Aperture and Focal length

Why would a 300 or 200mm lense at f/2.8 be so much more expensive than one at f/4.5 - 5?

 

The first (main) thing is that it has a larger aperture and lets in more light allowing a faster shutter speed. Another is that it is f/2.8 throughout the entire focal range rather than getting smaller at longer focal lengths.

Lenses with larger apertures typically also are built better all around - better glass, better build, better mount, etc.

 

I understand the aperture, but I don't understand why a lenses that shoot with a larger aperture cost so much more than there counterparts....

 

Yeah, I should probably retract my 'main' statement. What makes it cost more is mostly that these lenses are generally built better all around as I said in my last statement...

 

Ok, fine....Still though....Why would I want one over the other as fas as taking pictures is concerned?

 

i went thru this same thing when i was looking to upgrade to an L lens.

the 2 offered were:
70-200mm f4.0L @ $550
70-200mm f2.8L @ way too damn much for me to buy and still be married!

the only real difference was aperture. build was the same. the f2.8 just had bigger glass.

so i figured go with the f4.0, keep my marriage, and buy a flashlight for low light situations :mrgreen:

 

The answer is that it's a lot more difficult - and expensive! - to craft a lens that large, and all the internal elements as well.

Nikon and Canon only do this using the highest quality glass they can produce, and with extreme attention to every detail of design and construction.

Also, they are very aware that the people most likely to buy these lenses are Pros and advanced amateurs. And we're a pretty picky lot!

After all, our livelihood depends on the quality of our product. In order to meet our standards, the manufacturers are going to produce the highest quality equipment they can ... and they know we're going to pay for the quality of what we get.

 

Thanks for the lesson, I understand the relationship between aperture, ISO, shutter speed, and DOF....I think you are missing what I'm asking.....

Do you think that with my equipment ( listed in my signature ) will be suitable to take some hockey pictures? I was planning on starting with these settings and working from here.....ISO 1600, 1/200

 

1.Because I want to know, why the difference in price...giving me a lesson in exposure does not answer my question..... 2. DUH 3. Thank you for answering my last question.