Canon 17-55 2.8 --> Buying new vs buying used?

Will James

Will James

Suspended / Banned
Messages
526
Name
Will
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

About to upgrade my it lens to a 17-55 2.8 IS USM and am seriously considering buying used considering the high price buying it new. I've always bought my gear new in the past and was wondering if there are any drawbacks from buying used except for lack of warranty?

My friend is selling a 17-55 2.8 in mint condition and claims it is only 2 years old, but cannot provide proof of purchase. Is the age of the lens really an issue? I've heard that the 17-55 2.8 can have IS issues after a couple of years' use? However I understand this is generalised as it depends how much you use your gear.

Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Will.
 
Is it in good condition, clean, and works well? It's fine then.

There are problems if it was heavily used AND abused, which will show up as marks on the glass and body, while really old ones (20+ years) may also have fungus. I don't think that applies in this case. Btw, that lens is NOT made for rough handling.
 
Agree with above, there is always a risk buying 2nd hand but if the savings are worth it then I usually go for it.


Peronally I try to avoid selling things to people I know, because of phrases like "Remember that lens you sold me 12 years ago?...well it has started making a funny noise". ;)
 
I bought a 17-55 IS used for £350. Bargain of the century. Only issue is it only zoomed to 50mm!!
I got a quote for £150 to repair it, so even with that costs, it was still cheap.
 
daugirdas said:
Is it in good condition, clean, and works well? It's fine then.

There are problems if it was heavily used AND abused, which will show up as marks on the glass and body, while really old ones (20+ years) may also have fungus. I don't think that applies in this case. Btw, that lens is NOT made for rough handling.
Click to expand...

Hi, thanks for the info. I know he has only used in lightly and takes care of his camera equipment. It is in immaculate condition, works fine and no marks anywhere.

SLRUser said:
Agree with above, there is always a risk buying 2nd hand but if the savings are worth it then I usually go for it.


Peronally I try to avoid selling things to people I know, because of phrases like "Remember that lens you sold me 12 years ago?...well it has started making a funny noise". ;)
Click to expand...

Yes that's a good point, and something I'm going to bear in mind. I'm keeping my eye on a few on eBay too.

TCR4x4 said:
I bought a 17-55 IS used for £350. Bargain of the century. Only issue is it only zoomed to 50mm!!
I got a quote for £150 to repair it, so even with that costs, it was still cheap.
Click to expand...

That is a bargain! My friend is offering it to me in mint condition with UV filter, third party hood and box for £600 which I think isn't bad considering it's £775 on Amazon UK at the moment (23% less)?
 
Will James said:
Yes that's a good point, and something I'm going to bear in mind. I'm keeping my eye on a few on eBay too.
Click to expand...

It is a good thing if you are the buyer though as you have a lifetime guarantee ;)

Well the lifetime of the friendship that is...

I'd prefer to buy from a friend than from Ebay any day.
 
£600 is a bit steep tbh. That is dealer prices unless the UV filter is a good one.
 
Will the lens code thingy not reveal the age of the lens?
 
RichardtheSane said:
£600 is a bit steep tbh. That is dealer prices unless the UV filter is a good one.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info., I don't know what UV filter it is, I'll check. I've watched some on eBay over the last week and the average ending price came out as £550. That plus the UV filter and the third-party hood made me think £600 is an ok price. I'll keep an eye on eBay, I may just get one from there.
 
It's an amazing lens, and it's not too hard to repair if things do go wrong with it. I got mine for £225 'cos it was broken (electrical problem). The part to repair it was £50, and took about 2 hours, with the added bonus that I could clean everything up at the same time! Don't be afraid to buy one 2nd hand, as long as you've saved enough for a repair if it does go wrong.
 
slangford said:
It's an amazing lens, and it's not too hard to repair if things do go wrong with it. I got mine for £225 'cos it was broken (electrical problem). The part to repair it was £50, and took about 2 hours, with the added bonus that I could clean everything up at the same time! Don't be afraid to buy one 2nd hand, as long as you've saved enough for a repair if it does go wrong.
Click to expand...

That's good to know, thanks for the advice. Thing is I wouldn't have a clue how to actually repair a lens, so would have to send it off which would be more costly. I guess the reason I'm concerned is because it's so much more than I've bought any camera equipment before. But it has to be done, I very nearly went for the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS the other day but then I kept looking at the quality of the 17-55 2.8 and it blew me away! It is a lot extra to pay but it seems like everyone says it's worth it. Plus, people that haven't bought it tend to say they would if they could afford it....
 
Lets put it this way. I bought mine about three months after buying the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8. The tamron was absolutely fine, but the AF just irritated the hell out of me and having IS is just a bonus.
 
Did you buy used Richard?

That's a good point, I've read that it's best to get the dream lens if you can otherwise you'll only upgrade anyway and could lose money that way.
 
I did indeed, and drove quite a hard bargain too. But I knew I was buying a 5 year old lens and I didn't want to spend more than £500 (mainly because I would be taking it to gigs so risk of damage higher).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top