Lens prices...

Joshwain

Joshwain

Messages
1,379
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just been having a quick look on eBay and it made me wonder, why is it that you can get a 300mm lens with IS and USM for £320 but if you want to step up to a 400mm then you're going to be paying £1,000+

Even if you were to add a teleconverter or an extender to the 300mm then it would still be over £500 cheaper... It has really confused me :lol:

Just to show I haven't made the numbers up:
70-300mm with IS and USM for £320
100-400mm with IS and USM for £1,100
2X Teleconverter for £330
 
Joshwain said:
I've just been having a quick look on eBay and it made me wonder, why is it that you can get a 300mm lens with IS and USM for £320 but if you want to step up to a 400mm then you're going to be paying £1,000+

Even if you were to add a teleconverter or an extender to the 300mm then it would still be over £500 cheaper... It has really confused me :lol:

Just to show I haven't made the numbers up:
70-300mm with IS and USM for £320
100-400mm with IS and USM for £1,100
2X Teleconverter for £330
Click to expand...

From this example the 100-400 is an L lens, so the price is more, and Canon don't do another zoom to 400. The new 70-300 L lens is £1000

Sigma and others do make 400mm and I don't think the price is as expensive.
 
Well your looking at what many would consider a kit lens vs and L lens the 100-400 is optically a heck of a lot better than the 70-300, the construction on the L lens is much better that the 70-300 and finally that white paint costs way more than the black paint :lol: :lol:

Matt
MWHCVT
 
I picked up one 100-400 for £600 and the other like new for £850. Are they worth it over other zoom lenses? As churchill dog would say "Oh Yes"
 
To me it just seems as if Canon are adding an 'L' and a few hundred quid to let a few people show off :lol:
 
Joshwain said:
To me it just seems as if Canon are adding an 'L' and a few hundred quid to let a few people show off :lol:
Click to expand...

Have you used an L lens?
The70-200 f4 is a very reasonable lens that outperforms any 70-300. Yes you haven't the range but the difference is very noticeable in image quality and colour.

It's a bit like saying why doesn't everyone drive £6k new cars. After all they get you from a to b.
 
MWHCVT said:
Here is a more interesting one :lol:

Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM Lens £1163.99
Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM Lens £419.00

£744.99 Difference :eek:
Click to expand...

The answer is in lens elements and groups, plus weatherproofing. I think the more expensive l lens is a newish lens so attracts a premium at the moment, but all those extra elements etc adds up to image quality. But not everyone has a huge budget which is why there are good, cheaper lenses.
 
vetonbike said:
are all the lenses EF-S or EF-L
Click to expand...

No; there are EF-S for the 1.6 crop factor cameras

EF lenses for all cameras

and EF L lenses for all cameras

The EF L are often higher specifcation, eg at 85mm the EF lens is F1.8, the L lens is F1.2 and much more robust with metal barrels rather than plastic. Some of the EF (and even EFS) lenses are optically superb, eg the 100mm F2, but are not L class because of the plastic construction
 
Byker28i said:
Have you used an L lens?
The70-200 f4 is a very reasonable lens that outperforms any 70-300. Yes you haven't the range but the difference is very noticeable in image quality and colour.

It's a bit like saying why doesn't everyone drive £6k new cars. After all they get you from a to b.
Click to expand...

I haven't had the chance, no. I think I'd be a bit nervous using one at that price too :lol:
 
Joshwain said:
Why not? :thinking:
Click to expand...

if its an EF-S lens the 2xtc wont physically fit because the converter has an EF mount , even if you adapt the mount to fit it still wont work as the back element of the lens will probably hit the front element of the converter (this is also true of DC lenses from sigma etc)

and if its an EF lens although it may physically fit , you need to remember that you're losing two stops of light so if you put a 2xtc on a f4.5-5.6 lens you are essentially making it an f8 -f11 £140-600 which will mean that your AF wont work at all except in the brightest of lights (and then only at the short end) and your viewfinder picture will be quite dim

you also won't be able to select a wide apperture so all your shots will have an excessive depth of feild

best avoided all round.
 
Last edited:
Little John said:
ohh and just to add the 2x wont work on the £340 70-300
Click to expand...

big soft moose said:
if its an EF-S lens the 2xtc wont physically fit because the converter has an EF mount , even if you adapt the mount to fit it still wont work as the back element of the lens will probably hit the front element of the converter (this is also true of DC lenses from sigma etc)
Click to expand...

That is true of the Canon converters however the Kenko 2x & 1.4x will physically fit an efs lens such as the 70-300 IS, but like Pete says best avoided......unless you are not fussy about the results.

http://atinyblip.com/articles/photography/kenko-2x-teleplus-pro-300-teleconverter/
 
Last edited:
crofter said:
The 70-300 IS is not an efs lens it is an EF, there are no converters that will fit an efs lens
Click to expand...

Thanks Rob, I stand corrected there, the point I wanted to make was that a Kenko converter will fit where the Canon won't, ie the 70-300 IS.
 
Kenko TC's are compatible with far more lenses than the Canon ones are, and are very good optically. You wont get the autofocus to work with the 2x TC though as it takes it to f11 when it's fitted. I've managed to get a Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x TC to AF with my Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6 L even though it takes it to f8.
As for the price of the lenses, the L lenses are far better optically and have faster AF and great IS. Compared to non L lenses the IQ is much better which makes the keeper rate much better. I had a 75-300 MkIII non IS lens for about 2 months before I managed to sell it and never got a keeper from it at all. Once I'd bought my 100-400 L (cost me £1,039 and well worth it) my keeper rate went to over 65% immediately and is now at over 80% with it. I still haven't sold enough photos to cover it yet, but I'm over half way as opposed to zero with the non L lens.
 
I'm amazed by some of the s/h prices on lenses. A 100-400L lens goes for almost a new price on ebay.

For a sure thing on getting back what you paid for, buy a decent lens.
 
don't buy from eBay. Top glass although expensive holds its value very well the number of times I've looked at L glass on eBay and then looked at new prices a decided it wasn't worth it. If u want to buy used buy here far more communication with the seller. I do think IS lens prices do take the **** abit compared to the none IS versions
 
Galaxy66 said:
Thanks Rob, I stand corrected there, the point I wanted to make was that a Kenko converter will fit where the Canon won't, ie the 70-300 IS.
Click to expand...

yep the kenko converter has fewer elements (which is why its cheaper) and thus doesnt suffer from collisions like the canon one does

however theres still the issue of lack of autofocus etc which makes it almost worthless except on large apperture expensive glass
 
big soft moose said:
yep the kenko converter has fewer elements (which is why its cheaper) and thus doesnt suffer from collisions like the canon one does

however theres still the issue of lack of autofocus etc which makes it almost worthless except on large apperture expensive glass
Click to expand...

Once upon a time all lenses were manual focus, need I say any more ;)
 
simon44 said:
I'm amazed by some of the s/h prices on lenses. A 100-400L lens goes for almost a new price on ebay.

For a sure thing on getting back what you paid for, buy a decent lens.
Click to expand...

I wish I could :lol:
Unfortunately though, I'm a 17 year old full-time student without a job :bonk:

Galaxy66 said:
Once upon a time all lenses were manual focus, need I say any more ;)
Click to expand...

That would actually kill me :lol:
 
Galaxy66 said:
Once upon a time all lenses were manual focus, need I say any more ;)
Click to expand...

yes but those lenses were usually not limited to a maximum apperture of f8 -f11

also why spend hundreds of pounds on a camera with decent af then use it only in mf ?
 
Galaxy66 said:
Once upon a time all lenses were manual focus, need I say any more ;)
Click to expand...

Well, once upon a time all SLRs had big/bright viewfinders - we took this for granted - not just the very expensive FF ones!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top