Quote:
Originally Posted by given2fly Folks Folks,
I think my question has genuinely gone OT. I am sold on 70-200 F4 because for me optical quality is more important than length. And then, I can always get the 1.4 extender which will cost me 289$ but I can then retain it for other lenses also. Besides that, as soon as you mount any lens on Tripod, the IS turns itself off. So no point for an IS lens there for Guillivers Travels. Also, a non-L lens may not have the same build quality (sturdiness & weather-sealing) and that is why I have nudged 70-300 out of my list.
I am going to complement this one with a Tamron 28-75 for now which will be added it a little later to my repetoire as putting my camera funds completely into F4. My main question was "Is a 6 month old lens with US warranty good & for how much"? I think 23 should be good given the fact that L lens is known to hold its value. Also when I would like to upgrade to F2.8 or F4 with IS later, say one year, how much can I expect?
PS: I request you all not to drag 55-250 & 70-300 again but give me related valuable suggestion. Your advice will be very crucial in helping my purchase.
PS-2: KB-100 had suggested 18-20K for the given lens. I would like to know why do you think that is good for a rather unused lens. |
Hey Given2fly - sorry - did not mean to ignore anyone!!
Let me tell you my logic with a precursor*** to each his own***
You will battle two choices - If you look at the shots out of both - most of them concur that one stop down there is not much between both of them - as in even the pixel peepers have not been able to call it accurately (from what I read/see on the net)
Secondly - you WILL find the
IS more helpful than the speed at the extreme ends of the zoom - in other words - unless you plan to lug that tripod everywhere , the chances are the 70-300
IS might just give you more 'keeper' shots - courtesy the
IS, than the 70-200 F4.0 with the 1.4 teleconverter ever will. (almost the same reach - 300mm Vs 280mm respectively).
Lastly the only arrangement that 'might' better this one - will be the 70-200 f2.8 IS with the 2X teleconverter - because the speed of that lens will take it to 560mm without losing the AF facility - not to mention the IS is already there!!.. But this will cost you a clear $1700/- PLUS $280 for the converter - or so! (85-90K is a hell of lot of money for birds - the 'poses' they give better be 'worth' it!!

)
For everyone using tripods ONLY- the non IS version of all there lenses are available at a clear $500 less!
Quote:
Originally Posted by given2fly PS-2: KB-100 had suggested 18-20K for the given lens. I would like to know why do you think that is good for a rather unused lens. |
Lastly to specifically answer this question I have a rationale -or two- to put forward -
1. The only thing that passes through the lens is
LIGHT - therefore no one can say its any worse for the wear! (No wear & tear)
2. Having said that its what conditions it might have been subjected to during use, and storage, that will make the difference.
This lens is available - Brand New -for $ 560 + shipping - say about $580 landed in the US - which is around Rs.24.5k (landed)! Therefore 18-20 may be a reasonable 'used' rate - each man to his own, I have given you mine!
Used prices are always governed by basic 'demand & supply' principles. End of the day everything depends on the buyers' 'sentiment's!