I got the new Sony 70-200 mm F4 Macro G OSS II and it’s amazing, even though very expensive. Anyway while looking at all those YouTube videos about it people were very often mention that it’s compatible with tele converters and you’d get basically double the size lens (with half the light) + 1.0 macro instead of 0.5. Sounds amazing, and it looks like just a little bit of a short pipe which makes the lens to be a bit further away from the sensor.
I was thinking that it would be neat to get one, but when I looked at the prize, oh my god, $548. I don’t get it, so what makes it so expensive?
It’s not so much about the age of the camera, it’s about the age of the mount. Sony’s E-mount has been around about 13 years. Based on your camera’s age, I’m betting that it’s a DSLR EF mount, which has been around for 35 or so years. Having a deeper back catalog of options results in the ability to choose an older option for a discounted price on the used market. People have also been moving from DSLRs to mirrorless, which has been pushing prices down on used equipment some.
Yes you are correct on the mount, although of course the teleconverter I have isn’t all that old. Thirteen years is still quite a long time for a mount to be available and not have a wide selection of aftermarket and used components available though, none of my equipment (except the body) is that old so I would think OP should have similar items they could buy?
deleted by creator
For DSLRs, Nikon’s F-mount will give you a lens catalog dating back to the 60s if that’s your criteria for choosing Canon. Unmotorized F-mount glass does require buying either a D7xxx or FF body if you want autofocus though.
In the mirrorless world, if you’re on a budget E-mount is probably the way to go. Other than M43, it’s one of the oldest mirrorless mounts and is also completely open, which gives you plenty of third party lens options.