WhatÂ´s the diference between this lens and the 70-200 is? wich is like $600,00 more expensive
313058
IS = Image Stabilization. A lens with IS can be used to take photos at slower shutter speeds than lenses without IS before camera shake causes the image to become blurry. Usually you need a shutter speed that is 1/FL, where FL=focal length of the lens, to prevent camera shake when handholding this lens (e.g., not mounted to a tripod). So if you had this lens set to 200mm you would normally need a shutter speed of 1/200 or faster (1/320 on a crop sensor body such as a Rebel, 70D, 7D, etc., due to the 1.6X reduced field of view). With the IS version you could shoot 1/100, even 1/50 if you have a steady hand, and get consistently good results. IS = Image Stabilization. A lens with IS can be used to take photos at slower shutter speeds than lenses without IS before camera shake causes the image to become blurry. Usually you need a shutter speed that is 1/FL, where FL=focal length of the lens, to prevent camera shake when handholding this lens (e.g., not mounted to a tripod). So if you had this lens set to 200mm you would normally need a shutter speed of 1/200 or faster (1/320 on a crop sensor body such as a Rebel, 70D, 7D, etc., due to the 1.6X reduced field of view). With the IS version you could shoot 1/100, even... » Read More IS = Image Stabilization. A lens with IS can be used to take photos at slower shutter speeds than lenses without IS before camera shake causes the image to become blurry. Usually you need a shutter speed that is 1/FL, where FL=focal length of the lens, to prevent camera shake when handholding this lens (e.g., not mounted to a tripod). So if you had this lens set to 200mm you would normally need a shutter speed of 1/200 or faster (1/320 on a crop sensor body such as a Rebel, 70D, 7D, etc., due to the 1.6X reduced field of view). With the IS version you could shoot 1/100, even 1/50 if you have a steady hand, and get consistently good results. « Show Less
313059
I just have to mention that IS is for stabilizing the lens ( NOT the subject). For action, IS does nothing for you. It's for keeping your shaky hands still...not the subject. Pretty much all pro sports photogs turn OFF IS when shooting sports as the engagement of IS motor can actually cause sharpness issues until it fully engages. IS is awesome for handheld still subject matter, but don't be confused about it helping with moving subjects. I shoot pro sports multiple times a week and can verify that we all turn IS off.
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.
108984
The contempporary version of sigma 17-70 has an upgraded array of optics, and is lighter compared to the initial version of Sigma´s 17-70, and more compatible with newer camera models ie canon60D. This is the reason beneath the price difference. I am quite happy with my choice. Lens performance is great, image sharpness is outstanding!
2078344
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise. Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
467108
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.
483540
It's all in the name. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is the newest of the product. Go to CanonUSA.com for your answer. The big part that confused you (I think) is the "IS II"). Good luck. Vic
1873695
These lens are totally different. With the 18-200 you are covering a large range of view. You easily can use it in your living room and take a family portrait and in a few seconds later go to your backyard and get a quickly close up of a bird without changing lens or exposing the camera and your lens to moist. So, if you a plan to shoot wildlife or subjects located far away you need the 75-300. Otherwise, i would recommend the 18-200. I hope this help ; )
725619
This lens compares with and outperform the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L USM, I purchased this lens after my Canon broke down, I purchased the Sigma lens and have been use it more than the Canon Lens, fantastic lens and costs half of Canon's price.
1316304
I owned the 300 f4 and replaced it with the 70-300 L which for me is a better alternative. The additional length makes a huge difference; I also owned the 70-200 F4, a wonderful lens but I find I no longer use since I have the 70-300L. There is NO comparison between the non-L version of 70-300 & the L version. This is a terrific lens & you will be happy with it.
357725
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.
1199010
I don't have the 70-200 but I do not see any reason why the teleconverter would slow focusing, as long as you have enough light. It will cost you one stop of light but outdoors, in the daytime, that should be no problem on a 2.8 lens.
1790371
Yes, the two lenses are worlds apart. The 70-300 is a top quality 'prosumer' lens, intended for advanced amateurs and pros on a budget; worth every penny! The 55-200 is an affordable, 'entry level' lens and an excellent value.
839198
You would get a lot more bang for fewer bucks by replacing the D-90 body (12.4 mpix DX format) with a new D-610 (24.3 mpix FX format) if your 200 mm lens is in that format also, i.e., if it is the 70-200 FX zoom. Plus, HD video and faster internal processing.
759243
Get the 24-70 for indoor/low light use over the 24-105. IS ONLY helps with camera shake NOT moving subjects. For moving subjects, the extra stop from the 2.8 trumps 4.0 + IS every time, all the time. So with reference to what DavInAZ wrote above, the IS does not make the 24-105 better in low light than the faster 2.8. An extra stop will always be an extra stop. An easy way to think about it is, if you are moving go with the IS, if the subject is moving go with the faster lens. Obviously, if you can have both (as with the 70-200 f2.8L IS), then you are golden.
604837
Hi Jack - to be honest I've not had hands on with this lens. It was bought for my Son for his birthday. And from what I do know about it it is smaller and with the Macro capability - a more useful lens, also the 18-200 has less focal range then the newer Macro Lens. Seems to have pretty good reviews and as my son uses it for digital video - he's pretty happy thus far. Sorry I can't be of more help.Chuck
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.
513702
That lens would be too heavy and expensive to manufacture. You think the 70-200 2.8 II is heavy? That lens would be a beast. The manufacturing design of a lens that has in its range very wide to telephoto is extremely complex at 2.8 max aperture. I don't see it happening in the near to medium future (5 to 10 years) if ever.
811135
I don't have the Tamron 70-200 but I have the canon 70-200L f4, and I must say the 24-70 Tamron is not as sharp as the canon. Having said this, the Tamron is sharp enough for me and in anycase you need wide-tele lens for general photography as opposed to long telephoto zooms such as 70-200.