Brand new Sigma 70-200 or second hand Canon 70-200?

[FlyingPete]

OK, I am at decision point, on one hand I have a second hand Canon EF70-200 f/2.8L, good optics, a few paint chips and scuffs on the barrell, on the other hand for near the same $$$ I can get a brand new Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX APO DG IF HSM Lens.

Here is a bad shot of the Canon the guy selling it sent me:
http://www.lowden.net.nz/Stuff/13733162_full.jpg

Any thoughs before I part with cash?

[LightRules]

Tough call. I'd try out the lens and make sure it's in tip-top shape optically. I don't know what warranty comes with AU Sigma lenses but here in the USA you get 4 years, so that is a bonus. But this is a good chance to get a fine L zoom.

[malla1962]

I would try to save more money and go for a new canon.:D:D

[DavidEB]

photo shows the barrel has barrel distortion.

if the optics and focus work well, I'd get the canon, much as I am a fan of the sigma for myself, for these reasons....
-- no further loss of value on resale (eg, reselling canon you'll get back close to 100% what you paid secondhand)
-- weather sealed
-- apparently has ARCA tripod mount attached, worth extra $50-70 US.

[FlyingPete]

I would try to save more money and go for a new canon.:D:D

Not really an option for me, it has been hard enough to get spousal approval for this, a new one is almost twice as much (these are around $1300NZ, the new one is $2200NZ, thats a $900 difference).

I am currently siding with the Canon and some touch up paint :D

I am going to have a look at the Canon today...

[LightRules]

IIRC, the 70-200L (non-IS) isn't weathersealed, but still a good lens.

[craigsinclair]

I can't remember when (if ever) I recomended someone get a 3rd party lens, but that's what I recomend you do, get the new Sigma lens. Please ask the seller of the Canon lens to contact me via private message.

[malla1962]

Not really an option for me, it has been hard enough to get spousal approval for this, a new one is almost twice as much (these are around $1300NZ, the new one is $2200NZ, thats a $900 difference).

I am currently siding with the Canon and some touch up paint :D

I am going to have a look at the Canon today...Ok its not so bad if you can try it first.:D:DGood luck with it.:D:D

[condyk]

If you're sure it functions perfectly then I would get the Canon because any depreciation has already occured. This specific lens seems to be very reliable. It's still a risk tho' because it looks well used ... or at least carelessly used. I've never had a lens with a single chip other than on the tripod mount, despite regular use. You need to weight up the advantages and the possibility it could all end in tears.

[FlyingPete]

Some history: This lens was purchased second hand in January off Auckland Camera (a local reputable dealer), not sure yet as to when the chips etc occured, but I intend to find out when it was badly treated, if it was its prior owner then I am not too concerned.

It is being sold after an 'upgrade' to a 100-400L IS.

[PetKal]

The jury still seems to be out on which lens performs better.

I am using the Canon, have visually inspected the Sigma though and, other than some colour preferences, I think the Canon is a bit better built...however, that should not become a deal breaker/maker.

The key issue here is probably your peace of mind (protection) knowing that you will have both the dealer as well as Sigma stand behind their lens should problems develop or you happen to have a change of heart regarding the lens, and such.

So in this case I'd get a new Sigma as opposed to the (possibly ab)used warranty-less Canon.

[tim]

I'd be a little worried about the treatment of the lens that gave it it's paint chips. I'd probably lean towards the Sigma, but it's a tough choice.

[FlyingPete]

OK been and visited the lens. The black marks on it are not chips, just wear, the condition I would describe as 'well loved'. There are no dents anywhere and the optics are all in excellent condition. A quick test (I tries a brand new one first to make sure) showed no issues, operates exactly as expected. If I was inclined I would say a touch up pen off some sort, if a colour match could be found would have it almost looking new again.

Anyway the part that matter is OK, it works, and the optics are all in new condition.

Oh did I mention I bought it!

Hmmm my first L:D

Can't wait to have a play when I get home from work....

[MegaTron]

I think I would buy a new Sigma over the f/4 version of the lens, but if I could get a Canon 2.8 for the same price of a Sigma 2.8, id go for the Canon right away.

Used Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 goes for about $700-750 USD around these parts.

The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 goes for about $900-950 USD, so if the optics were good, and the body was decent, id still go for the Canon based on the fact that it wouldnt depreciate anymore.

Anyway, congrats on the new L, and welcome to the club.

[verizon6000]

Not sure if any "extra" taxes would get you but you might want to try a Canon refurb from Adorama. I bought one and it looks brand new.

[JasonW]

Peter, Congrats on the new purchase. I bought one a few months ago and couldn't be happier. I'm sure that you will have the same result with yours.

[m3incorp]

That is a hard call, I would probably lean towards the Sigma myself. Why does so many people worry about depreciation? I buy things that I plan to keep. If it worth something if/when I decide it is not what I want anymore, so be it.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

gosh...you'd have to be rough as hell on a lens to get it to look like THAT!

[grego]

gosh...you'd have to be rough as hell on a lens to get it to look like THAT!

The lens are built to last though. As long as the lens are fine, the outside doesn't matter.

I'd take Canon all the way at the same price as the Sigma, if the optics were fine on the lens.

[Wazza]

Congrats mate. Just when are we shooting together again. Hint hint, nudge nudge. ;)

[FlyingPete]

Congrats mate. Just when are we shooting together again. Hint hint, nudge nudge. ;)

Thanks!

It is in actually better condition than it appeared in the above image, just a few wear points:
http://www.lowden.net.nz/Stuff/70200L.jpg

Yeah, Scott is here at the mo, he seconds that comment. I was talking to Weka too, he is local who just joined up after we did the last one.

[Wazza]

Damn damn.

Well wait till you see my Sigma 120-300 2.8. ;)

(will be a couple of years away), or if the 100-400L gets replaced, I may choose that.

[m3incorp]

Man, seems not too long ago people would rag a Sigma that had paint peeling. For me the Sigma with 1-4 year warranty might just push me over the edge of a Canon that had "something" happen to cause the damages. Again, without actually seeing it and the pictures taken by it; hard call.

[Bill Ng]

Sounds like a no brainer to me:

Used, possibly damaged, unknown history lens with no warranty ....
Vs. Brand new, 4-yr Warranty Sigma that takes photos just as good for the same price ..

Ummm, did you really need help with this?

Bill

[alan breslow]

Look at my post:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=98937&page=11

Alan

[m3incorp]

NIce photos Alan.

[PEACHMAN]

photo shows the barrel has barrel distortion.

if the optics and focus work well, I'd get the canon, much as I am a fan of the sigma for myself, for these reasons....
-- no further loss of value on resale (eg, reselling canon you'll get back close to 100% what you paid secondhand)
-- weather sealed
-- apparently has ARCA tripod mount attached, worth extra $50-70 US.

Weather sealed ! That is an function that I did not consider when buying the Sigma 70-200, but yesterday at the Buddy Walk while I was hiding in the hospitality tent and all the kids were out stomping in the rain, I was wishing I had some weather proofing!

[GSH]

I stand to be corrected, but only the 70-200 IS is weather sealed as far as i know, and unless you have a weather-sealed body (1 Series) then it's pretty pointless anyway.

Even if all my kit was weather sealed i'd cover it in a rain shower.

[RacingMoose]

Peachman...that's something I didn't consider either. But I doubt I'd be shooting in the rain. But I may be interested in shooting in snowy conditions...is it possible to protect a lens and camera in those conditions?

[PEACHMAN]

Peachman...that's something I didn't consider either. But I doubt I'd be shooting in the rain. But I may be interested in shooting in snowy conditions...is it possible to protect a lens and camera in those conditions? My thoughts on that (in the snow) is get a nice soft camera case to put it all in, and put your feet up on a nice cozy sofa near a nice warm fire and think about freddycr in costa rica ;) ;)

[FlyingPete]

I stand to be corrected, but only the 70-200 IS is weather sealed as far as i know, and unless you have a weather-sealed body (1 Series) then it's pretty pointless anyway.

Even if all my kit was weather sealed i'd cover it in a rain shower.

Well the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS is not weather sealed, so that one vote for your point.

[grego]

I stand to be corrected, but only the 70-200 IS is weather sealed as far as i know, and unless you have a weather-sealed body (1 Series) then it's pretty pointless anyway.

Even if all my kit was weather sealed i'd cover it in a rain shower.

Not necessairly, I've had parts where it started rainning and put a back over the body but didn't need to worry about the lens. Yes, I'm ghetto :lol: