bulkier. Fast glass (especially when you get into the 2.8 zooms and any primes) allow you to hand-hold shots at dimmer light conditions, have better bokeh (background blur), are built like tanks (think- no plastic pieces), have less optical defects (less pincushion, chromatic, etc. aberations), are virtually dust proof, and produce sharper pictures. To some, myself included, that's worth having a shorter (focal length-wise) and heavier lens, that I won't grow out of.
There is no such thing as L glass. L stands for luxury, and it's the way that Canon marks their top of the line lenses. Most L lenses have fluoride and UD (ultra-low dispersion) elements, which, as you said, contribute to less aberations, and sharper images. I'm not saying that what you said was wrong, but just wanted to clarify for brendanryder, and some of the other non-canon users.