On 22/6/04, James Davis, discombobulated, offered: >>My guess is that most Sigmas are bought by amateurs who really aren't >>into lens swapping. So they continue to use the same lens and it >>never goes into circulation. Also, the resale value is so low that >>many times it just doesn't make sense to try to sell them. > >That last line says it all. A good used Canon lens will get 70-80% of >new value when sold used. A Sigma - you are just happy to get anything >for it...
In 2002 I bought a Sigma EX 70-200 f/2.8 pretty clean in box for 300 GBP (eBay). I sold it two months ago for 370 GBP (eBay). It was a fine lens with good build quality, and although not as sharp as Canon optics, still perfectly serviceable in the glass dept. The only reason I sold it was because I finally had the opportunity to buy a Canon 70-200 L f/2.8 IS, which admittedly is on a different level altogether. I also have the 24-70 2.8 L but have kept a Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 AT-X because it is such a good lens. I also have a Sigma EX 14mm 2.8 and a 24mm 1.8 macro and both are good lenses although the macro is not as sturdy as the others. I also use a Pentax SMC K50mm 1.2 via a custom adapter and the build quality and optics of that are on a par with Canon. My last line says that somebody paid me 70 quid to own a Sigma for nearly two years. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
