Well used 70-200, worth a gamble?

[a13x]

Have the opportunity to buy a well used Canon 70-200 2.8. Has alot of wear to the body, couple of scratches to the front element and some dust/debis and is 10 years old.

Upside is that its priced pretty keen at £480.

So...is it worth the gamble..??

Alex

[akr]

Personally I'd wait, save up some more and get a slightly better condition one. For one, if you are buynig secon hand, you could probably resell at the same price (or maybe more), and you'd assume it is likely to have \ face less problems. I'd have thought you might have more difficulty reselling this one.

That said have will you have a chance to test the lens? You do see some lenses that look a bit 'tatty' but seem still capable of producing stunning images.

Hopefully someone with a more scientific approach will come along shortly to help you!

[konastab01]

Im sure a service could sort out the dust and debris?
As long as it works and your happy with it.
I would go for it.

[a13x]

Dont have the chance to test it unfortunately but am assured no loss of IQ. Also there is some warranty if things fail or is not functioning as it should. I could also send it to a service centre for a full clean, service and new front elemant for £150.

I was planning on buying the f4 version but this is tempting me.... hmm

[Danger_Mouse]

go for it, get the seller to guarantee it has no los of IQ or any issues. and maybe get the service on it go get it like new

[neil_g]

if theyre light scratches on the element then they shouldnt really effect IQ.

marks on the body i wouldnt worry about, my 120-300 is proper battered hence i got it for a bargin price but its sound mechanically and optically.

[Blue Eagle]

What you could do is test a shiny new one, get a feel for focus speed, feel and the noises it makes. And very carefully test the older one and see how it compares, obviously it probably wont be the same....but you will have a mark to judge it against.

....assuming you can physically test before you buy.

[a13x]

Last point, it comes with no tripod collar or pouch. Just the lens, end caps and lens hood.

Im beginning to think it could be a good deal, not too worried about the paint wear and if im assured no loss to IQ then i guess it seems a good deal?

As mentioned i cant test it, but have a gaurantee that if it doesnt focus correctly, poor IQ etc then i can send it back.

Price is good? Think im after some reassurance the gamble is worth the extra over a mint F4...

Thanks
Alex

[Bobby Canon]

Seems like "bite the bullet" time. Let us know what you decide, and if you buy it, tell us what you think. I have the 2.8 IS, and it is just amazing.

[George]

And the 70-200 mk 2 can't be far off, so prices will fall.........

[a13x]

And the 70-200 mk 2 can't be far off, so prices will fall.........

:eek: Another spanner in the works!

[RichardtheSane]

That's only about £250 below the price of a mint used one (below, includes filter which accounts for the £20 in my maths)
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=175435&highlight=70-200

Take you £150 service on top of that and well, you are £100 less for a lens that has no pouch, no tripod collar, probably no hood.

Walk away or ask for a lot more off.

[Orville]

Do you really need F/2.8? If not, a new 70-200mm F/4 will provide very similar IQ for the same price without the risk. It will also be much easier to handle and carry about.

[combat squirrel]

Go for it, I got a really battered looking sigma 70-200 F2.8, paint peeling off etc, makes a lot noise focusing, looks like a dogs dinner, but my god its the sharpest zoom and fastest focusing zoom iv ever used, so sharp it hurts the baby jesus and the colour tones are fantastic.

As long as whats important works, forget aesthetics.

[neil_g]

so sharp it hurts the baby jesus

and thats tea in my keyboard.. thanks.. :bat:

:lol:

[henryf4]

The 70-200 are built like a tank but I would definitely test it myself before handing over nearly £500.

[combat squirrel]

and thats tea in my keyboard.. thanks.. :bat:

:lol:

:D :lol:

[Vertigo1]

Will add my voice to the "walk away" lobby I'm afraid. Pay a bit more for a better condition one or get a brand new F4.

[Robert Davies]

The voices, they keep telling me....

If scratches on the elements did not affect IQ, Canon would *supply* them with scratches on the elements... Hell! why bother with coatings at all?

:lol:

That's not a cosmetic issue, that's a basic function issue.

[simoscribbler]

Just seems too expensive to me: unless you really need F2.8 I'd buy a nice F4.

[malla1962]

Scratches and dust wont bother IQ http://www.kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html but I do think it is a lot of money for what you are getting, another £250 you get a mint boxed one.

[a13x]

Yep

Just couldnt go for it, too much of a risk. Wemt for the F4 version in the end:thumbs:

[mrgubby]

Will add my voice to the "walk away" lobby I'm afraid. Pay a bit more for a better condition one or get a brand new F4.

A brand new Canon f4 or Sigma 2.8 with warranty or a 10 year old battered lens with zero warranty......


I'd pay the extra :thumbs:


//edit//

that'll teach me to leave the page without refreshing :lol:

[andyred]

Unless you can see it / try it before hand, I'd be tempted to get an F4 or save a bit more if you feel you need to have F2.8 - unless you can get more money knocked off, as said in above posts. :thumbs:

[silverstar189]

Scratches and dust wont bother IQ http://www.kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html but I do think it is a lot of money for what you are getting, another £250 you get a mint boxed one.

interesting to read the guys conclusion at the bottom of this:

'' I would encourage more people to consider buying lenses with front element scratches, or to keep using the lens they have with scratches, instead of putting it away, or trying to sell it. I've seen great bargains out there for scratched lenses, often going for half the cost of an "unblemished" front element lens. Before I whipped up this article, I would've shied away from a scratched lens, but not now''

i'm looking at something similar at the moment, i think the kicker for me is if i can get the front element replaced on a 70-200 for £150 along with a service, then i'll go down this route.

[martyp]

I'd walk away.

You can pick one up for around 850 pounds new.

You have a lens at 480, require a tripod mount and bag at 100+, service and front element at 150. So that 730 pound in total saving around 100 pound. I'd go for the new one personally...

[silverstar189]

i've seen one with a cracked distance scale as well for 600-optically its fine, but i'm wondering if its been dropped, which is seems the only way to crack that piece of plastic really.

anybody know when the new 70-200 is supposed to be out? thats going to cause quite a price drop on the mk1 models me thinks...

[silverstar189]

does anybody think 400 would be ok for the above? i'm still weighing up options here....

[Vertigo1]

i've seen one with a cracked distance scale as well for 600-optically its fine, but i'm wondering if its been dropped, which is seems the only way to crack that piece of plastic really.
This would be the main issue for me, how the damage was caused. Whilst a cosmetic blemish or even a scratch on the front element may not cause any image degradation per se, if the damage was caused by dropping or impacting the lens heavily, what else could be wrong with it that isn't immediately obvious?

[silverstar189]

this is true....it would be ok if it was covered by warranty/insurance. saying that, how would you know that its not a lens that someone has claimed on their housing insurance as write off etc?

[Laura0]

Hi all, new here :)

I think I've just bought the very lens that the OP mentions (found the thread after I purchased the lens with a google search of keywords). It will be interesting to see how the IQ is.. it is a little bit of a gamble but I couldn't resist at that price. Can I be cheeky enough to share the images in this thread to see what you think?

*Edit* Lens arrives tomorrow.

[silverstar189]

i think i know the one you mean.....mpb right? i was seriously considering it too, but then i do a lot of low light stuff so i'm going to hold out for the is.....would be interested to see the pics!

[Laura0]

MPB indeed. It arrived! Quick test image as below. Dodgy white balance aside, it looks ok to me. Time will tell. As for the rum.. well, I couldn't come back from Cuba without a bottle ;)

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/240/img4215.jpg

[silverstar189]

that's not bad at all! how is the lens itself....front element etc?

[Laura0]

Seems fine to me, just light scratches. Rather chuffed with it!

[silverstar189]

i think you did get a rather good deal....i'd be sure to check it over thoroughly over the next seven days whilst you've got a return period though.

[silverstar189]

ok, finally pulled the trigger on a non is 2.8 from ffordes....should get here tomorrow

[swivelonit]

I bought a well used 100-400mm, it too has scratches on the body and three bits of debris inside the front element, however it is a good lens and the only time I notice the debris inside the elements is when it is stopped down to f22.
I can get the lens serviced and cleaned by Lehmans for £160, but until it stops working I will use it, same as your 70-200 buy it cheap and even if it does need a repair you should still be on par for price.

[silverstar189]

i think to be honest with this lens the only big concern is resale value...

[silverstar189]

ok, after missing the royal mail guy yesterday, i picked it up today. and? the paintworks got a few nicks, but other than its fine optically. i've still got to give it a proper shakedown, but all seems well and i can see myself keeping this for a few years to come.