mawz Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
JimUe wrote:
so what exactly are you comparing?
the primes that cost more (Sony 500/4, Sony 300/2.8) cost a fortune because of they are new, new designs, fast aperature and low sales volume.
the zooms that cost less (Sony 70-400, 70-300) are slower aperature and thus smaller and lighter, and thus presumably cheaper to build compared to the big heavy primes. as some have said, the new zooms seem to be comparable to the old primes in terms of IQ.
the minolta primes (200/2.8, 300/2.8, 300/4 & 400/4.5) are much less than the Sony primes but are still very good.
Note the 300/2.8 SSM is not a new design, it dates back to the Minolta era (originally introduced as the Minolta 300mm f2.8 G SSM). But it is a low-production lens which is hand-assembled and thus expensive to produce. The 500/4 is in the same boat albeit a very recent design, Sony sells an order of magnitude less of those than Nikon or Canon, and that drives the price up sharply.
The 70-400's are best-in-class (although the new Nikkor 80-400VR does rival it, the 100-400L and old 80-400 do not). Ditto the 70-300G which remains the best lens in its class by a fair amount.
The Minolta's can be real steals, even the rare 600/4 HS G can be had for significantly less than 300/2.8G SSM money. The exception here is the Minolta 300/2.8G SSM which is significantly more expensive than the older G and HS G versions, unsurprisingly as it is both the rarest A mount 300 and identical to the expensive Sony version. With a 7, 8 or 9 series bodies the HS G lenses focus reasonably fast as these bodies have very muscular AF motors (comparable to a single-digit Nikon), I've had no problems shooting an airshow with a 300/2.8 HS G on an A700 (lens was borrowed, the owner was using the 600/4 on his A900 at the same time).
|