Why is this newer version of the 20mm less expensive than the older plastic version? Seems like it should be more right?
575218
It's almost certainly an increase just because it's old. There is no optical difference between the two.
575219
It's definitely no worse than the older version. But still sucks at AF speed. and has banding issues on some of the olympus bodies.
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 :-)
575221
I agree and have noticed that as well. I bought the older version and have been pleased with it. I have also not read complaints about the newer version. It may be as simple as supply and demand or something we are not aware of. You might check review sites just to make sure the version 2 is well rated and then go for it if it's cheaper. The 20MM has been a great lens, I have received compliments about my photo's and 9 times out of 10, it's taken with the 20mm.
575222
I would like to add to the comment made about the AF. Yes, it's a little loud going back and forth a little. I knew that going in and in fact Lumix warns of it on the older version, and I would not suggest this lens for video. I use it for still photo's on a Lumix and have no other issues. Perhaps the new version is not as so?
615263
Correct, the same seller has a 20 dollar version and that's the one I received.
2077351
It depends....try looking at it like this. Is $20 more than $18? Hmmm. Think maybe you can answer your own question now, don't you??
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!
2140676
If that was the only difference between the two versions, I would say the answer would be 'no' - but I believe that the VC lens has a better (up-to-date) lens elements than its older version.
2183426
Hi, Here is a good review from Ken Rockwell. This Nikon 18-300mm VR is a smaller, lighter version of the original 18-300mm VR. The original 18-300 was very good, so good in fact that I sold an image I made with it to McDonald's - and they are using it on a billboard. This new lens is as good, and is smaller, lighter and less expensive, so it's even better! My only real complaint about the original 18-300 was that it weighed a lot more than my camera, and this new 18-300 weighs ten ounces less! This new 18-300mm also offers Vibration Reduction (4 stops) and instant manual-focus override. It's very slightly slower at the 300mm end (f/6.3 versus f/5.6) than the older lens, and for ten ounces off my shoulder, that's nothing. By taking off 10 ounces, I now can carry this new lens everywhere I never bothered with the old 18-300. This new lens do everything, and it even does macro. At 300mm, it focuses to within just inches of the front of the lens.
776494
Glass is sharper, and the sharpness is broader in the middle Vs. the plastic one only being very sharp almost completely in the center. The glass lens also has less of the barrel distortion. I'ts simply about preference, typically people purchase the holga cameras for the distortion ability...
783127
Hi DB it must have been really late to reply to your message now. I've just recently bought this lens and it is the newer version now. It can be identified with a smooth body coating instead of the old matt one. It is better now and the colours look less yellow.
501844
Amazon tends to raise their price autmatically (?) if there is more interests for the item. e.g. more clicks and page views increases the price.I think the price drop for a bit due the rumor that waterpoof version of this lense is going to be out soon. This is not a water-proof lense but a great one indeed.
263538
i just couldn't justify spending another $1500 MORE over the 80-200mm for 10 mm more low end range and VR .. which is just marketing hype in all but a few situations. its right up there with polarized lenses.
116247
I have never seen the $20.00+ set. It's possible they are being sold by a specialty store, so the price is higher. That is why I prefer Amazon; I can often find the same item for a lower price.
32040
I am confused by this as well. Why would the older, out-dated version cost more? It is not an antique!
663164
There may be....i am conditioned to think that 20 bucks more means something a bit additional, perhaps. Maybe the other model has a bigger sound.....however, maybe they are essentially the same. If you find any info, please let me know. Thanks!
430737
I guess that's where I am. If there's a MASSIVE difference in price for essentially the same item, I'll go for the less expensive version. If we're talking about $20 - $30 difference on a $~300 item, I'll go for the name.
1268392
Besides the focal length and the "Vibration Reduction " feature, almost nothing. A while back the price for the 10-30mm was higher for the VR. Now that they are the same, like someone said, why bother unless you just like to have a full camera bag like myself.
1332328
There is a silver version of the lens which can be a little less expensive. Or sony has a. 55-210mm lens which is much cheaper.
1380696
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. Some say it doesn't take as sharp of pictures. I don't agree and the trade off for how much small and lighter it is, is well worth it to me. It is even lighter than my older 18-200VR. For a everyday lens that can take photos between 18 - 300, It is ideal for me. If I need sharper, I'll use a dedicated lens for that shot!