pictures,lenses and prices ???? brands???

[garra671]

so i had a couple of questions when it comes to lenses and everything. why are the prices so variable? whats the difference between these lenses? i know they have special ones that can do macro shots and zoom further and work alongside other things. but for these 2 lenses that im going to list (i know there must be some difference here for the price reflection but what is it?) i know i can probably google but i like to get information from people i can respond back to. what are the differences between these lenses? why is one a mere 200$ vs a 1300$ one?

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300m...qid=1450524711&sr=8-9&keywords=telephoto+lens

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200m...TF8&qid=1450524668&sr=1-8&keywords=canon+lens

 

[garra671]

so i had a couple of questions when it comes to lenses and everything. why are the prices so variable? whats the difference between these lenses? i know they have special ones that can do macro shots and zoom further and work alongside other things. but for these 2 lenses that im going to list (i know there must be some difference here for the price reflection but what is it?) i know i can probably google but i like to get information from people i can respond back to. what are the differences between these lenses? why is one a mere 200$ vs a 1300$ one?

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300m...qid=1450524711&sr=8-9&keywords=telephoto+lens

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200m...TF8&qid=1450524668&sr=1-8&keywords=canon+lens

as well ive noticed that the expensive lenses tend to be white?

 

[rboutin111]

I can't go into great detail about each lens, but in the end it come down to quality. Quality of the build and quality of the glass. The white lens is there professional line. More important then the white is the red band around the front of the lens. The red band indicates it to be canon's L-series. This series are their highest quality lens. The other lens has a plastic body while the L-series have a metal body. An L-series lens will last forever if properly taken care of. The other lens certainly will not. I know I've had/have both. The images will come out better with an L-series lens because the glass is higher quality. With DSLRs the camera body is only as good as the lens you are using. I hope this helps.

 

[Kajung2k]

The second lens is a professional lens. It offers a wide aperture of 2.8 at 200mm vs the other aperture is 5.6 at 300mm.

The wider the aperture (smaller number) the more light the lens allows into the camera.

Wider aperture allows blurring the background, taking pictures with less ambient light (gym, indoors) without a flash.

Example: I took basketball pictures inside a gym, if I had the first lens I would have had to have my shutter speed at 1/40th to get a properly exposed image. The problem is the image would be blurry because the subject is moving. With the wider aperture I could probably shoot at 1/320 shutter and freeze the action.

If you are shooting outdoors with lots of light then the only difference will be you can blur the background more.

 

[human]

First off the 75-300mm is discontinued, it uses an older style focusing motor that is not as quick as the new USM lenses, the aperature most likely changes to 5.6 around 100mm making it less efficient in low light compared to a lens with a f-stop of 2.8 throughout the zoom range. The lower the number for an f-stop the mote light it allows onto the sensor of the camera giving you a faster shutter speed. The black lens also changes size when zoomed out, where the white is all internal, the white is also weather sealed and can take a beating compared to the black ones. Most of Canon L telephoto lenses are white. Hope this helps a little.

 

[Brett]

There is no comparison between those two lenses. Kajung2k nailed with respect to basic features that are different, but the 70-200 (L-series lens) is by far a better lens--it's like comparing apples and oranges. The L-series produces very sharp pictures, period. That version (the L-series) is the non-is (image stabilization) version. I am not going to get into IS vs non-IS version, but there are very specific reason to choose the IS version, mainly for low light conditions. Last year Canon also introduced their latest version of the 70-200 2.8 IS II L series lens and cost around $1900. This lens is probably one of the best lenses that canon makes for the price. You can probably pick up the older IS version for about $1300 and teh non-IS version should be able to find around $900 used (I would think...)

I kindly disagree that "If you are shooting outdoors with lots of light then the only difference will be you can blur the background more." Yes, becuase of teh aperture settings, that part is correct. But the 75-300 will produce soft pictures for multiple reasons. One being that it covers a very wide focal length from 75mm to 300mm. Even Canon's L series lens that covers that focal length is soft, so very unlikely their $199 version will produce sharp pictures.

Here is good place to look for used lenses: fredmiranda.com (I hope this doesn't violate reef2reef's policies since it's a non-competing site??) Ebay also is a great source. You can feel good about buying a used L-series lens, for the most part, these lenses are bomb proof. Do a little research and learn about the date code that is stamped onto the back of the lens, this will tell you how old the lens is.

By the way, for shooting your corals, you might consider a macro lens.

HTH! Goodluck!

 

[garra671]

There is no comparison between those two lenses. Kajung2k nailed with respect to basic features that are different, but the 70-200 (L-series lens) is by far a better lens--it's like comparing apples and oranges. The L-series produces very sharp pictures, period. That version (the L-series) is the non-is (image stabilization) version. I am not going to get into IS vs non-IS version, but there are very specific reason to choose the IS version, mainly for low light conditions. Last year Canon also introduced their latest version of the 70-200 2.8 IS II L series lens and cost around $1900. This lens is probably one of the best lenses that canon makes for the price. You can probably pick up the older IS version for about $1300 and teh non-IS version should be able to find around $900 used (I would think...)

I kindly disagree that "If you are shooting outdoors with lots of light then the only difference will be you can blur the background more." Yes, becuase of teh aperture settings, that part is correct. But the 75-300 will produce soft pictures for multiple reasons. One being that it covers a very wide focal length from 75mm to 300mm. Even Canon's L series lens that covers that focal length is soft, so very unlikely their $199 version will produce sharp pictures.

Here is good place to look for used lenses: fredmiranda.com (I hope this doesn't violate reef2reef's policies since it's a non-competing site??) Ebay also is a great source. You can feel good about buying a used L-series lens, for the most part, these lenses are bomb proof. Do a little research and learn about the date code that is stamped onto the back of the lens, this will tell you how old the lens is.

By the way, for shooting your corals, you might consider a macro lens.

HTH! Goodluck!

That was something else I was curious about. Right now I have a makeshift macro lens with extension tubes and a old broken macro lens that still has a good lens but the corals are too far from me to get really good detail on then would a dedicated macro lens with adjustable MM be better? Majority of my corals are 2-6" from the front of my tank and about 12" down from the top of the water

 

[Kajung2k]

There is no comparison between those two lenses. Kajung2k nailed with respect to basic features that are different, but the 70-200 (L-series lens) is by far a better lens--it's like comparing apples and oranges. The L-series produces very sharp pictures, period. That version (the L-series) is the non-is (image stabilization) version. I am not going to get into IS vs non-IS version, but there are very specific reason to choose the IS version, mainly for low light conditions. Last year Canon also introduced their latest version of the 70-200 2.8 IS II L series lens and cost around $1900. This lens is probably one of the best lenses that canon makes for the price. You can probably pick up the older IS version for about $1300 and teh non-IS version should be able to find around $900 used (I would think...)

I kindly disagree that "If you are shooting outdoors with lots of light then the only difference will be you can blur the background more." Yes, becuase of teh aperture settings, that part is correct. But the 75-300 will produce soft pictures for multiple reasons. One being that it covers a very wide focal length from 75mm to 300mm. Even Canon's L series lens that covers that focal length is soft, so very unlikely their $199 version will produce sharp pictures.

Here is good place to look for used lenses: fredmiranda.com (I hope this doesn't violate reef2reef's policies since it's a non-competing site??) Ebay also is a great source. You can feel good about buying a used L-series lens, for the most part, these lenses are bomb proof. Do a little research and learn about the date code that is stamped onto the back of the lens, this will tell you how old the lens is.

By the way, for shooting your corals, you might consider a macro lens.

HTH! Goodluck!

I agree 100 percent with what you said. I just did not want to type it all up on my phone. I own the 70-200 2.8 is ii and I use it for portraits and some action photos. Tack sharp!