# Smart purchase or not?



## JPAZ (Nov 9, 2012)

Hi,

New to FF so my EF-s lineup is not of any use. I've got a 24-105L, a 70-200, and a 50 1.4. I had an EF-s 10-22 with my APC before that was used rarely, usually only for interiors of buildings. I am looking at a 17-40 used with a date stamp of 2006. I am not asking about this vs. 16-35 vs prime.

I've handled the lens. It seems to work perfectly. It looks like it is brand new except for a small scuff on the mounting plate (not a scratch but a scuff). Given that I don't use this focal length much and given that the lense seems to be in excellent shape, would you pull the trigger (can save myself a couple of hundred $)?

Thanks.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2012)

Sure, if I was looking at a 17-40mm, I'd have no problem with the used lens as described. FWIW, I personally won't pay more than 70% of the current new lens price for a used lens.


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 9, 2012)

Agreed, if I was looking for that particular lens. After testing on my camera, I'd pull the trigger if it worked as expected and I was saving a decent amount of money. As Neuro said, it would need to be pretty a good savings... Good luck!


----------



## symmar22 (Nov 9, 2012)

If you are looking for something wider than 24mm for a good price, you cannot go wrong with the 17-40mm. If it's minty as you say and the price is right, I wouldn't hesitate to much. $200 saved is something, and a scratch on the bayonet mount is a non issue. As far as the rubber lip is around the bayonet is not cut (it could compromise the weather resistance), I would just take it. 

If you doubt, maybe can you have a short test to check for any major optical flaw.

The 17-40mm is the only possible choice with Canon for a super wide-angle at a decent price. The only other options would be the 16-35mm, the 14mm, or the 17mm TS-E ($1500 to $2500).

I've bought dozens of second hand lenses since 20 years, and had only one bad surprise ( I bought a lemon 18mm 3.5 AIS Nikkor).

I would just try it, then buy it if the IQ is OK, if you feel you need something else later, just resell it, you won't lose much (if anything). That's the joy of buying second hand, you waste much less money.


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 9, 2012)

Thanks for the feedback. Pretty much what I was thinking. And, if I really want to go wider for fun, maybe I'll also pick up the Samyang 14mm (the Pro-** at Adorama is the cheapest variant). I think the total for that plus this 17-40 would be about the same as the 17-40 new!

Thanks all.


----------



## distant.star (Nov 9, 2012)

.
I looked at all my lenses; none of them have triggers. This may be something the current owner added himself. I'd be careful.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2012)

distant.star said:


> I looked at all my lenses; none of them have triggers. This may be something the current owner added himself. I'd be careful.



Only the really big lenses get triggers.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 9, 2012)

It really depends on the price of the used lens. 
Decentered elements cannot be seen, but commonly occur in used zooms, and having it adjusted at Canon might cost you $200-300. Make sure you allow for that, or negotiate return rights after you test it. If you are not able to test a used lens, you might not see a definite problem, but may just be unhappy with it and think you selected the wrong lens. Maybe thats the case for the seller?
A refurb is $671 at Canon, and you can return it if its not right, and has a 90 day warranty. Canon will likely have a 20% off sale around Black Friday, so a used one with no warranty is worth less than $537 IMHO.


----------



## sb (Nov 9, 2012)

Hi JPAZ, I bought that same lens used as well, it was similar age, and I have no regrets. I paid $600 (Canadian) - one of the best deals I've scored on a lens. The copy I got was in worse shape than what you are describing - it had a tiny scratch on one of the elements, and even some dust trapped inside, but none of that was ever an issue in terms of affecting my images.

I also don't use it a whole lot, but when I do it works great. A lot of people mention the sharpness issue on this lens, but that only applies if you try to shoot wide open (f/4). Because this is mostly a landscape lens, you are going to be at f/8 or f/11 anyway, and IQ will be superb. So the only thing to remember is to shoot at least f/5.6 and you'll get great results.


----------



## Plato the Wise (Nov 9, 2012)

I have the 17-40L. Bought mine new some time ago and just recently noticed that all my images are a little soft on the right side of the image at 17mm. The rest is tac sharp.

I've heard others complain about this as well. I plan on taking it in to get it looked at. You may want to check the edges, just to make sure...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 9, 2012)

Plato the Wise said:


> I have the 17-40L. Bought mine new some time ago and just recently noticed that all my images are a little soft on the right side of the image at 17mm. The rest is tac sharp.
> 
> I've heard others complain about this as well. I plan on taking it in to get it looked at. You may want to check the edges, just to make sure...


 
Thats a typical symptom of decentering. You can check it by rotating the camera to different angles and seeing if the problem remains in the same relative side of the image.


----------



## Cptn Rigo (Nov 9, 2012)

distant.star said:


> I looked at all my lenses; none of them have triggers. This may be something the current owner added himself. I'd be careful.


 ;D LOL, you make me laugh a lot!


----------



## iaind (Nov 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > I looked at all my lenses; none of them have triggers. This may be something the current owner added himself. I'd be careful.
> ...




Do you need to range in this combo by test firing or is the optional laser rangefinder the way to go


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 10, 2012)

Bang bang, shoot shoot.

So I did "pull the trigger" on this lens. So far all seems fine, but, the Kevlar vest that I wear while using it is a little snug...... ;D

Thanks all.


----------

