What is my Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 canon fit lens worth?

rgrebby

rgrebby

Messages
2,835
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
I had a quick look through the classified section but didnt find a recent one that sold and I was wondering what my lens is worth.

Ive had it for around a year or so now and its had a UV filter on the whole time, its in great condition and is still surprising me as to how sharp it is.

There are no marks or scratches on it and I have all the box and everything.

The reason for sale is that I want to upgrade to a faster lens for my 400D soon to one day be a 50D

Im not sure which to get but im thinking the 17-55mm 2.8 canon lens, would this be a worthy upgrade?
 
It was one of the lens I was after, I searched high and low for one, best price I came up with was from a shop with 3month warrenty for £219. So I'm guessing the £200 mark? Managed to buy the lens I wanted in the end, but the 17-70 was next on my list :)
 
I paid £200 for mine 2nd hand 1 month old, so it should be around £180 at least I'd have thought, its a cracking lens much sought after.
 
I have just sold one in the last few days (Nikon fit) for £150.00. Very good lens (y)

Chris :)
 
rgrebby said:
The reason for sale is that I want to upgrade to a faster lens for my 400D soon to one day be a 50D

Im not sure which to get but im thinking the 17-55mm 2.8 canon lens, would this be a worthy upgrade?
Click to expand...

Before the big price hikes of late they sold for £160-180. I guess now you're looking at around the £200-220 mark depending on usual factors. Have owned a couple of them and very good lens indeed. The 17-55 IS is a step above for sure, but the more you spend the lower the returns seem to be when you already have a very decent lens. Other than build quality the 17-55mm IS about the best walkaround on a crop.
 
I've got the 17-70 and if I need a faster shutter speed I just bump up the ISO a bit.
 
I was going to get the 17-70 for £190 delivered from Ebay but I decided to go for the 17-35 for £175 as I already ordered a Canon 28-135 IS and felt that I would rather have better quality at 17mm rather than the extra 35-70 reach that was covered anyway by the 28-135.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top