Why it this lens more expensive than the Canon 75-300 lens and Less expensive than the 70-300 UD lens? be specific. thank you.
802562
Since you aren't being specific about which 75-300, I'll just assume it's because they don't have image stabilization (IS). Cheaper Canon 75-300mm lenses don't usually have this feature. The UD lenses have fluorite (I think) elements. At any rate, the "UD" tag in the lens name = ultra low dispersion (which means more $$). You can tell the features of a particular lens by the numbers and abbreviations in the lens name. Example: EF (type of lens mount), 70-300mm (this one is obvious), f/4-5.6 (aperture range from 70-300), IS (image stabilization), USM (type of motor that drives the autofocus, in this case, Ultra Sonic). All of these features can add to or take away from the price of a lens. You might also see a I, II, or III thrown in there somewhere, this is the revision or the iteration of a particular lens series. I hope this helps.
1809711
since the aperture (f) is the same for both, the difference is the zoom. the 75 starts magnified more and can zoom in more than a 50-250. so 75-300 starts closer to the object and ends farther
1640068
From what I can tell, the cheaper version is smaller and lighter. But, I don't know if that necessarily makes it a better lens. Here is the link to sigmas page for the more expensive lens: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-200mm-f35-63-ii-dc-os-hsm And here is the link to the less expensive one: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-200mm-f35-63-dc-macro-os-hsm-c I have the more expensive lens, and I have used it exclusively since I bought it. I've never shot with the other one though, so I can't accurately compare one to the other.
1069243
I own both. This is sharper and faster to focus than the 70-300. With either lens, "faster" is not a consideration. Both lenses are sharpest at f8 and require plenty of bright light. BTW, the lens hood from the 70-300 works on this version for those wondering...
765800
I am not sure what 55-300 lens you are referring to but generally speaking the cost of a lens is dependent on two things. One, the width of the close up to wide angle i.e 55 vs 70 to 300. The longer one would be more. Two, the f stop of the lens. The lower the more expensive because the lens has a wider range of optium focus. These are big generalities but this should give you some idea why one lens might be more expensive than another. It all depends what you want to do with the lens and the type of pictures you want to take. I take a lot of sports for my grandkids so faster and wider range of focus is important to me. Goodluck. I am not sure what 55-300 lens you are referring to but generally speaking the cost of a lens is dependent on two things. One, the width of the close up to wide angle i.e 55 vs 70 to 300. The longer one would be more. Two, the f stop of the lens. The lower the more expensive because the lens has a wider range of optium focus. These are big generalities but this should give you some idea why one lens might be more expensive than another. It all depends what you want to do with the lens and the type of pictures you want to take. I take a lot of sports for my grandkids so faster and wider... » Read More I am not sure what 55-300 lens you are referring to but generally speaking the cost of a lens is dependent on two things. One, the width of the close up to wide angle i.e 55 vs 70 to 300. The longer one would be more. Two, the f stop of the lens. The lower the more expensive because the lens has a wider range of optium focus. These are big generalities but this should give you some idea why one lens might be more expensive than another. It all depends what you want to do with the lens and the type of pictures you want to take. I take a lot of sports for my grandkids so faster and wider range of focus is important to me. Goodluck. « Show Less
1674522
I bought the 24-105 lens recently because I thought the IS would make up for my lack of a higher aperture in low-light situations. It does to an extent, but I have decided that I want the f/2.8 for other reasons. So I'm trying to sell my 24-105 so I can buy the 24-70. I do wish the 24-70 had IS, but it's really not necessary because it's just a faster lens. It really depends on your use. If you are using it for weddings, you may want to consider the 24-70 because of the faster focusing and better handling in low-light situations. If you are using it for a general walk-around lens, the 24-105 will do just fine. I love mine and I almost want to keep it and buy the 24-70, but I can't afford both right now and I need the 24-70 for my business. You can see some sample photos from the 24-105 at my website: www.sarakelley.net. Email me there if you want more input or have any questions.
1605633
Yes, I have this lens. Comes in a canon box & and is labeled with canon's logo. It's not one of their "expensive" lenses, but it is a canon lens.
313060
The first two answers are spot on. I bought this lens because it is far less expensive and I use a tripod most of the time.
398594
Thanks for your tip. Some sellers (in amazon) do not include "UD" in their description. Should we buy the one with UD lens or without?
173566
Interesting question, glad you asked. The short answer is no. If there is any I haven't noticed. Having said that, it is a less expensive lens compared to my Canon 100-400mm which I am used to looking at photos with that lens. I am sure I would have seen any purple or color fringing by now. I guess the largest drawback is that it is not tack sharp as its expensive cousin, that is to be expected, but still very good.
1742136
If you want sharper images and faster focusing, you might instead consider getting one of the Canon 70-200mm f/4L USM models. The difference in image quality can be quite a startling. Back (WAY back) when I was looking to upgrade my old telephoto lens, someone gave me excellent advice that the difference between the newer telephotos I was considering was relatively small - too small to agonize over - and that if I really wanted to upgrade, I should just bite the bullet and get the L. One of the best pieces of advice on equipment I ever got. Once I tried the L, I never looked back. The one drawback is that the lens will spoil you forever.
79348
I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens. Life always seems to be about choices and trade-offs doesn't it.I hope this was helpful. I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens.... » Read More I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens. Life always seems to be about choices and trade-offs doesn't it.I hope this was helpful. « Show Less
124500
Jamie, I had the same question. Truth be told I don't have the Canon version. I am interning this summer with one of the nation's best commercial photographers and I asked him. He told me that the Canon lens is built a little better but he has both and he uses both. He told me I wouldn't be disappointed in this lens and I haven't been.
1200245
I'm going to suggest a different question. Do you really want a newer version? I recently bought a used 300mm F4 for 950. Its sells new for around 1300. This lens has been due for replacement for quite some time. So i had to ask myself the same question you have, when will a replacement come out, because it is certainly overdue. Problem is, when it does come out, it will be of lesser build quality, it will remove the aperature ring(G lens), add VR, and cost well over 2000. While I would like the VR on this lens, is it worth the huge proce difference, and the reduced build quality. I also used the same logic on a 17-35 i just bought. So what I would suggest, is to judge the current lens on its merits. The only gripe I would have with this lens is that it is AF and not AF-s. It will be much cheaper than a new one, probably much better build quality, and who knows when a replacement might arrive.
2184845
I do not know which other lens you are talking about. My guess is it has the same specs as this one also by Canon. They are versions of the same lens. The one whose page you are on is newer. The old one has a 67 mm diameter the new one 72 mm. New one has updated focal elements but it's roughly the same.
759242
If anyone is interested I have a 24-70L 2.8 Canon Lens. I only use it about 5 times total. 6 weeks after I bought it I purchase the 24-105 IS Canon Lens because I shoot mostly Wedding & Party's. The 24-105 IS works much better for the type of photography I do. I would sell it for $900.00 and include the B&W; UV Filter which is the top of the line brand filter which is made in Germany. Plus $25.00 for shipping. You can email me at rjgphoto@sbcglobal.net if anyone is interested.
1526809
I am a professional photographer and I considered both before buying the Canon. I plan to use the lens regularly and for a long time and I need my images to be the best they can be. That uptick in quality is worth far more than $800, especially when spread out over years of ownership.