Please tell me this was a good deal.

I advertised on Kijiji that i was looking for 2nd hand lenses to buy to add to my collection. I'm not too fused on quality as Im not a pro shooter, i just wanted a different selection other than my kit 18-55 efs. I got a reply from a guy selling lenses as a bunch an went over to check them out. For $200 i left with :

Canon 75-300 ef 4-5.6 AF
sigma 90 2.8 Macro
Canon 28-90 ef 4-5.6 AF
EOS100
2x Teleconverter Kepcor
All lenses fitter with HOYA UV filters
Lens hood for the 75-300


sigma Macro 1:1 Lens attatchment for the 90mm

Was it a good score?

EDIT

If i were able to sell the 75-300mm and the 28-90mm with the filters, caps ect. do you think i'd be able scrap togather enough for a 55-250mmIS?

You did okay...honestly, most of those lenses are pretty ho-hum...the 75-300 is the worst telephoto Canon makes, the 28-90 is an all right quality kit lens from the film days, the Kepcor converter...I have no idea about, but I generally don't trust no-name third party stuff...

All that stuff is worth very little in terms of optical value or dollar value...however, I think the Sigma 90 2.8 would be a fun little lens...with that included I think you did all right...though that lens is NOT a true macro (most people consider "true" macros to be capable of 1:1 reproduction). Still, it might be a good prime lens...that lens is worth about $100-ish...

Probably a good score. The 75-300 (if not a USM) is about a $100 lens, maybe a bit less. The 28-90 is an older series (2000~2009) with pretty marginal optics; you can certainly find the used value of the particular variant that you have. Dunno about the Sigma 90 but it's not current.

Given AUS prices, probably a good score overall.

can you stop the sigma down past f2.8? if not i doubt it's too old to be rechipped in which case your deal isn't that great...

28-90 isn't going to be better than your 18-55IS...75-300mm is one of the worst lenses canon makes...

so in my eyes it comes down to the sigma...

you got a good deal.

If the choices are that kit or $200, I'd rather have the $200...

SMP_Homer wrote in post #14751652
If the choices are that kit or $200, I'd rather have the $200...

Bingo...or a 40mm Pancake...

LowriderS10 wrote in post #14751657
Bingo...or a 40mm Pancake...

When the 40 was announced, I was all over it
By the time it was in stores, I had lost interest. But yeah, if I were to blow $200 on something, that one leads the way

SMP_Homer wrote in post #14751677
When the 40 was announced, I was all over it
By the time it was in stores, I had lost interest. But yeah, if I were to blow $200 on something, that one leads the way

Why did you lose interest? The 40 had me from the second the rumours surfaced...I bought it the first available day in Korea...absolutely love the little guy...

From yesterday:

Being 'relatively bad' lenses isn't remotely close to being useless. If you didn't have 300mm before, and didn't have a zoom covering the very useful (IMO) 40~100 kind of range, now you do. Those lenses work perfectly fine for what they do. Image quality isn't their strong point, but for the most part that is a given with older cheaper lenses.

Look in the lens sample images threads for these lenses and you will see some completely acceptable images.

Many of us have lenses with better optics in those focal lengths, but we had to part with a lot more than $200 to get there. Those lenses aren't complete steal , but if I only had a kit lens and wasn't going to spend more than $200 in the near future, I'd jump on that deal.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #14751684
Why did you lose interest?

I think it initially hit me as an impulse buy... once that impulse feeling left, I was happy with my 35L and didn't really have a need/use for that 40

Yeah, i am happy with the $200 buy I dont have alot of money right now but i was in desperate need of something with a little more reach than my 18-55. The 75-300 is pretty hard to use after about 200ish but i doubt il be using it zoomed in that much. The sigma takes surprisingly sharp images for an older lens and the 28-90 covers me when i dont want to use the 70-300 but want a little more than 55.

I was using the 28-90 last evening at a bike race, although it would hunt a little when the light started to get low, it was also fairly sharp and the AF was OK. Going into the deal i knew IQ wasn't going to be excellent but for now i'l use them to decide which future lens i'l buy.

Should have asked before buying. Not really a good deal.

I think it comes down to personal preference.

I would have high hopes for the sigma prime in terms of optical quality. If you don't have to rechip it, I'm pretty sure it will deliver fine images and can be your favorite telephoto.

The other lenses I would not want to have and would rather spend the money on something like 50/1.8, which I think should be the second lens after the kit zoom. It gives an idea of what good lenses can be like.

There's lots of overpriced junk on CL when people sell consumer level kits 15 years after they bought them and ask for half the value back.

neimad19 wrote in post #14752017
Yeah, i am happy with the $200 buy I dont have alot of money right now but i was in desperate need of something with a little more reach than my 18-55. The 75-300 is pretty hard to use after about 200ish but i doubt il be using it zoomed in that much. The sigma takes surprisingly sharp images for an older lens and the 28-90 covers me when i dont want to use the 70-300 but want a little more than 55.

I was using the 28-90 last evening at a bike race, although it would hunt a little when the light started to get low, it was also fairly sharp and the AF was OK. Going into the deal i knew IQ wasn't going to be excellent but for now i'l use them to decide which future lens i'l buy.

so does the sigma work at any aperture aside from f2.8?

if i were you i'd sell the 75-300, and 28-90mm, and snag a 55-250IS instead...it'd give you coverage between 18-250mm with IS, and better optics than what you bought...