Why do people pay so much for second hand lenses?

[Kermit power]

I recently bought a Sigma 10-20mm for my 450D. Given that they're not particularly cheap, and the current weak pound I thought I'd have a look on Ebay to see what I could get one for second hand.

The first 3 I watched on there went for £282, £293 and £289. I bought one brand new from Jessops for £309 the next day. Why do people pay so close to the price of a new one for a second hand lens?

I could understand it if you were getting a £60 polariser or something included in the price of the second hand one, but this wasn't the case here. Is that 5-10% saving really worth giving up the customer service support and guarantees you'd get with a new one?

[andy-xr]

3 from me

1) Jessops et al have dropped their prices recently, I bought mine around £350 6 months ago, so £250'ish second hand in excellent condition isnt so bad. It's surprising as Sigma are a Japanese company, and the pound vs Yen has been interesting but retailers have gone cost plus on lots of stock.

2) Ebay'itis, some people assume because it's on ebay it must be a bargain. I've seen stuff go for over RRP because of a bidding war. Depends how much someone wants it I suppose.

3) The 10-20 is a great lens, well worth having

[Steve Evil]

I guess it's one of those things like a good watch that never really wears out, and as long as it has been well cared for, then a second hand one will be just as good as a new one. OK you're missing out on things like a warranty, but people do tend to forget about these things (especially on Ebay) and will go crazy even if they're only saving a tenner on retail.

Just to make you sick, I bagged a new one of those on ebay just after Christmas for £225.

[Kermit power]

Steve Evil said:

I bagged a new one of those on ebay just after Christmas for £225.

Now that's a difference that makes it worthwhile! Far more sensible than some of the people I've seen.

Anyway, I'll be putting up the EF-S 18-55 IS kit lens from my 450D later today. I'd be delighted to see that in a bidding war!

[GetCarter]

Ebay'itis certainly exists. I sold a 5 year old folding bike for more than the current RRP - people obviously didn't check out the manufactureres website and/or got carried away with the bidding process. If you sell anything make sure the finish time is about 23.30 - by which time most of the bidders are pi55ed!

Edited by GetCarter on Friday 6th February 10:30

[LukeBird]

andy-xr said:

2) Ebay'itis, some people assume because it's on ebay it must be a bargain. I've seen stuff go for over RRP because of a bidding war. Depends how much someone wants it I suppose.

Definitely!
Don't forget OP, the buyers could be getting discounts.
I recently bought a 70-200F4L on eBay, just checked the invoice, lens was £355 + £10 P&P, but I had a 15% off from eBay voucher hence paid £303-25 delivered
It was absolutely mint and boxed with everything as new as well!


ETA Have a 10% off voucher at the moment, and am currently lens hunting
Don't think I quite have enough for the 17-40L I want though...

Edited by LukeBird on Friday 6th February 10:45

[VxDuncan]

I wouldn't complain - whilst I have a fairly large investemnt in kit at home, when I sold stuff in the past I've lost very little / even made a profit at times! If you look at it that way it ain't that expensive a hobby after all... (that's what I tell myself)

[JD]

Anyone fancy giving me £650 for a a 24-105 and £60 for a 50mm

[LukeBird]

JD said:

Anyone fancy giving me £650 for a a 24-105 and £60 for a 50mm

I don't get why the 50mm's go for so much... when a new one is what £75-80 or £65-70 from Kerso and they go for at least £55 on eBay. That's madness!
Haven't paid much attention to 24-105's though, I'd love one to replace my 28-135IS (an eBay bargain!) but they're too much!

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

LukeBird said:

....24-105's though, I'd love one to replace my 28-135IS (an eBay bargain!) but they're too much!

Try one first to see if it's much of an improvement over your 28-135IS. If you've got a good 28-135IS there may not be much in it....

[sidaorb]

Second that re the 28-135mm.

Bought a Siggy 20-40mm F2.8 off ebay when the prices were really low, 6 months later sold it for £60 more. Just beware with buying Siggys on ebay, still alot floating around from the heist last year. Always ask the buyer for a serial number and check with Sigs.

Was looking at a 17-40 F4 but they were silly money on ebay, waiting for Mifsuds or MPB to get some in again.

[LukeBird]

ThatPhilBrettGuy said:

LukeBird said:

....24-105's though, I'd love one to replace my 28-135IS (an eBay bargain!) but they're too much!

Try one first to see if it's much of an improvement over your 28-135IS. If you've got a good 28-135IS there may not be much in it....

Aaah right, will do.
I'd been lead to believe the difference was quite noticeable... although that wasn't in direct reference to my lens.
If I do ever think of going for one, I'll definitely try before I buy, so thanks!

[stigmundfreud]

I struggle to see it tbh but what I can say is the 85mm USM is probably the best lens I have (over the L glass)

[Ledaig]

sidaorb said:

Bought a Siggy 20-40mm F2.8 off ebay when the prices were really low, 6 months later sold it for £60 more. Just beware with buying Siggys on ebay, still alot floating around from the heist last year. Always ask the buyer for a serial number and check with Sigs.

What's that all about then?

Just had a quick google but couldn't see anything jumping out at me. I'm curious as I have a couple of Sigmas about to go on E-bay (one of which is coincidentaly a 20-40 2.8).



ok - found it now..... Sigma stolen lens list + info

Edited by Ledaig on Saturday 7th February 05:10

[Simpo Two]

Ledaig said:

ok - found it now..... Sigma stolen lens list + info

I see the marketing dept at Sigma has been keen to cram in as much as possible when giving Plod the desctription:

'optimized for digital cameras'

'Designed to suit the special characteristics of digital cameras.'

'designed specially for use with digital SLR cameras

'optimised for digital SLR cameras.'

There are also four descriptions and five lenses - although I agree that the photo of them obviously wasn't taken with a lens 'optimised for digital cameras' :chortle:

[dinkel]

I've a great (1983) Pentax 2.5 135mm as used on my analog Pentax. Quality unmatched . . .

http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/tele/K13...

I wish somebody wanted it for good use and paid the proper price for it.

But now I'm stuck with a digital camera, as the most of us. :looking at my obsolete stock:

What I want is a camera that has that same - call it soft - quality as my former Pentax cams had.

I don't find that in a Nikon or Canon and Olympus (E300 now) is in the direction, don't ask me why.

Does anyone - slighty OT as I notice now - have a clue / point me in a direction of what I might like.

Thanx.

[LongQ]

dinkel said:

Does anyone - slighty OT as I notice now - have a clue / point me in a direction of what I might like.

Thanx.

Some of those rather expensive software filters that emulate various film types?

Are you using Pentax digital? If so, can you not use your old lens?

I recently discovered that an elderly Canon FD fit 70-210 f4 lens, together with a non-matching (apparently) canon 2x extender, via a Kood FD to EOS adapter on my Canon 400D gives surprisingly good results from Macros through to what is in effect about 650mm equivalent I suspect. (The Kood adapter may multiply a little I believe).

It needs some good amount of light though! Max aperture will be no better than f8-f11 (ish) in reality. And of course it is totally manual ...

It may be wishful thinking on my part but the images respond nicely to a little sharpening without being quite as harsh as some digital images can be.

I've been trying out a Canon EF 70-300 DO lens as well (Sort of Pro L spec but using Diffractive Optics) and though they are different in outright Image Quality terms there is not much to choose between the results when compared at similar telephoto lengths. Both look subtly different to straight modern lenses. (The DO lens is relatively modern but optically somewhat left field.)