Refurb, Used, Or New Lens?


TPF Noob!
Mar 28, 2006
Reaction score
I'm an amateur photographer and I'm looking for a replacement for my Sigma 28-70mm lens, particularly the Canon 28-135mm IS USM lens. The problem is that I don't want to pay over 400 bucks for this lens. I've seen a refurbished one for $350 and a used one for $360, and of course the new ones for around $410. Can someone help with deciding between the refurb and the used, first, before I shelve out $400 bucks for the new one? Thanks!
I purchased the same lens, used, from KEH. I think I paid $350. The glass and operations are in perfect condition. The problem with this lens, which they didn't tell me at the time, is that this particular lens has a tendancy to become loose. Meaning that the zoom extends freely. It doesn't effect the image, but it would be a certain problem for shooting towards the ground if mounted on a tripod.
Matter of fact, if you attempt to sale this lens to KEH, they ask if it has a 'normal' or 'loose' barrel.
So with that said, I probably only made your decision harder :lol: I have no problem buying a used lens, as long as I know where it's coming from.
i say go new if you can especily of this is somthing expensive and wich will last. its $50 for new i would spend the extra
All my kit is second hand but it comes from someone who I know and trests his equipment like it's nitrus oxide! I'd only buy new from now on until he has another clean out.
IMO It's worth a few extra bucks to get it new. At least then, you know the background and how it's been maintained. If it was say 150$ difference, I'd go with a second hand. Your only talking a 15% savings.
Yes, New all the way. Okay it costs a few pounds / dollars more but trust me you treat it with respect then as you do with anything new where as you buy 2nd hand gear and got marks on so you think oh well ill throw it around abit even though it really wasnt that much cheaper than the new one. Trust me from experience that i have seen other photographers do. :)

Most reactions