Canon refurbished store for lenses

[Puckman]

Still pondering on my next lens. Eyeing the 17-55 f/2.8 in most likelihood. There seem to be some in stock on the Canon refurbished site for a pretty decent discount (as opposed to buying new).

Anyone here buy lenses from the Canon refurbished store? Are there any gotchas? Are these as good as new? Is there more chance of dust, or scratches, etc or are they guaranteed to be just as good as the new ones?

 

[someoldguy]

Got my 17-40 and 100 macro off the refurb store a few years back . No problems , they looked and functioned like new .

 

[ElectronGuru]

I've not tried and things can go wrong (as with new), but word is very positive on the company/process itself:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1073960


Just make sure to inspect it upon arrival and report anything that bugs you. You can also shop here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=87

 

[Pompiliu]

Eyeing the 17-55 f/2.8 in most likelihood.

Don't buy that lens. It's expensive and only works with small sensor cameras.
And it will be difficult for you to sell it at a good price, usually people with cheap dslrs buy cheap lenses (50mm, 18-55, 70-300, etc.)


If you think you'll buy a real camera (full-frame) in the future get a 24-70 2.8 or 24-105 (cheaper than the 2.8 one, has IS, and don't be afraid of the f4 aperture, full frame cameras have better ISO capabilities and also nicer bokeh at f4 than a aps-c camera at 2.8)

 

[Puckman]

I find it hard to believe that only FF cameras are "REAL" cameras.
Plenty of higher end ASPCs out there, 70d, 7d, etc.

I get the point about buying EF-S lenses. But not all of us feel the need to move on to FF right away, or even in the conceivable future.

 

[fcortese]

Got my 17-40 and 100 macro off the refurb store a few years back . No problems , they looked and functioned like new .

Ditto on my 17-40. Bought several years ago and it's still going strong.

 

[robbieduncan]

I find it hard to believe that only FF cameras are "REAL" cameras.
Plenty of higher end ASPCs out there, 70d, 7d, etc.

I get the point about buying EF-S lenses. But not all of us feel the need to move on to FF right away, or even in the conceivable future.

It's always an amusing argument. I have a 7D. And a medium format (film) camera. Does medium format mean "full frame" camera's are not "real" cameras?

 

[ChrisA]

If you think you'll buy a real camera (full-frame) in the future get a ...

They are all "small format cameras" the so called "full" frame is still only 36mm x 24mm. "Real Cameras" have 6cm or larger frames. The 35mm format was designed for economy and portability.

Seriously, there is nothing wrong with the APS-C/DX frame size and it is ideal for most users. But do plan ahead when you buy a lens. If you need to upgrade later make sure any expensive lens you buy today will work with the body you might buy down the road. But most people ail never upgrade to the 36x24 format.

 

[mustang_dvs]

I generally caution against buying the EF-S lenses.

All EF lenses (with one, maybe two exceptions) made since 1986 work on all EOS bodies made since 1986.

EF-S lenses will only work with EF-S bodies, which is a much smaller subset.

Besides, glass is an investment, bodies are disposable. (Yes, a $1,000-$6,000 camera is disposable.)

 

[googlydoo]

17-55mm lens

If you shoot video, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is actually a really great lens (when shooting with a crop sensor Canon). It's a convenient lens to use on a shoulder rig for general all-around shooting, with a good focal length and pretty good aperture, and Image Stabilization makes it great.

And, I've bought lenses and bodies from the refurbished store -without any issues so far. Make sure to put on a UV filter on the 17-55 - otherwise it will collect dust inside the front element fairly quickly.

 

[rolsskk]

I was fortunate enough to have snagged the ƒ2.8 70-200mmL IS off of their refurbished store for an insanely cheap price, and I've had no complaints about it whatsoever.