Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS : Seller's remorse?

[CANONisOK]

I doubt you would have hard time selling 17-55 and 50 f1.4. Those are great lenses.
The question is, what are you going to do with the money? :

1. 1D X
2. 300 f2.8 IS II
4. 400 f2.8 IS II
5. 200-400

Only one of each?
For now, any equipment sold will go toward defraying the cost of my new RRS tripod setup.

 

[CANONisOK]

I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?

I've had the exact same problem for probably six months. Still no takers at $700.
I think part of my problem is I am in a small market. I can't tell you how many people have asked why it is so expensive even though it is "almost the same as the kit lens". ???

 

[Zv]

I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?

I've had the exact same problem for probably six months. Still no takers at $700.
I think part of my problem is I am in a small market. I can't tell you how many people have asked why it is so expensive even though it is "almost the same as the kit lens". ???

Tell them to put the kit lens on in AF then try and turn the focus ring. That will break it and they'll have to buy the 17-55! Haha! Also, they've now learnt about Full Time Manual focus! See? Educational as well!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

So I have a buyer lined up through CL to sell off my hardly-ever used 24-105mm for $800. Ever since purchasing the 24-70mm mk2, it has been gathering dust. I'm not lacking anything over that FL range, so it shouldn't bother me, but...

I just wonder, am I missing something obvious about this lens? I have wanted to love it since I bought it over a year ago. So many people on this forum and others extoll its virtues (IQ, versatility, IS). To be frank - I just haven't seen it. And I think it sounds great on paper - good FL range, IS, compactness. It SHOULD be my go-to walkaround lens. But it isn't.

I did the AFMA on focal, but I've never been able to get true sharpness from this lens in darn near any situation. My prior workhorse was a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 on a T3i, and I didn't observe signiciant difference in the "upgrade" to the 24-105 (although, I felt color was noticeably better).

I'd hate to have seller's remorse if there is some secret to its awesomeness I just haven't unlocked yet. Or maybe I just have a crap copy. I suppose since I'm getting about the same as I paid for it. No loss, and hopefully prices will be similar in the future if I want to try to jump in again. What do you think; will I regret it?

I've sold it three times ;D and never a hint of seller's remorse! (buyer's remorse three times though, quick too, as no copy lasted more than 7 days in my house)

And man $800 for it? SELL IT SELL IT FAST! It's virtually impossible to get that much a new copy now, never mind used! Many used copies go $600 these days, even $550!!

 

[jdramirez]

GONE! ;D

Thanks for all the feedback. It seemed like a really good price for a not-spectacular copy (but in all fairness, it was also in pristine condition). The buyer was also at a point in her hobby where I could see the 24-105mm as a big step-up in quality. Her enthusiasm made me feel good about selling it.

Maybe someday there will be an amazing mark ii version which can be the ultimate walkaround lens, but I'm plenty happy with my other current options. Now, if I can find some takers for my 17-55mm, 50 1.4, an old 18-200mm(!), etc...

I doubt you would have hard time selling 17-55 and 50 f1.4. Those are great lenses.

The question is, what are you going to do with the money? :

1. 1D X
2. 300 f2.8 IS II
4. 400 f2.8 IS II
5. 200-400

Get some Nikon lenses with EOS adapter maybe

I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?

The 17-55 experiences more depreciation than some of canon's lenses. I sold a good condition (some dust inside) lens for 750 on amazon, and my take away was around 690. I actually bought it for 575, so I made a nice little profit off of it, but considering how much it costs new, it seems surprising.

 

[jdramirez]

I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?

I've had the exact same problem for probably six months. Still no takers at $700.
I think part of my problem is I am in a small market. I can't tell you how many people have asked why it is so expensive even though it is "almost the same as the kit lens". ???

If you have to ask... maybe you shouldn't be in the market for a 17-55. That's harsh.

 

[jdramirez]

So I have a buyer lined up through CL to sell off my hardly-ever used 24-105mm for $800. Ever since purchasing the 24-70mm mk2, it has been gathering dust. I'm not lacking anything over that FL range, so it shouldn't bother me, but...

I just wonder, am I missing something obvious about this lens? I have wanted to love it since I bought it over a year ago. So many people on this forum and others extoll its virtues (IQ, versatility, IS). To be frank - I just haven't seen it. And I think it sounds great on paper - good FL range, IS, compactness. It SHOULD be my go-to walkaround lens. But it isn't.

I did the AFMA on focal, but I've never been able to get true sharpness from this lens in darn near any situation. My prior workhorse was a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 on a T3i, and I didn't observe signiciant difference in the "upgrade" to the 24-105 (although, I felt color was noticeably better).

I'd hate to have seller's remorse if there is some secret to its awesomeness I just haven't unlocked yet. Or maybe I just have a crap copy. I suppose since I'm getting about the same as I paid for it. No loss, and hopefully prices will be similar in the future if I want to try to jump in again. What do you think; will I regret it?

I've sold it three times ;D and never a hint of seller's remorse! (buyer's remorse three times though, quick too, as no copy lasted more than 7 days in my house)

And man $800 for it? SELL IT SELL IT FAST! It's virtually impossible to get that much a new copy now, never mind used! Many used copies go $600 these days, even $550!!

It is awful the depreciation the 24-105 is experiencing. Even the 50mm f/1.8 mk ii maintains its value better (new retail pricing v. used resale value).

 

[Pi]

The 17-55 experiences more depreciation than some of canon's lenses. I sold a good condition (some dust inside) lens for 750 on amazon, and my take away was around 690. I actually bought it for 575, so I made a nice little profit off of it, but considering how much it costs new, it seems surprising.

I had similar troubles with it 1 1/2 - 2 years ago. I sold my 10-22 and 60 macro quickly but the selling the 17-55 was hard.

 

[jdramirez]

The 17-55 experiences more depreciation than some of canon's lenses. I sold a good condition (some dust inside) lens for 750 on amazon, and my take away was around 690. I actually bought it for 575, so I made a nice little profit off of it, but considering how much it costs new, it seems surprising.

I had similar troubles with it 1 1/2 - 2 years ago. I sold my 10-22 and 60 macro quickly but the selling the 17-55 was hard.

I think it might be the dust issue. Most people who upgrade to a 17-55 are going to be knowledgeable, so maybe they shell out more for a new one... It maybe reminds me of the used market for the 50mm f/1.4 usm and its reported AF issues.

 

[Zv]

The 17-55 experiences more depreciation than some of canon's lenses. I sold a good condition (some dust inside) lens for 750 on amazon, and my take away was around 690. I actually bought it for 575, so I made a nice little profit off of it, but considering how much it costs new, it seems surprising.

I had similar troubles with it 1 1/2 - 2 years ago. I sold my 10-22 and 60 macro quickly but the selling the 17-55 was hard.

I think it might be the dust issue. Most people who upgrade to a 17-55 are going to be knowledgeable, so maybe they shell out more for a new one... It maybe reminds me of the used market for the 50mm f/1.4 usm and its reported AF issues.

Well, based on that logic said people should also be aware that the internal dust has no bearing on IQ! But mine has none and it still wont sell!! What the frick? Might as well have not had it cleaned! There's a dude selling it for $660 in "very good" condition. I highly doubt that. Prick. Might as well just give it away!

 

[Ron Bailey]

Have not read all the posts...but if you can sell it for $800 in the market I would jump on it. You can always purchase it again cheaper than what you are currently selling it for.

 

[tron]

I doubt you would have hard time selling 17-55 and 50 f1.4. Those are great lenses.
The question is, what are you going to do with the money? :

1. 1D X
2. 300 f2.8 IS II
4. 400 f2.8 IS II
5. 200-400

Only one of each?
For now, any equipment sold will go toward defraying the cost of my new RRS tripod setup.

I guess the new moto could be: all serious photographers must have the above equipment (all of it!) ;D ;D ;D

 

[dgatwood]

I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?

I've had the exact same problem for probably six months. Still no takers at $700.
I think part of my problem is I am in a small market. I can't tell you how many people have asked why it is so expensive even though it is "almost the same as the kit lens". ???

If you have to ask... maybe you shouldn't be in the market for a 17-55. That's harsh.

Not really. It's a fair question. Your big problem is that the kit lens got a lot better recently. The focal length is almost the same, the newest version of the kit lens apparently has better resolution, less CA wide open, less pincushion distortion (though somewhat more vignetting and barrel distortion)....

The answer is obvious, of course. The 17-55 is faster, and for that extra bit of speed, you pay an extra grand. The reason resale is hard is that most people don't need the extra bit of speed. If you're just trying to get less DOF, chances are you'll buy a prime instead of a different zoom lens. If you do a lot of low-light shooting, it might be a nice upgrade, but otherwise, it probably isn't worth the extra cost.

Your best bet is probably to resell it through Amazon, honestly.

 

[Zv]

I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?

I've had the exact same problem for probably six months. Still no takers at $700.
I think part of my problem is I am in a small market. I can't tell you how many people have asked why it is so expensive even though it is "almost the same as the kit lens". ???

If you have to ask... maybe you shouldn't be in the market for a 17-55. That's harsh.

Not really. It's a fair question. Your big problem is that the kit lens got a lot better recently. The focal length is almost the same, the newest version of the kit lens apparently has better resolution, less CA wide open, less pincushion distortion (though somewhat more vignetting and barrel distortion)....

The answer is obvious, of course. The 17-55 is faster, and for that extra bit of speed, you pay an extra grand. The reason resale is hard is that most people don't need the extra bit of speed. If you're just trying to get less DOF, chances are you'll buy a prime instead of a different zoom lens. If you do a lot of low-light shooting, it might be a nice upgrade, but otherwise, it probably isn't worth the extra cost.

Your best bet is probably to resell it through Amazon, honestly.

I AM selling it on Amazon!

 

[sagittariansrock]

I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?

I've had the exact same problem for probably six months. Still no takers at $700.
I think part of my problem is I am in a small market. I can't tell you how many people have asked why it is so expensive even though it is "almost the same as the kit lens". ???

If you have to ask... maybe you shouldn't be in the market for a 17-55. That's harsh.

Not really. It's a fair question. Your big problem is that the kit lens got a lot better recently. The focal length is almost the same, the newest version of the kit lens apparently has better resolution, less CA wide open, less pincushion distortion (though somewhat more vignetting and barrel distortion)....

The answer is obvious, of course. The 17-55 is faster, and for that extra bit of speed, you pay an extra grand. The reason resale is hard is that most people don't need the extra bit of speed. If you're just trying to get less DOF, chances are you'll buy a prime instead of a different zoom lens. If you do a lot of low-light shooting, it might be a nice upgrade, but otherwise, it probably isn't worth the extra cost.

Your best bet is probably to resell it through Amazon, honestly.

I AM selling it on Amazon!

Yeah, this worries me too since I will have to sell my EF-S gear next year. The problem of moving from APS-C to crop with my current situation is that I can't sell any of the lenses piecemeal. I cannot replace any of my EF-S lenses with FF lenses that will still work equally with the 7D, so I need to sell them all together.
I had put all my gear on Craigslist while I was still considering going FF this year, but the response was so lukewarm that I decided to squeeze more out of what I had for now. Most of the people were only interested in the 10-22 and none in the 17-55 and 7D.
Even Adorama often sells 7D refurb with 1 year warranty at $ 850 (and grey market ones cost $ 800)- I shall be lucky to get $ 500 for it. And 7D, yeah there is a guy on CL selling it for $ 650 with OEM hood. A month-old post at that. So...

 

[jdramirez]

I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?

I've had the exact same problem for probably six months. Still no takers at $700.
I think part of my problem is I am in a small market. I can't tell you how many people have asked why it is so expensive even though it is "almost the same as the kit lens". ???

If you have to ask... maybe you shouldn't be in the market for a 17-55. That's harsh.

Not really. It's a fair question. Your big problem is that the kit lens got a lot better recently. The focal length is almost the same, the newest version of the kit lens apparently has better resolution, less CA wide open, less pincushion distortion (though somewhat more vignetting and barrel distortion)....

The answer is obvious, of course. The 17-55 is faster, and for that extra bit of speed, you pay an extra grand. The reason resale is hard is that most people don't need the extra bit of speed. If you're just trying to get less DOF, chances are you'll buy a prime instead of a different zoom lens. If you do a lot of low-light shooting, it might be a nice upgrade, but otherwise, it probably isn't worth the extra cost.

Your best bet is probably to resell it through Amazon, honestly.

I AM selling it on Amazon!

Yeah, this worries me too since I will have to sell my EF-S gear next year. The problem of moving from APS-C to crop with my current situation is that I can't sell any of the lenses piecemeal. I cannot replace any of my EF-S lenses with FF lenses that will still work equally with the 7D, so I need to sell them all together.
I had put all my gear on Craigslist while I was still considering going FF this year, but the response was so lukewarm that I decided to squeeze more out of what I had for now. Most of the people were only interested in the 10-22 and none in the 17-55 and 7D.
Even Adorama often sells 7D refurb with 1 year warranty at $ 850 (and grey market ones cost $ 800)- I shall be lucky to get $ 500 for it. And 7D, yeah there is a guy on CL selling it for $ 650 with OEM hood. A month-old post at that. So...

why can't you sell it piece by piece? how is your Amazon rating? if it is good you really shouldn't have a problem if you post photos and give a detailed explanation of the condition.

 

[BL]

got my 24-105 as a kit lens with my 5D. used it off and on then sat in my bag for almost 5 years before selling. no remorse, no regret.

was the softest lens in my kit, but stopped down did ok. IS was quite useful at times, however.
never was a fan of how it renders bokeh - it has this rolled condom look and always found it a bit busy.

 

[duydaniel]

105 f4

 

[sagittariansrock]

why can't you sell it piece by piece? how is your Amazon rating? if it is good you really shouldn't have a problem if you post photos and give a detailed explanation of the condition.

I have only ever sold a 50D on Amazon and never got a rating for that, so my Anazon rating is nonexistent, but that's beside the point.
The problem with selling piece by piece is I can't replace any single APS-C glass with a single FF replacement, so until I change my camera I can't really replace any of the lenses, and then I would need to change them rightaway because none of the EF-S lenses would work.

 

[mrsfotografie]

was the softest lens in my kit

You must have had a bad copy - mine is really good (and made me sell my 24-70 f/2.8 ). Even when compared to my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I'm happy with the sharpness. My 17-40 is noticeably softer, but not bad at all when stopped down.