300mm Question

I don't see many comments on lenses over 300mm. Is it not that common for people to buy 400mm?

 

i imagine they would be a pretty penny-- especially if you wanted to use it at high speeds. thats a serious scope

 

good lenses over 300 are very very expensive ... actually, already at 300 good ones are very expensive

also a 400 or 500 mm lens is a rather specialised lens (wildlife and sports mainly), and less multi-purpose than something in the 30 - 300mm range.

also, anything beyond 300 mm is not that easy to handle in terms of camera shake and all.

 

Still expensive by comparison to most common lenses, but a perhaps more practical proposition would be the EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM at $1,119.95. It would also be a damned sight less of a strain in carrying it round too when compared with some of Mike's list. This one's on my list of potential future buys.

 

This is actually the one I am using, and the weight was also one of the reasons

over here it costs the price you quote, but in EUR

 

Go to the UK and do the same in £'s in some places. Best price I can find is £769.99, but that's shipped from Hong Kong.

 

Too bad they don't do that here in pesos...

 

If they did, I would be a frequent visitor

 

i didn't realize they were that pricey. I can see why not that many people have them.

So if there is one 300mm lens to buy that was of good quality but also has a good price which one would it be?

 

I think all of what has been said is prety much right (long lens=expensive) but nother thing is I think most of the discussions on the forum are about either portraits or general people shooting. Long lenses like the ones you mentioned are more for sports or wildlife shooting and are fairly specialised I am sure if you look in the landscape/nature section you might se a little of that. Really though alot of the people on the forums are either gneral shooters or portrait shooters and the max you are going to get there is pretty much 200mm.