What's the difference.
- Thread starter swiftflo
- Start date
D
Deleted member 21335
Guest
Not sure you can 'take aside the 'F' value' as it's one of the biggest factors. Also, the pro build quality, weather sealing etc.
- Messages
- 7,821
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Your lens has a maximum aperture of f4.5 and I think is variable, the 70-200 has the much larger maximum fixed aperture of f2.8, which means it will let in a lot more light, allowing faster shutter speeds.
It will have a lot more glass in it as well, it will be a lot bigger and heavier.
It is a more expensive design and build process to achieve a fixed maximum aperture of f2.8 on a zoom lens, than it is to go for a simpler variable maximum aperture design.
It will have a lot more glass in it as well, it will be a lot bigger and heavier.
It is a more expensive design and build process to achieve a fixed maximum aperture of f2.8 on a zoom lens, than it is to go for a simpler variable maximum aperture design.
- Messages
- 2,529
- Edit My Images
- No
Two VR mode, 5 ED element, better glass or better quality of glass, weather sealing, more durable, metal mount instead of the plastic mount, made out of metal instead of plastic, better colour, contrast, sharpness, bokeh, f2.8 so better at low light and is constant 2.8 as well.
In general is much more better.
In general is much more better.
- Messages
- 2,777
- Name
- Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Since you (as are most of us) are "still learning" let me add a couple of comments. The f2.8 as a "faster" lens will allow you to capture images with less light. From a practical standpoint, if you shoot action shots, it means you'll be able to freeze action more consistently, avoiding blurring of your subject. If you shoot portraits, you'll better isolate your subject with the shallower depth of field that accompanies larger apertures (2.8 vs 4.5). In other words, you can focus on your subject's eyes and get most of the face in focus, but much of the surroundings will be pleasantly blurry ("bokeh") keeping the viewer focused on your main subject, rather than a playground swing in the background.
Only the photographer can determine if these features are worth the added cost. For some it is, and for others it isn't.
As a downside, to work in low-light conditions, the lens needs to have bigger glass, to let in more light. Glass if heavy, and f2.8 lenses are bigger, bulkier and heavier than their f/4 counterparts. That can make it awkward to carry, and a big lens can intimidate some subjects, and alert others to your attempts to gather candid photos.
Everything in lens design is a trade-off. There has never been, and never will be, a perfect lens.
Only the photographer can determine if these features are worth the added cost. For some it is, and for others it isn't.
As a downside, to work in low-light conditions, the lens needs to have bigger glass, to let in more light. Glass if heavy, and f2.8 lenses are bigger, bulkier and heavier than their f/4 counterparts. That can make it awkward to carry, and a big lens can intimidate some subjects, and alert others to your attempts to gather candid photos.
Everything in lens design is a trade-off. There has never been, and never will be, a perfect lens.
