WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE ON THIS 90MM 272E AND 272EE
1037388
272EE is trhe Canon fit version of the 272E, 272EN = Nikon 272ES=Sony/Minolta
328902
I was faced with this exact problem and chose the 700. Here are my reasons. The 700 has a longer lens but the 800 has a wider lens. For my shooting purposes, longer is definitely more useful. You should think about what kind of shots you're likely to shoot and decide based on that. The 800 has a newer sensor and higher ISO capabilities. The higher ISO enables you to shoot in dark light so if you often shoot at night, that might be something to think about. I doubt the newer sensor is worth the $80. It's not like the 700 had a terrible sensor.
233937
It looks like the "#883-101" is a newer version for the same model. You may not be able to buy "#880-101". I did a comparison of these two versions and here are differences [values for #883-101], (values for #880-101):1. Angle View: [69.3° - 5.7°], (76.5° - 6.5°)2. Minimum Focus Distance: [13.8" (35.05 cm)], (1.48' (45 cm))3. Elements/Groups: [13/16], (18/14)4. Filter Thread: [62 mm], (72 mm)5. Dimensions (DxL): [Approx. 2.9x3.5" (7.37x8.89 cm)], (Approx. 3.1x4.0" (7.87x10.16 cm))6. Weight: [1.04 lb. (470g)], (1.39 lb. (630g))- Most of other features are the same.I hope this will be helpful. It looks like the "#883-101" is a newer version for the same model. You may not be able to buy "#880-101". I did a comparison of these two versions and here are differences [values for #883-101], (values for #880-101):1. Angle View: [69.3° - 5.7°], (76.5° - 6.5°)2. Minimum Focus Distance: [13.8" (35.05 cm)], (1.48' (45 cm))3. Elements/Groups: [13/16], (18/14)4. Filter Thread: [62 mm], (72 mm)5. Dimensions (DxL): [Approx. 2.9x3.5" (7.37x8.89 cm)], (Approx. 3.1x4.0" (7.87x10.16 cm))6. Weight: [1.04 lb. (470g)], (1.39 lb.... » Read More It looks like the "#883-101" is a newer version for the same model. You may not be able to buy "#880-101". I did a comparison of these two versions and here are differences [values for #883-101], (values for #880-101):1. Angle View: [69.3° - 5.7°], (76.5° - 6.5°)2. Minimum Focus Distance: [13.8" (35.05 cm)], (1.48' (45 cm))3. Elements/Groups: [13/16], (18/14)4. Filter Thread: [62 mm], (72 mm)5. Dimensions (DxL): [Approx. 2.9x3.5" (7.37x8.89 cm)], (Approx. 3.1x4.0" (7.87x10.16 cm))6. Weight: [1.04 lb. (470g)], (1.39 lb. (630g))- Most of other features are the same.I hope this will be helpful. « Show Less
53823
I did a search at Amazon for the 44302-B and it appears to be a new model listed for $105.09!! As opposed to $40 for the other one. Not a lot of details,though. Look at the Celestron web site.
578158
thanx a lot for your response! i already ordered the 55-210 mm lense, lets see when it arrives.
448718
I've owned both lenses, and in my opinion for use with FX cameras the AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR lens is a better lens than the old 24-120mm f/3/5-5.6G. The 24-85G is sharper, especially at the edges; it's lighter; and its VR function works better. Of course, you give up the extra range, but I've found that 85mm is adequate for most general photography.
2103644
Iso wont make a difference. You will need to do some math to calculate your "effective F stop". Ne = N(1+M/p)N = f-numberNe = effective f-numberM = magnification = extension from infinity focus / focal lengthp = exit pupil diameter / entrance pupil diameter
1578624
In my experience, the 800mm is noticeably better, at least with my copy of the 400mm. The TC option is a lot lighter way to get to 800mm, though.
820537
Hi Enrique,I wish I had a clear cur answer. I use some new lenses and some 'E" series lenses made by Nikon. The adapters are different on each.The E series lenses were made in the early 1980's and are a GREAT value however their mounts are different than the 18-55. Sorry I cannot be of more help. Maybe go the B&H; photo and see if they have a close-up of your lens and compare that with the 18-55?Best,Haji Mahmood
659562
The 85mm lense is a DX lense and the 105mm is a regular (FX) lense. The DX is not suited for full frame cameras. Also the 105mm is faster at 2.8f and has the nano coating to reduce glare. Myself having a D700 went with the 105mm.
187070
I was not sure when I first looked, then I realized the different models had different temperature capabilities, and if I recall some of them had different focus ratio as well. Keeping this in mind, Read descriptions carefully, the differences will be more apparent!
1577239
If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense would cause damage over time. If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense... » Read More If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense would cause damage over time. « Show Less
923249
This probably is not helpful: I'm delighted with the 45-175mm, but I got it for a steal as an Amazon lightning deal for just under $200. Buying was a no-brainer. So the only real advice I can offer is to be extremely patient and keep your eyes open for a great deal on the 45-175mm.
2023785
Be careful here. I thought I was getting the E-108 and I got the E-109. I had to pay return shipping, so I kept it - it's a good light. Amazon just won't change that error even though they were told by me and the seller. IF YOU WANT ONLY THE E-108, SEARCH FOR THE DOUBLE DERBY E-108 OR JUST DOUBLE DERBY. I did this and I was sure to get the E-108 - a much bigger and heavier unit AND more expensive. The E-109 is very close to the effect of the E-108.
662382
Not bad, I had the 65" which has a lot more glare so I returned it for the m701d because it has a semi matte screen. Still has glare but is diffused whereas the 65 is like a mirror
1658027
http://www.5min.com/Video/Portrait-Photography-Tips-72416664The main difference is the working distance from the subject. The video I posted will help you better understand. The 85mm has better bokeh also.
1275903
This is a smaller body. I did not try to use my old Olympus lenses. I am happy with the E-M5. It has all the bells and whistles and half the weight and is weather proof, a real plus for me.