3-year old second hand Canon 17-40mm L?

[howieh]

I can get this 3-year old Canon lens for $300 less than a new one to put on my Rebel XS.
Is it worth it? Would it even work nice on my XS since it's cropped frame body?
Thanks!
Howie

 

[CxThree]

It will work and yes, it's worth it. L glass is worth the purchase. As long as F4 will fit your needs, that lens will be great. If you need low light shots without a flash, that's not going to be the lens for you.

 

[howieh]

It will work and yes, it's worth it. L glass is worth the purchase. As long as F4 will fit your needs, that lens will be great. If you need low light shots without a flash, that's not going to be the lens for you.

Nice~ Getting it then~ thanks for the advice~

ps. man your signature makes me feel envious haha ~

 

[EPhoto8]

Yes, I agree, L lenses are almost always worth it!

 

[Ptyler22]

If you don't get it, I want it!!! It's definitely worth it, most of the used ones I've seen go for around $600

 

[howieh]

If you don't get it, I want it!!! It's definitely worth it, most of the used ones I've seen go for around $600

Well, it's not $300 bucks but $300 less than about $1000, so, ya, about $700 (figures in Canadian tho).

Here's another question,
I heard Tamron Di series lenses are also very good and they are at bargain prices compared to L series lenses...
So, now, which one to get?
Oh and I also have seen reviews that claim Tamron Di lenses are actually sharper than L lenses at various focal lengths.

 

[CxThree]

That decision will all come down to personal choice. Some say they like Tamron and Sigma very much. Others stick to Canon only. Personally, I bought a Canon camera to use Canon lenses. However, it's your personal decision to make according to your budget. In the end, they will both take great picutures. I peronally just think the L series glass tends to be made better and also produces better images.

 

[Montana]

Its not just sharpness either, Canon "L" lenses have great color/contrast. My Sigma lenses don't come close in color reproduction compaired to my Canon L glass.

 

[howieh]

Well, as I was still being indecisive (actually leaning towards Tamron 28-75), I read reviews online that claim Tamron has VERY serious quality control problems as copy to copy variation is quite common..
So that basically stopped me from clicking on that "buy" button... The thing is while I would love to get a Canon L glass for the reliability, 300 bucks of difference is in fact quite a lot for me as a poor university student
But if that 300 bucks of saving gives me a bad copy, then there'd be no point...But if I get lucky, I might get a lens that's almost as good as one that'd cost me 300 bucks more.

Any advice? I've been researching a lot and it has been frustrating that I'm so indecisive...

Thanks alot.

 

[CxThree]

Honestly, you won't get anywhere near the quality of L glass with a non L lens.

If you were shooting professisonally, it would be an easy decision. $300 more in glass would easily pay for itself in the quality of your shots and what you would get for them.

I remember college, so I know what you mean. You just have to decide on a budget and get a lens within that budget. You can upgrade after you get a full time job. Another way to look at this is to consider that the lens is something you can have for a LONG time. L glass will go with you for many years and multiple bodies within the Canon family. Full frame and crop bodies will handle it.

$300 invested now coule be something you are still using in 10 years or more.

 

[howieh]

Honestly, you won't get anywhere near the quality of L glass with a non L lens.

If you were shooting professisonally, it would be an easy decision. $300 more in glass would easily pay for itself in the quality of your shots and what you would get for them.

I remember college, so I know what you mean. You just have to decide on a budget and get a lens within that budget. You can upgrade after you get a full time job. Another way to look at this is to consider that the lens is something you can have for a LONG time. L glass will go with you for many years and multiple bodies within the Canon family. Full frame and crop bodies will handle it.

$300 invested now coule be something you are still using in 10 years or more.

Thanks for the advice and that opens my eyes a bit~
So I have decided to go with reliability (thus L lenses).
Now I can get a used 24-70 for $950 or a used 17-40 for $675 (all figures Canadian), any suggestions which one to get? The 17-40 is three years old and 24-70 is one year old and they all work "perfectly" (so the sellers claim..).
My take is that since I'm going to keep this lens for long time and not planning on getting any other lens for the near future, I'm more leaning towards the 24-70. But again, is it really worth the extra bucks?
Sorry for being such a bothersome rookie....
Thanks,
Howie.

 

[CxThree]

The key increase in price between those lenses is speed. The F2.8 lens is bigger, heavier, and will allow more shots in low light. The F4 lens will also provide great quality images. The F4 will need a flash before the F2.8 one will. However, both are very usable. It all depends on where you shoot.

 

[Jon, The Elder]

The 17-40 has made me a lot of money. It is great for shooting an 8' long horse in close quarters.
It is all about wants and needs, isn't it?

 

[howieh]

I don't think aperture is a great concern for me since even if I have to shoot under low light I'll most likely use a tripod. But what I do think is important is that I want the lens to be a great, all around lens that I can use and carry for at least 2 or 3 years without having to worry about getting another lens. I don't do anything that requires extreme focal lengths or apertures, just wanna it do be reliable and all around.

 

[JE Kay]

I just bought one new today and stuck it on my 1D MKII, all I can say is...Holy $#@ ^^%# &&#@! crap is it sharp!!

I didn't think it was that good - wrong! If you can buy it buy it.

I'll get jobs for this lens that's for sure just to use it.