Why is the Canon 100-400 lens cheaper than the 70-200 lens? I thought the stronger lens would be more expensive?
1783065
Hi this canon 100-400 is f4.5-5.6 while the 70-200 is f2.8. These two lenses are totally different.
1783066
If you're referring to the 70-200mm F2.8, lenses with wider apertures always cost more. F4.5 is not a very bright lens, but since it's primary use is for outdoors telephoto photography you probably won't miss that wider aperture.
328902
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.
1703579
There is some comparison which saying Canon 18-135 lense is sharper than Sigma 18-200. My frinds please Post Canon 18-135 or Canon 18-200. ( If both are from Canon. which is best).
1319767
I'm not an expert just a photo hobby guy. But i believe there might be a second generation image stabilization on the 300 mm lens. Plus the obvious better zoom capacity. My 200 does a pretty good job at getting indoor pictures at a basketball game. I have to set the right aperture and ISO at first but it works for me. Depends on your need for the additional zoom. Good luck
1939651
For one thing you don't have the full range as the 28/300... Which is an all around lens. I would say the 70/200 being 2.8 captures great shots that you are planning for in that range, Unlike the other where the shots might be wide angle to zoom changing frequently.
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.
1851324
There are 2 versions of the Canon 100mm macro lens. One does not offer image stabilization and retails new for around $500...it uses a 58mm filter. The more expensive version offers image stabilization and retails new for over $1000..........it uses a 67mm filter.
757262
Canon equipment overall prices are a little bit cheaper than Nikon Equipment, However Tamaron lenses are made better than the stock Cannon lens and there is a 180x300 Macro auto focus in this lens. This also is cheaper than the 70x300 Nikon made lens, for the budget minded enthusiast
357722
I own both...in terms of image quality, there's no comparison - the 24-70 is in another league. It's a full stop faster (brighter viewfinder, better depth of field control, faster focusing, etc) and it gives you that "pop" you get from the best professional grade lenses. On the down-side, the 24-70 is a much narrower zoom range, so you might find yourself needing to carry two lenses whereas just the 24-120 would cover you otherwise. It's a personal thing I guess, but if I could only have one or the other, I'd take the 24-70 without a moment's thought.
1183540
I've never used the canon 85mm but the there is almost no difference in sharpness with th Sigma lens. The price difference is only justified by the lower F stop.
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.
1477491
Actually I find out the the much cheaper Canon 55-250mm IS lens which is on sale today for 144 bucks does a superb job of taking portraits as well. You can set it to 100mm to get equivalent of this lens (of course you can't go down to f2.8 but for your situation you don't want to) also you get an excellent telephoto lens - just not a MACRO lens but again that's not what you're looking for. I would save my 300 bucks and get that lens instead - I can tell you as i have both these lenses.
498786
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is listed for $2250. Read the feedback and you will see it is preferred over the older model. Check Canon website for details.thanks, Dave
650647
I also have a Canon 100mm-400mm L f4.5-5.6 IS. So far the Tamron outperforms my Canon 400 in nearly every respect. As long as there is good light the Tamron is a faster focus lens and with a lot more pull it is more versatile. I have not been able to use the Canon lens with an expander, as it is incapable of autofocus with a 1.4x. Better check your sources as far as compatability with an expander. With the cost being much less than the Canon...I have to give the nod to the Tamron...better value, about the same weight, more pull and quicker focus. I had used the Canon for several years before getting this Tamron lens...lots of shortcomings with the older technology of the Canon. I hope this helps in your decision making.
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.
1762915
It depends on which Canon 70-200 lens you have. The less expensive f/4.0L models (with or without IS) take 67mm size filters. The more expensive f/2.8L models (non-IS, IS and IS version II) all take 77mm size filters.
2004639
I've tried both and I like the 24-70 far better. It is a sharper, faster lens.