price gap - lenses

[jan_jarczyk]

Hi<p>

at the moment my longest lens is75-300USM 4-5.6 i bought it ong time ago when

i had no knoledge or money to buy anything better then that.Now i when i have

money and ive allready colected quite nice camera and some lenes i would like

to get good long telephoto and that is the probolem i cant find anything what

could satisfy myself

<p>

all i have to choose from is:<br>

300mm IS f4 900+GBP<br>

400mm F5.6 (no IS i wont buy it)- 800GBP<br>

100-400L -1200GBP<p>

 

and ?<p>

 

Canon EF 300mm f2.8L USM IS -3290GBP<br>

Canon EF 500MM f4.0L USM IS -4400GBP<p>

 

have u notice 2000GBP price gap?<p>

 

from my point of view 500mm IS 5.6 for less then 2000GBP would be nice or

600mm 5.6 for a bit more then 2000GBP <br>

at the moment all i can choose is 3th party lenses wich lack of IS

what do you thing about it?<br>

no market?<br>

why canon doesnot make anything between 1000-3000GBP?<p>

 

regards<br>

Jan

[wakeforce]

Maybe because they cost more than that to manufacture?

[david_wu6]

"why canon doesnot make anything between 1000-3000GBP?"

 

Most likely they hired a few Wharton guys who researched the market very well.

[jim_larson1]

True. Anyone motivated enough to spend 2000 will spend 3000.

[jan_jarczyk]

Jim - not me, im motivated to spent 1000-1500GBP so i gues 2000 is max for me i couldnt justify to bye 3000punds lens just for fun and im sure there is many ppl like me<p>

regards<br>

Jan

[yves_jalbert]

Of all the lenses you list there, if it would be my choice, there is only one I would go for immediately.

 

Canon EF 300mm f2.8L USM IS

 

Why? Not be cause of IS. I don't care about IS even though it's definitely a very nice feature to have.

 

1. f/2.8L - That's so much faster than your 4-5.6 lense. You will absolutely looove that in low light situations.

 

2. f/2.8L - That "L" means Luxury optics, and believe me you will be stunned by the difference. This is the kind of lense that makes you tap the back of your shoulder while saying, "geez man, good job". Once you try that level of professional optics you just might get rid of all your other lenses (smiles).

[jan_jarczyk]

Yves i know that i would like this lense but i dont like the price its just too expensive -and to be honest i'd like something bit longer then that 400-500mm for birds and and stars -

[dariusz calkowski]

300f2.8LIS+1.4TC(kenko or tamron if you want to save few GBP) Best is that in germany price of 300f2.8LIS in Euro is only few hundreds more or mayby even equal to english price in pounds. I don't know why but they have really US prices in opposition to UK rip offs. Leter you can add 2x TC. You will have 2 excellent and 1 very good primes for the price of one. All with IS and AF on all canon bodys. (And you'll be really happy man until you'll realise that600f$lLIS+1.4TC is longer and better)

[dariusz calkowski]

Ups, sorry for typos.

[jbq]

Get the 300/4L IS (since you seem to want IS) and a Canon 1.4x extender.

 

What camera are you currently using?

[jan_jarczyk]

im using 5d - and i dont want to use tc :-) i want 500mm and autofocus

[jbq]

You seem to "want" too much. You need to do with what's available, not with what you'd like to have.

 

How about a 300/4L IS and a DRebXT (and its smaller pixels)?

[jbq]

Sorry, that came out wrong.

 

In the Canon lens range (just like in Nikon's FWIW) there's a big price gap between lenses with a diameter smaller than 77mm and those with a larger diameter (with the latter category being out of reach). Within your budget, autofocus "sees" up to f/5.6, which limits you to focal lengths below 430mm.

 

Looking at long lenses, that leaves the 400/5.6, 300/4 and 100-400/4.5-5.6. You've ruled out the 400/5.6 for its lack of IS. I assume that you ruled out the 300/4 + TC for concerns of image quality, so I'll take the 100-400 out of the equation right away. So the only lens that fits into your budget and requirements is a naked 300/4L.

 

Beyond that, you should be looking at cameras with smaller pixels than the 5D (8.2 microns). E.g. the DRebXT (350D) has a 28% higher pixel density, which means that each pixel of the DRebXT with a 300mm sees what a 380mm lens would see on your 5D. And that's it.

 

So, what are you real options if that's no satisfactory, without totally blowing your budget:

 

-Get a 400/5.6, even though there's no image stabilizer. I have one, I love it. FWIW, I also have a non-IS 300/4, which is even more amazing. Both lenses are light enough to hand-hold, and I carry both of them at my belt without a problem at all.

 

-Get a 300/4 IS and a TC. Slightly less good than the 400/5.6, but you get image stabilization and an extra few percent of focal length. You'll get a significantly better image quality by using a TC rather than cropping.

[jbq]

A few more notes - if you're after birds in flight, you need a light lens - 300/4 or 400/5.6 - because bigger glass will be too heavy.

 

Finally, you shouldn't be scared of using a TC, especially a 1.4x used on a good long lens - a 2x TC is still a better option than cropping. And if you ever get a "big gun", I claim that you should really be getting both TCs (and stack them when needed, the 1.4x can be mounted behing the 2x mkII) - because stacking TCs is *still* better than cropping.

[john_bellenis]

One thing to think about, if you are wanting more lens for less money, is the second hand

market. E-Bay (buyer beware) or larger stores often have these items used which are

frequently in brand new condition (bought as toys and sold to pay for new toys). I have

bought many used items for way under the new price (and without the accompanying

taxes)

which are absolutely mint and were originally bought purely for vanity reasons...

 

Just a thought, but if you are spending that kind of money it's wise to look into all your

options... Good luck,,,

 

John - www.johnbellenis.com

[mark_chappell]

<I>im using 5d - and i dont want to use tc :-) i want 500mm and autofocus</i><P>

 

Then you'd better start saving for the 500/4 because that's all Canon offers that fits your

desires. Or if you can live without IS (doesn't sound like

you want to), consider the highly regarded Sigma 500/4.5.<P>

 

<i>if you're after birds in flight, you need a light lens - 300/4 or 400/5.6 - because

bigger glass will be too heavy.</i><P>

 

Many folks manage to do <A href="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/

flyingindex.html">flight shots</a> with a 500/4. A gimbal tripod head helps, but hand-

holding is something I do routinely with that lens. It is heavy and I wouldn't want to hold

it in ready-to-shoot position for hours at a time, but if you can rest your arms a bit

between shots it works quite well.

[j.kivekas]

The price gap:<br>

My guess is that it is very much down to how the purchase decision is made. For consumers there is a distinct price threshold. For pros, who can deduct, the price is secondary to that that The photo can be captured and sold. For consumers it's not a return on investment case where as pros see/calculate it that way.<p>

Lense choice:<br>

I've sometimes speculated about getting a longer lense (>300 mm). For me the obvious choice would be Canon 2x converter for my EF70-200/2.8 making it at max 400/5.6. To go over that ... it's going to cost .. I guess a budget option would be 1.4x and 400/5.6 making it 560/8. There are also a very cheap russan mirror 500/8 available (obviously adapter and manual focus). The problem is that with long lenses you tend to need light power too (animals, sports, papparazzi,...:).<p>

But you do have a 12.8 MPix camera, so you can afford to crop a little. A 6 MPix with a little interpolating is good enough for A3 print - in practise. So your sensor has a potential 1.4 (square root of 2) factor in it with a quite acceptable photo quality.