Is there a difference between this lens and the newer version that is $100. less?
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.
1509565
I have shot 3 weddings with this lens and I haven't had a problem with it, it's been great. I have used the 70-200 and its just a bit faster that the 80-200 but I can't really tell the difference.
1380700
It is a new design that is smaller and lighter. Some might argue that the older design is a little sharper, but I am satisfied with the newer design as an "all purpose travel lens". For critical work, I would use my 70-200.
1071779
Here are some reviews of both. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/100HS/100HSA.HTMhttp://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/300HS/300HSA.HTMI recently had to make the same decision, and tried out both the 300HS and 100HS. The image with the 100HS was sharper every time. Colors were pretty much the same, both seemed slightly saturated (easy fix with settings), but fairly accurate IMO.I wouldn't spend the extra $50 for a bit more zoom, especially at the cost of image quality.
1299324
Yes - Review of the better lens and differences between the two can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap0NQfWuKKE
952431
Yes, I was reviewing it and was thinking to buy the more expensive one as I thought it must be better in some way, then I discovered that the cheaper one was newer and had more zoom options. Rare instance where going cheaper is getting the better product.
1746186
Yes, much better. Better optics, better sharpness and color transmission, better weather sealing. Heavier, and more conspicuous. You might consider the 100-400 IS L lens. I switched from that because I got tired of carrying it around. Which is a problem with a 400 mm IS prime. Good luck. JWK
1606296
I've had both. They both have the same light gathering abilities, but the version II is smaller and is a bit better optically the the original 14-42, although I think you'd be hard pressed to see the difference in most situations. The version II is a smoother lens, mechanically.
2050378
You will have better images if you use the Canon EF 100mm (without IS) Lens with a tripod. Infact, both lenses have the same colour quality at all. The only differences are "IS" and "PRICE". Thanks
1597128
if the lens is not around the $10,499 range then you need to ask the question. I purchased my lens from amazon. It was not a second, and no complaints.
1087492
Yes it is. The new version has OS and I would recommend it. The lens is heavy and slow, but for nature and outdoor versatility it rocks. I am not a professional but the images quality is very good.
357729
To my understanding it is usually believed that 2470 is a better version than this one in the same focal length range.But there are other things to consider. How important is it for you to have the extra versatility, that is, the focal length of 70 to 120? How much do you care about the lost of aperture range? (And that depends on what you plan to shoot most often.) How important is the price difference to you? And weight differs, too.Actually, I envy the newest 750 model so much! lol. It certainly deserves good lenses.
1565241
The non-macro version is the older model of this lens and uses 72mm filters. The macro version is the new and improved version, uses 62mm filters and is manufactured somewhat differently. I believe the new macro version is supposed to be a bit smaller overall and lighter than the older version.
1394322
I had the X100 and now own the XT1 and 56mm f1.2. While it's not exactly what you're looking for I'll say that I am 100% happy w/ the 56mm and find the XT1 a huge upgrade from the X100. Not just in terms of image quality and bokeh but flexibility as well since you can change out the lenses.
227597
Hey M. Kelly, why do you say the Nikon is 100 cheaper? They seem to be $5 difference here on Amazon and the Rebel appears to be the one that is $5 less! Am I looking at the wrong camera?
845608
I just saw that the new model (pzd) is just 20 dollars more and its lighter. The old version is a great all around lens. I highly recommend it. Recently i bought the 17-50 2.8 VC which way sharper and brighter, but the zoom range of this one is amazing. Good luck
2117279
There is a far greater range of diversity with the 18- 200 lens that cancels 90 per cent of the lens changes I would have to make as an amateur photog.Fewer changes adds up to less chance of dust contamination.