Upgrading from Canon 18-135 IS

HelenOster wrote in post #17492408
Ummmm......as undoubtedly flattered as we are to be compared side-by-side with Amazon as being LARGE, you do know that Adorama is a privately-owned family business, right?

Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN) is the world's largest online retailer with headquarters in Seattle.

It has separate retail websites for USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan and China. There are 12 fulfilment centers in the US; 3 in Canada; 7 across China and Japan; 12 in the UK; plus 11 across the rest of Europe.

Adorama is a family business with our office above a single store in NYC, and one warehouse in New Jersey!

This is all true, but Adorama is still doing some big business as they continue to grow and succeed. Regardless, they'll honestly be one of the main places I'll check for used lenses because of the convenience alone, since I work in the city and, better yet, my boyfriend works about two blocks away.

adivineeternity wrote in post #17492956
This is all true, but Adorama is still doing some big business as they continue to grow and succeed. Regardless, they'll honestly be one of the main places I'll check for used lenses because of the convenience alone, since I work in the city and, better yet, my boyfriend works about two blocks away.

If you need best price, best service and respect you deserve, only look at B&H or BuyDig (Also known as Beach Camera), both NY/NJ based, very well and reputable companies. Just ignore the rest...
Also though suggestion for second hand lens is good in terms of savings, it is a risk you should understand well before start. Combination of a cheap lens and buying a second hand one is usually a big No No. Especially lens that usually has a good reason for trying to get rid off. Even if you pay a little higher but buy something that works perfectly for you, gives you the satisfaction and assurance of warranty for months, it all worth a lot more than a few dollars you saved by a wrong but easy to achieve decision.

i think i disagree with just about everything written there...

DreDaze wrote in post #17493451
i think i disagree with just about everything written there...

Yeah... my pancakes were bought new; the other three lenses used. Damned if I could tell the difference. Oh, except for the extra hundreds in my bank account. Those I noticed. At some point I may sell some of these lenses; if I do, the person who takes them will also be getting lenses in great condition that work perfectly for hundreds less than new.

DreDaze wrote in post #17493451
i think i disagree with just about everything written there...

me too...

1 - there are plenty of good places to get stuff used besides those two.
2 - buying used is a great alternative to full-boat-new when observing just a few common sense precautions.
3 - from everything I've heard, the 55-250 is a great buy for the money.

Does anyone here understand the meaning of RISK??!
Yes you can become millionaire, spending a buck on lotto ticket but then the right side of risk worked for you. It simply doesn't happened that way and at its variable but predictable ratio.
I said combination of a cheap lens (That by virtue of cheap material used in it, then moving parts that is bound to fail at a very predictable time of use) with a being old and Used, is a bad recipe. What is wrong with this statement????
Yes you are likely to get a bargain in buying a high end quality L lens at a very low price. But then even then the deference in old lens yet in production and its new version is becoming so marginal (Thanks to those who cant understand but can talk loud, then ebay and likewise). Also a good number of people who may disagree with me, may as well have a live auction for their own old lens somewhere...
It is written in GOLD: "YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR". Period and professor go argue with that too.

i have a cheap lens from 1987 that works fine for me...i'll let you know when it breaks...

just because something is cheaper doesn't mean it will break...if you take good care of it, you'd be amazed how long things can last...i'd say the reason something would break down isn't from use, it would be from an accident, in which case it would break if it were brand new as well

you're making up numbers about lower costs lenses having more risk than expensive lenses

I am sorry but I am still seeing people quoting a person who is healthy, over 100 and still smokes that many packs of cigarette a day.
For most people, Cancer cures smoking totally and I am sorry for you too.

samsen wrote in post #17493557
Does anyone here understand the meaning of RISK??!
Yes you can become millionaire, spending a buck on lotto ticket but then the right side of risk worked for you. It simply doesn't happened that way and at its variable but predictable ratio.
I said combination of a cheap lens (That by virtue of cheap material used in it, then moving parts that is bound to fail at a very predictable time of use) with a being old and Used, is a bad recipe. What is wrong with this statement????
Yes you are likely to get a bargain in buying a high end quality L lens at a very low price. But then even then the deference in old lens yet in production and its new version is becoming so marginal (Thanks to those who cant understand but can talk loud, then ebay and likewise). Also a good number of people who may disagree with me, may as well have a live auction for their own old lens somewhere...
It is written in GOLD: "YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR". Period and professor go argue with that too.

Yes, I certainly do understand the meaning of risk. That is why I buy almost nothing new. I take a risk buying used. A risk I am comfortable with. A risk that I may lose, on occasion, by purchasing a less than optimal product, in less than optimal condition. Which is why I am a wary consumer.

I don't buy new because there is no risk, there is a certainty, that I will lose money when I go to sell. That is only a risk with a used item. In case you are having trouble getting your mind around this, here is an example. I just bought a used 7D for $475. The same item, refurbished by Canon, currently sells for $959 + 7% tax = $1,027.
If, 6 months from now, my used 7D is only worth $400, it cost me $75 to use it for 6 months. That same math on the 'new' one comes out to me losing $627, a net loss of $477.

Of course, there exists the possibility that I will get burned buying used. Marketplace Positive Feedback and PayPal go a long way in protecting me from less than honorable sellers. As far as "You get what you pay for" goes, I have no problem paying less than you do to get the same item. You go ahead and keep buying new stuff. I need guys like you drive down the used prices to where I can afford them. If nobody bought new, there'd be no used market, either.

Oh by the way, for heaven's sake, lets not steal this thread and stop going the wrong way. Thanks in anticipation.

samsen wrote in post #17493586
Oh by the way, for heaven's sake, lets not steal this thread and stop going the wrong way. Thanks in anticipation.

Weak retaliates, <<<===
Strong Forgives, <<<===
Intelligent Ignores! <<<===

Please stay on track, thanks, post your views and allow others to post their's. Don't retaliate, instead forgive and ignore and move on. Anyway... back to the discussion...

For me, I bought my 55-250 for about $100 used locally, and if I decide to sell it I would currently be able to get $100-$125 for it, but I'm not ready to part with it yet.

For me, my 18-135 kit lens is working great for me, and I see no need to upgrade it even if I do get an overlapping lens. It works great for an overall always-on-the-camera walkabout lens.

For me, a replacement for the 55-250 would be the 70-200 in either f4 or f2.8, but there isn't enough gain for me to go with the f4 version over the 55-250, so for me to justify any gains I'd have to go with the f2.8 version to get the extra speed that the 55-250 is lacking and allow that the cost would be a big factor against it. So I live with the 55-250 for times when I want longer than 135mm.

My opinion would be to look seriously at the 100-400L version 1, probably find a good quality used one for around $850 or so. Or wait for the 150-600 Sigma Contemporary to hit the market for just over $1000, or get a new or freshly used Tamron 150-600 for about the same price. Or rent one of each to really know if it will work for you ("you" being the OP, not the person I quoted).

The OP said they already have an 8mm lens that they like, so no need to talk about wider than 18mm options.

I posted earlier in this thread, but just wanted to expand a little.

And the offer someone made for their 70-300 for the price of postage should probably be followed up upon by the OP, that would be a great deal and if it were offered to me I would drive south to thank the person in person.

treebound wrote in post #17494011
...
For me, a replacement for the 55-250 would be the 70-200 in either f4 or f2.8, but there isn't enough gain for me to go with the f4 version over the 55-250, so for me to justify any gains I'd have to go with the f2.8 version to get the extra speed that the 55-250 is lacking and allow that the cost would be a big factor against it. So I live with the 55-250 for times when I want longer than 135mm.

Lots of wisdom here. The 55-250 II is an incredible value for the money. Don't forget that is also has IS. If you replace it with a 70-200, you will need IS to make it a straight-forward change. I had the 55-250, and no complaints about it optically. I now use the EF f/4 IS version, because it also works on my FF bodies. Optically, there is not $900 worth of difference between the 55-250 II and the 70-200 f/4 IS. Both generate nice results. The only drawback to the 55-250 is the apsc-only issue. If you are shooting crop only, the 55-250, any of them, is a good choice.

treebound wrote in post #17494011
And the offer someone made for their 70-300 for the price of postage should probably be followed up upon by the OP, that would be a great deal and if it were offered to me I would drive south to thank the person in person.

I actually did follow up, after assessing the risk of it not being worth the hassle of trying to use it I figured I'd do well to give it a shot. The worst that can come of it is that I'll realize I really don't like the amount of work needed to make it worth it using, but I'll still come out of it with a better idea of if I want 300 mm or if 250 will be more than adequate for what I want to do. If the lens and I click and things just work nicely? Hey! I got a 70-300 and I only spent a little bit, leaving more for that new backpack I'll need to carry this stuff (I'll gladly take backpack recommendations via PM, but I'm not starting a new thread because I finally figured out the search and found loads of information to help) and my medical bills.

Tracking is showing it should arrive today, NBEast has been unbelievably kind and easy to work with and will be seeing my end upheld in every possible way. I'll share some samples once I have them. Or I can just flood this thread with Bermuda images until people are happy again.

Take note that the 70-300 is not (repeat: is not) the 75-300 that people usually talk down about. You should be fine with that 70-300 lens.

It's a Sigma, rather than the Canon, but we'll see. I'm used to slow focusing, although my 18-135 has improved a great deal in that respect since I got it fixed using a bonus I earned at work last year, so I'm not terribly concerned about that. We'll see about any CA, softness, etc. USPS delivers packages separately from regular mail here, typically a bit later in the day, and regular mail was just delivered. Just hope they don't do that thing they do where the person decides he doesn't feel like dealing with it and leaves notices, instead.