I have been offered the above Lens secondhand - it comes with hood, skylight filter and case.

Owner is upgrading to Canon L Glass.

Assuming that it is in very good condition - how much should it be?

See the other thread about Sigma lenses (april 1st). Ask yourself why the owner is moving up to Canon L glass...

I have asked him and he said that he now has a 40D and wants to do it justice.

L Glass is good, but it's 4 times the price new ....... I know it may be worth it - but, this Sigma and the Tamron get very good write-ups.

The key to good images is good glass in front of the body...

The key to good images is good glass in front of the body...

or a good photographer behind the body ;) :D

Ahh...absolutely correct Mr E, absoultely correct. I was thinking on a different level. The photographer will always make the shot. I have the privilege of working with a "photographer" who should not be in the position she is as she has no idea of composition, how to use flash, how to set white balance or anything else (really) to do with making images. On the other hand, I work with a public information officer who has her work toured around the US/Canada with National Geographic . Imbalance is hardly the word...but the person behind the camera makes the images, the lenses provide the quality...and Sigma just never makes the cut for me...and my colleagues don't use them either.

As a pro Gareth, do you use Sigma lenses?

I 've just bought a Sigma 30mm f/1.4, but only because Canon has nothing quite like it. I wanted a fast, standard focal length prime.

But TBH, it's very good in all aspects and I'm happy :) Having said that, I'd be wary of a cheap, complex zoom.

Richard.

I assume the owner is upgrading to Canon glass, because he can afford to. It is a great deal more money than the Sigma lens, which performs almost as well.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Lens Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-24-70mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-Lens-Review.aspx)

I have been using the same Sigma lens with a 20D for 6 months. All in all I am pleased with it, especially as I paid £116 for it. Jessops were running a closing down sale at my local shop.

I would not want to pay more than £150 for a good second hand example.

If it is an improvement over what you have at present go for it. After all you can always sell it on, when you can afford to "upgrade" to Canon L glass.

Ahh...absolutely correct Mr E, absoultely correct. I was thinking on a different level.

As a pro Gareth, do you use Sigma lenses?

I know you were mate :), and no I don't use Sigma lenses ;) but then cost isn't as great a concern to me as the OP ;)

Seriously, I can't comment on the quality of the lens as I've never used one, and as regards price I don't know - I'll leave it there then :D

Gareth

See the other thread about Sigma lenses (april 1st). Ask yourself why the owner is moving up to Canon L glass...

I would say he has a lot of disposable income

Sigma and Non L glass are for people who aren't Pro's who dont have the kind of disposable income that they can waste on Glass

For those where money is no concern then by all means get L glass :)

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- buy cheap, buy twice. I invested in all Nikon glass years ago and have never needed to change as the quality is exceptional. I refuse to trade in my 85mm F/1.4 manual lens for an autofocus one even if the reviews say the quality is the same, I just love the lens and it is outstanding. I usually use the analogy the I once bought a 16-valve car when I wanted the 24-valve version. I was never happy with that car and so when I switched to Subaru, a WRX didn't come in to the equation when what I wanted was an STI. So I got the STI, paid for it over 5 years and have been a happy camper ever since. Why drink asti spumante when you can have champagne and take a little longer to pay for it?

I agree STI

L glass is a long way off for me, so I have to make do with the cheaper alternatives, its not a job for me its a hobby so I have to make do with what I have got

I fully understand with Pro's and Semi Pros using only the best they can afford, unfortunately for some of us the best we can afford is cheaper glass

unfortunately for some of us the best we can afford is cheaper glass


Amen to that. Sadly I know what the xtra money buys. I had a 28 - 70 Nikkor and sold it as I was a bit cash strapped. Now I have a 17 - 50 Sigma.

Ok the Sigma is good, but no where near the Nikkor, thats a £250 lens v a £1000 lens.

I assume the owner is upgrading to Canon glass, because he can afford to. It is a great deal more money than the Sigma lens, which performs almost as well.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Lens Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-24-70mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-Lens-Review.aspx)

I have been using the same Sigma lens with a 20D for 6 months. All in all I am pleased with it, especially as I paid £116 for it. Jessops were running a closing down sale at my local shop.

I would not want to pay more than £150 for a good second hand example.

If it is an improvement over what you have at present go for it. After all you can always sell it on, when you can afford to "upgrade" to Canon L glass.

Thanks for that .... I can afford L Glass now, but I don't think I would benefit that much from it really .... I am a very part-time photographer.

I have been asked to do a wedding in August - I used to do weddings in the 80's and 90's ....... the photos were great so I get asked to do some more but only do family now.

I have the 70-200mm L Lens - it is the f4 version and was quite a bargain, so well worth buying. The 24-70 range in L glass is very expensive.

I am wondering if I actually need f2.8 .... I'm sure a cheaper slower lens would suit me - but, I do like the shallow depth of field that f2.8 delivers - especially when pictures of the bride are concerned.

I agree STI

L glass is a long way off for me, so I have to make do with the cheaper alternatives, its not a job for me its a hobby so I have to make do with what I have got

I fully understand with Pro's and Semi Pros using only the best they can afford, unfortunately for some of us the best we can afford is cheaper glass

A lot of it does come down to cost, but you should never believe that you just have to make do with cheaper glass because you can't afford a lens with a red ring and an L on it. I suspect that 99.9% of the time, 99.9% of the people who look at your photographs could not tell what it was taken with, and I've seen many stunning pics taken on non L lenses.

Occasionally there is no other option than to buy an L lens if the focal length/aperture combination isn't offered elsewhere but I have always said that ultimately its the photographer behind the camera that can have the biggest impact on the quality of the final image, irrespective of the lens on the front, unless its made by Unigate.

Gareth

I agree that 'most' people looking at one of my photo's taken with the Kit Lens would think them good pictures.

BUT, if the photo's taken with my L Lens are placed alongside it is clear which is the more detailed, the sharper, crisper ....... that's what you are buying I guess - that little 'edge' if you need/want it.

I do have a couple of Lenses

a Canon 50mm f1.8, Canon 28-105 MKII, and Sigma 70-300 APO DG and a Sigma ST DG super 500 Flash and off cord

One day I will get an L glass, but before then there are other things that my money goes on (like 5 mouths to fee, and only a sh*t paid job :lol1:)

I too have seen many pictures taken on non L glass and some of the shots are fantastic, so I know it isnt the be all and end all

Some of the guys over on the Canon forums are L snobs and accept no less, like I said though this is perfectly fine if your livelihood depends on it

In some ways my livelihood depends on L glass, as in if I bought some my livlihood would end :lol1:

A lot of it does come down to cost, but you should never believe that you just have to make do with cheaper glass because you can't afford a lens with a red ring and an L on it. I suspect that 99.9% of the time, 99.9% of the people who look at your photographs could not tell what it was taken with, and I've seen many stunning pics taken on non L lenses.

Occasionally there is no other option than to buy an L lens if the focal length/aperture combination isn't offered elsewhere but I have always said that ultimately its the photographer behind the camera that can have the biggest impact on the quality of the final image, irrespective of the lens on the front, unless its made by Unigate.


Like Gareth said :) And while the likes of Canon L lenses are undoubtedly top rank optically, a lot of the cost goes into superb and robust build quality, futher increased by relatively small production runs. You only have to pick one up to know that it's a bit special. I like that, but I don't kid myself that it's going to produce instant masterpieces.

In fact, when I think of the great work from some of the world's finest photographers, many of them are distinctly lacking in technical quality. Just look at the work of Robert Capa - iconic images discussed on here just a few days ago. The lack of fine detail, sometimes nothing short of blur, only adds to their powerful allure.

Richard.

Just look at the work of Robert Capa - iconic images discussed on here just a few days ago. The lack of fine detail, sometimes nothing short of blur, only adds to their powerful allure.

Richard.

How very very true.

Some of the guys over on the Canon forums are L snobs

Ah, I reckon it's not snobbery it's addiction.

Interestimg point about quality and value. In a similar vein, when my son was having guitar classes from a session player his advice was when it became clear that he had ability was to buy a Gibson Les paul rather than a copy as playing the guitar is difficult enough so there's no point fighting the instrument as well. Great advice in any equipment requiring area but just doesn't cover that phase when you haven't figured out whether your interest is just a passing fancy.