Canon 17-55mm 2.8 - what are they worth?

shabba

shabba

Messages
936
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

A friend of mine lent me this lens, I was hoping it was not good to be all that good but as it turns out its rather nice, now does anyone know what they go for used? It is mint and with 3 hoya filters (CPL, ND4, UV).

Also I there is no other lens that is better for the money (used)? I know everyone likes the Tamron non-VC. I currently have a Sigma 17-70mm so this would be a replacement for that.

It is a tricky one as I've barely used the Sigma since I got a 10-20mm, as been doing more landscape/walkabout shots, but at the weekend I did a portrait session so the 17-55 was nice for that, seemed to give me 50mm Prime quality but throughout the range.

Any comments welcome.
 
No real idea about second hand value although i would say around £500+ but thats just a guess.
I had the Tamron non VC and upgraded to the Canon and both are pretty close as far as IQ goes.
I love my Canon and have had it for 4 years. Its on my camera 90% of the time and i agree, its a pretty sharp lens throughout the range. I find it very close to my 50mm f/1.4 and i tend to use the 17-55IS a lot more for low light shooting.

I dont think its worth quite the asking price but i would buy one again if i lost mine. Its a quality lens and i guess you pay the price for it.
 
£460 I think I can get it for, but that is alot and I'm not sure how much I'd use it, hmmmm!

I might change the Sigma 17-70mm for the Tamron instead.

Seems they are £500+ on ebay, none on here, and £720 is the lowest new price.

For info I'm using it with a 40D.
 
tijuana taxi said:
At that price with or without the filters snap it up and enjoy
Click to expand...

Agreed. I would be very tempted. As you can see, they do go for more so if you weren't getting much use out of it you could probably sell it and make a small profit as well.

I think the Tamron will be just as good if you dont need VC or IS and certainly sharper than the Sigma.

When i was debating over what to get about 5 years ago the Sigma had just come out, but after buying one and still owning a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 i took the Sigma back as i didnt think it was worth keeping. It seemed a bit softer and of course didn't have the constant F/2.8. I ended up getting the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and i was very pleased with it. I only got the Canon as i started using my 24-105L a lot for low light as it had IS so getting the Canon 17-55IS gave em the best of both, although i wouldn't say the IQ jumped up much from the Tamron's.
 
Ok thanks for the replies, still torn, don't want to feel like I'm taking the mick to a mate if I buy it and then end up selling it on after a short while. I just think maybe my money is better spent on a Tamron 17-55 non VC and then a Sigma 70-200 2.8 - as I've only got a cheapo Sigma zoom and its not the best really.

I've had the Canon for a month and not used it until this weekend, where I used it all day and got 180 nice shots. I guess the 50mm will do for a while, just need to move around a bit more :)
 
I think the Tamorn will be fine and yes, you will save a bit of cash as well.

The only thing i will add, and this is just from my own personal experience, is that if you do get on with the Tamron, and find you do start to use it more and more (as i did) you may still want the Canon and this might end up costing you more in the long run.
I wasnt convinced i would get on with a short zoom, and never really wanted anything below 24mm, but once i started using my 17-50 f/2.8, especially during the winter months where I found i needed a bit more help with getting the shutter speed fast enough to shoot the kids outdoor in the late but gloomy afternoons that i realised just how useful this lens was but i did miss not having IS for certain situations.
 
Seriously, £460 is a steal, grab his arm off!

Depending on age, condition and what extras it comes with (filter/hood), they're worth anywhere between £500 at the very bottom end and £700 at the top, with £600 a reasonable average for a good one with genuine hood I think, although mine didn't attract much interest at that price when I had it up for sale :)
 
460-00 is cheap for this lens unless it is old abused and full of dust
what sort of condition is it in
 
terryuk said:
460-00 is cheap for this lens unless it is old abused and full of dust
what sort of condition is it in
Click to expand...

As stated in OP it's in mint condition. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm decisions! £500 is alot of money for me, esepcially when I've just shelled that out on a new carpet too and car insurance is due soon (£600++).......although I have just got a bonus from work....:thinking:
 
Get it, you really wont regret it.. Its a very nice lens, and lives on my 50D these days. :)
 
shabba said:
As stated in OP it's in mint condition. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm decisions! £500 is alot of money for me, esepcially when I've just shelled that out on a new carpet too and car insurance is due soon (£600++).......although I have just got a bonus from work....:thinking:
Click to expand...

At that price, buy the lens and sell you car. I would say a minty copy is worth almost £600.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top