Forums > Photography Talk > Fair price for a used Sigma 17-50 2.8?

Photographer

Phantasmal Images

Posts: 617

Boston, Massachusetts, US

What do you think is a fair price for a used (only a few months old) Sigma 17-50 2.8? I have someone offering to sell one to me for $560, and they're firm on that price. But I've searched online, and found them for sale brand new for $590.

Jan 16 13 07:22 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

-JAY-

Posts: 6710

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Nikon or Canon?

Amazon has them for $450/$560

Jan 16 13 07:40 pm Link

Photographer

Phantasmal Images

Posts: 617

Boston, Massachusetts, US

Canon

Jan 16 13 07:47 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36389

San Francisco, California, US

It sounds like he is charging high retail but not scamming you.  The question is if you want to pay high retail?  If so, look somewhere else.  His price is firm.

Jan 16 13 07:49 pm Link

Photographer

Vito

Posts: 4177

Brooklyn, New York, US

I got mine in December on ebay for $210.00

Jan 16 13 07:51 pm Link

Photographer

Phantasmal Images

Posts: 617

Boston, Massachusetts, US

Vito wrote:
I got mine in December on ebay for $210.00

I'd love to find one at that price, but I'm never that lucky.

Jan 17 13 10:13 am Link

Photographer

MCPHOTO

Posts: 732

Duvall, Washington, US

By looking at ebay under the sold category. Also depending on the condition 200- 300. I wouldn't pay anything over 400 as a new one only costs about 650.00

Jan 17 13 10:21 am Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 28013

Dearborn, Michigan, US

The price on this lens at B&H is $669.  It is on sale now for $619.
I only buy from B&H or Adorama.  I don't want to be scammed by places that advertize it cheaper.
Are you sure that this is Sigma's latest model of this lens?

I have used the newest model of this lens for over a year.  It's a great lens.

Jan 17 13 10:27 am Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 28013

Dearborn, Michigan, US

-JAY- wrote:
Nikon or Canon?

Amazon has them for $450/$560

Amazon is selling this lens for $619.  The same price as B&H.

KEH is selling this lens for $560. used.

Jan 17 13 10:31 am Link

Photographer

-Ira

Posts: 2187

New York, New York, US

I buy the majority of my gear used on Fred Miranda, http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10

Did a quick search.  Seems like they're going for @ $470 used.

Jan 17 13 10:43 am Link

Photographer

ELiffmann

Posts: 1414

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, US

I looked at amazon and the Canon version seems to be more expensive.  Perhaps some of the above is from other brands?  Seems to be fair but no deal.

Jan 17 13 10:57 am Link

Photographer

Phantasmal Images

Posts: 617

Boston, Massachusetts, US

42nd St Photo has it for $595 new.
http://www.42photo.com/pd-productid-104 … for_canon_(77mm).htm

Anyone ever dealt with them before?

Jan 17 13 11:16 am Link

Photographer

Let There Be Light

Posts: 7657

Los Angeles, California, US

Be clear about which version you're getting. Tamron has an older version of the 17-50mm and the newer version has Vibration Compensation and is much more expensive.

Jan 17 13 11:20 am Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 28013

Dearborn, Michigan, US

Phantasmal Images wrote:
42nd St Photo has it for $595 new.
http://www.42photo.com/pd-productid-104 … for_canon_(77mm).htm

Anyone ever dealt with them before?

I have not dealt with them but here are some reviews from people who have.


http://forums.photographyreview.com/cam … 60733.html

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/cameras/ … photo.html

Jan 17 13 11:25 am Link

Photographer

Mike Kelcher

Posts: 12895

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

Phantasmal Images wrote:
42nd St Photo has it for $595 new.
http://www.42photo.com/pd-productid-104 … for_canon_(77mm).htm

Anyone ever dealt with them before?

Don't confuse them with 47th St. Photo. They are different. The reviews for 42nd St. Photo are not generally as good as those for 47th St. Photo. 42nd St. Photo has too many "red flags" for me.

Jan 17 13 11:32 am Link

Photographer

AJ_In_Atlanta

Posts: 12836

Atlanta, Georgia, US

I paid less for a Tamron and I feel it's a better lens

Jan 17 13 11:39 am Link

Photographer

Phantasmal Images

Posts: 617

Boston, Massachusetts, US

AJScalzitti wrote:
I paid less for a Tamron and I feel it's a better lens

The reviews I read all said the Sigma was better, and some even rated it better than the Canon in some regards. Do you have a link to a review that states otherwise? I'm certainly willing to keep an open mind about it.

Or are you referring to the older non-VC Tamron, which I read does have better image quality (but lacks VC obviously).

Jan 17 13 12:20 pm Link

Photographer

J Welborn

Posts: 2552

Clarksville, Tennessee, US

Way too much ----275 --300 maybe

Jan 17 13 12:27 pm Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 28013

Dearborn, Michigan, US

J  Welborn wrote:
Way too much ----275 --300 maybe

Not for this lens.  It is their latest design.

Jan 17 13 01:05 pm Link

Photographer

Glenn Hall - Fine Art

Posts: 452

Townsville, Queensland, Australia

Sigma don't make "good" lenses and I categorise them the same as I do Tamrom...cheap quality lenses sold at expensive prices to a consumer market.
You couldn't pay me 200 bucks to use a Sigma lens.

Jan 17 13 03:07 pm Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 28013

Dearborn, Michigan, US

Glenn Hall - Fine Art wrote:
Sigma don't make "good" lenses and I categorise them the same as I do Tamrom...cheap quality lenses sold at expensive prices to a consumer market.
You couldn't pay me 200 bucks to use a Sigma lens.

Their newest lenses are very good!  I have been using 2 of them for a year and a half.
The British photography has rated several of their newer lenses very highly!

Since you are not using any of these new lenses your opinion is not valid!

Jan 17 13 03:13 pm Link

Photographer

Glenn Hall - Fine Art

Posts: 452

Townsville, Queensland, Australia

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Since you are not using any of these new lenses your opinion is not valid!

I am impressed with your extensive knowledge of myself from the far side of the globe, so what's the winning numbers for this weekend's OZLotto?

Jan 17 13 08:46 pm Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 28013

Dearborn, Michigan, US

Glenn Hall - Fine Art wrote:

I am impressed with your extensive knowledge of myself from the far side of the globe, so what's the winning numbers for this weekend's OZLotto?

I have this lens and have used it for over a year!  Sigmas newer lenses are much better than their older lenses.  I also happen to have a Sigma made lens from 1970 which I still use on my DSLR. 
If you don't use Sigma lenses how can you know much about them?  When you make a blanket comment like that it says a lot!
I also read photography magazines from all over!

Jan 18 13 03:22 am Link

guide forum

Photographer

Robb Mann

Posts: 10687

Baltimore, Maryland, US

There are many, many subtle variations of that lens, and a similar Tamron one. That price is essentially retail, so I'd pass on it. The newest ones have stabilization. 3rd party glass does not hold value well, i'd offer no more than 60% of retail, and then only if its the newest one.

Jan 18 13 03:30 am Link

Photographer

Glenn Hall - Fine Art

Posts: 452

Townsville, Queensland, Australia

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I have this lens and have used it for over a year!  Sigmas newer lenses are much better than their older lenses.  I also happen to have a Sigma made lens from 1970 which I still use on my DSLR. 
If you don't use Sigma lenses how can you know much about them?  When you make a blanket comment like that it says a lot!
I also read photography magazines from all over!

...actually, to say initially that my comment is INVALID based on some one-sided view you have of me is rather rude. An opinion was asked for by the OP and one was given. You don't know what I have seen and heard first hand and don't assume to do so with such a blanket comment as "my opinion is invalid"...what a joke mate.

So here is an analogy i draw to your attention...
If the manure on the ground looks like manure, smells like manure and a dozen people step on it and says"yup, it's manure"...you certainly are a fool if you don't believe those people and step on it yourself.
I have seen the lens in question, read reviews and reports and examined the specs by third and first parties, worked first hand with other people who invested into the lens and company and have seen the crap results. Nothing has changed from this company over the years that still remains down there with Tamron, regardless of any marketing hype or trolled forums you have read...consumer goods for a consumer market.
So mate, no reason for me to change my thought process...your logic is flawed and my opinion is valid.

...and I still want those winning OZLotto numbers wink

Jan 18 13 04:15 pm Link