EF-s value decrease over time...

Do EF-S lenses hold their value well? I have been looking at the 17-55 for some time but fear that if i wanted to change it up I will take a financial hit with it. I know bodies decrease fairly fast over time. But do EF-S lenses decrease as fast as EF lenses? If they do i might get me a 17-40L.

I am curiouse because I like to have the option of selling in case i decide to upgrade or change it up.

There is no FF in the near future so I am not really worried about that.

i wouldn't worry about the 17-55 2.8 decreasing over time...

Canon lenses hold their value equally as long as the lens is a quality one. I.E. a 10-22 or 17-55 will hold its value very well.

As long as 1.6x crop cameras are being used, they'll sell really well.

L lenses are likely to hold value best, as they are built to a higher standard.
EFs are here to stay, and second hand values would be slighty less...IMO

I would think that the 17-55 2.8 would hold it's value the best of the current line-up of Canon EF-S lenses. The Tamron, and Sigma 2.8 currently do fairly well.

I don't know. When I bought my 10-22 last year, it cost me 610 NEW. Used was hovering around 500 to 550, then. Today. It sell from 500 to 600 USED. EF-S that's optically superb will always be valuable. Then you have teh 17-55 that's been selling for between 800 to 950 used for the past year or so.

Just buy one. The used price has dropped to around $750, but that's 'cause the price dropped for a new copy.

Some people confused the canon rebates for an overall price drop. Yes, the rebates affected the sales of used canon lenses but the prices are on the way up again. I got my 17-55 brand new for about $870 during the rebates from amazon, now its back up at about $1040. I don't think you should worry about the lens depreciating, just get the better lens.

cool. Things like these is what i like to hear. I have really been reading some good things about this lens, minus the whole dust things, that has convinced me that has good iq and speed.

I would hate though to have got this lens and realized that i want to go telephoto and try to sell the 17-55 and only get back 2/3 or less for what i spent.

you'll love it. pair it up with a good 70-200 f4 IS or f2.8 IS eventually and you'll be in photography bliss.

Bleufire wrote in post #7202768
Do EF-S lenses hold their value well? I have been looking at the 17-55 for some time but fear that if i wanted to change it up I will take a financial hit with it. I know bodies decrease fairly fast over time. But do EF-S lenses decrease as fast as EF lenses? If they do i might get me a 17-40L.

I am curiouse because I like to have the option of selling in case i decide to upgrade or change it up.

There is no FF in the near future so I am not really worried about that.

A good piece of advice would be to buy the 17-55 used to begin with, you will most likely not take a hit selling it down the road

I just sold my 17-55 for $750, I paid $1150 for it, but I bought it at a place that had VERY high markups, the lens new now is about 800-900 I believe, I'm happy with what I got for it however..

Of course if an upgrade to FF is in your future, the 17-40 may well be a better option

Got my 17-55f2.8IS for 950! I used it for 3 months sold it for $950!

MinhThien wrote in post #7203391
Got my 17-55f2.8IS for 950! I used it for 3 months sold it for $950!

Nice!

if you get what you want out of the lens, is it such a loss. I would consider it more of an investment either for any income it could potentialy bring or however further it progresses your skill, the loss over time should be equalled out by its use.

I bought a 17-55 IS for (at current exchange rate) $550. Came with 3 year genuine warranty of which around 2 years was left, and some filters. The guy selling it really stood behind the quality of the lens too, and said it rarely left his camera body over the time of ownership. Oh yeah..... not even a speck of dust. He was selling due to pressing financial commitments..