How does one distinguish between the older version and the newest version of the same lens? I see the older one is priced under $2,000 on amazon but they both have the same exact names.
483538
I would look to see if it says "IS" -IS stands for image stabilizer and often, the cheaper lens doesn't have this feature. Also the "II" should be an indicator of how new it is. The older models didn't have the "II" in the name.
483539
The newer version has the IS (image stabilization). The description will say Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. This is the newer lens priced at approx. $2300.00. The older, non-IS version is about $1450.00
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
483541
The IQ of the newer version in much better. I have owned or have used every Canon version of the 70-200mm and this lens is bye far the sharpest with the F4 IS coming in second.
483542
While the name appears similar, the newer version is called the mark II. The proper name is Canon 70-200 mm f2.8 USM II. While the original was often the best lens in many photographers bag, the new improved version has some improvements that are worth considering!
483543
I did not have the older version, but my friend who is also a professional photographer says there is a world of difference between the sharpness in the newer version and the older one. I actually purchased the new based on his recommendation.
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.
1707171
Basically it's the same lens, the difference is that the cheapest deal is from a camera and lens set, comes in a box that is not the original but the lens is new, they are identical!
1380695
The new lens is smaller and lighter, performs just as well and is (or was) slightly less expensive. The downside is that is a tad slower at the long end --6.3 v. 5.6.
1753828
I have no idea.. but hey, may as well save $49 and go for the one with the lens (:
1690495
Thanks for your question!I'm sure it's disappointing to see an increase in the price of the lens you were planning to purchase. Because we constantly receive new data from our suppliers, our prices regularly change. The price you saw was the lowest price we were able to offer at the time.More details about our pricing can be found on our Help pages:http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=468502&We look forward to seeing you again soon.
808791
This is a different lens than the kit lens that comes with the camera at a much lower price. Unfortunately, I don't know the answer as to what makes this lens worth 3 times as much.
1716986
All the reviews that compare this lens with the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark I, state there is very little differance betwen the two lenses. I own the Canon 28-70 F/2.8. It is a very sharp lens. I can't see paying the more expensive price for the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark I if they perform the same. However, the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark II appears to be the better of the three lens. It is more expensive of course. In my opinion, the price differance between the Canon 28-70 F/2.8 and the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark II doesnt match the small improvement in image quality, unless you are shooting professionally and need the best quality possible. You can't go wrong with the Canon 28-70 F/2.8 for the price, just keep in mind it is an older lens and if it needs repaired, Canon probably won't repair it.
1114918
The newer lens is cheaper and lighter than the original Nikon lens. The new lens does also has a slight difference in f-stop but it has not been an issue for me. I have been very pleased with the new version of the lens so far. My only disappointment was that Nikon chose not to include a lens hood or case. All of my previous Nikon lens came with them so it was a surprise when I received the package.
1614099
I don't know the answer to that question. We bought these because we have a two pair of the older version of these that are 20+ years, only the lens is scratched due to our handling over years. It was time to buy a new pair. So far these are equal to what we had.
485238
Not sure what you're asking. I bought a couple of them online because the prices were so different I thought they might also be. Bought a Nikon one, and a cheap after-market brand. Nikon's was about $7, the other was one cent. They're virtually identical, both work just fine. So I'd say, buy it online, and buy the $.01 version. Even with shipping, it should be less that $4-5.
233940
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.
575220
They are essentially priced the same and practically do not differ that much. I had both, newer one works better for me in general (and finish-wise, black one goes better with my camera).I guess the old one becomes a collectible now :-)
67327
The one that includes "Macro" in the name is the newest version: "Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM". It is smaller, lighter, and has improved close-up capability; hence the inclusion of the "Macro" monniker. The older lens is still available on Amazon for $329 versus $399 for the new one. Hope this helps!
180561
Is a older lens.Little heavy with all metal part.Little shorter and little wider.Both is a very good lens.
1267380
As others have said, it depends on if it is a 'grey market' lens. I bought mine on Amazon and found out after I received it and tried to register it that it was grey market. Just make sure you register your lens as soon as you receive it. Amazon was very good about refunding immediately when I reported it and returned it. The fulfiller on Amazon that sold me the grey market one was Another Deal.
678610
I had the f4 version, and sold it to a friend to buy the F2.8II. Frankly, the increase in IQ is there but very slight. I would have no qualms about going back to the F4 version, it's a stunning lens. So unless you have a specific need for F2.8 (weddings for example as others mention), the added weight of the 2.8 to me is hard to justify. These are both exceptional lenses, the difference is like comparing a Bentley and a Rolls-Royce.