Sigma 18-35mm Used Price

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm considering a used Sigma 18-35mm lens for $575(USD) from a private party. I have avoided Sigma lenses like the plague for the past 15+ years, but I want to use my SL2 as a backup to my 5D MK IV for low light, and this lens at 18mm is barely wide enough but will handle my usage.

A new lens with dock included is $799 at Adorama, or lens only can be had for $719, so its $145 off the best current lens only price.

If I spend $70 for a new dock, then the savings over new is $155, and used docks can be had for less.

I'm a little undecided, since it will not have a warranty (It is a US model).

I plan to use it with DPAF, so calibrating accuracy by using a dock is not a big deal, but upgrading the firmware might be.

 

[candc]

I have that lens. Optically its about as good as it gets. You won't be disappointed with the iq.It gives ff coverage from 26-35 as a bonus. I've had af issues with mine on canon dslr's. I mostly use it on a Sony a7rii.

 

[[email protected]]

Was my very favorite lens when shooting crop. Just sold mine ($630, btw) a few weeks ago because I went all full frame. Definitely get the dock. You can't always do all the adjustments with in-body AFMA, as you will on occasion need the extra dimensions Sigma provides by allowing different settings at different subject distances.

If you're not happy with the used lens, then sell it and get another. If you shoot crop, this is too important a lens at too cheap a used price not to find a good one. It really was a remarkable tool for me. Even used it as a 35mm for full frame prior to getting a prime.

I know for a fact I'll regret having sold that thing. There will be some backup camera or mirrorless or something that'll make me kick myself months from now.

 

[hne]

Really nice lens. Especially for video purposes with DPAF. I was trying to buy one used but had to go with new because no used was up for sale in my country for three months.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm of a mind to just hold off and see what sales hit in November. There were some big price deals last year.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I went ahead and bought the lens today. I took my SL2 along and tried it out. It did not include a dock, so I'll purchase one separately. Focusing using DPAF with my SL2 seemed fast and accurate, thats where most use will be.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm not exactly pleased with the performance of the used lens. It requires a lot of AF correction, and even using DPAF, the images are not as sharp as the should be. I compared my 24-70 2.8 L II at 35mm with both lenses at f/2.8. The Canon is noticeably sharper with better contrast, less CA, a world of difference.


I don't want to waste more money sending it to Sigma, I'll just resell it. Its not horrible, just not as sharp as it should be.

I wanted a wide aperture lens for low light, and wanted 18mm or wider. Not a lot of choices, in fact, only one zoom faster than f/2.8.

 

[ahsanford]

I'm of a mind to just hold off and see what sales hit in November. There were some big price deals last year.

Impressive. The price hasn't ratcheted down from its initial asking -- only the odd discount has popped up.

Demand is steady three years post-launch. That's the price plot of a 3rd party that nailed an unmet need.

[cough Canon are you listening cough higher quality EF-S glass cough]

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its definitely a niche offering, I hope that a good one is sharper than mine. Mine is certainly usable, but virtually all the reviews have it better than what I see. I paid $575, so I can get my money back selling it. I bought a dock already, so just a $719 bare lens will do it.

 

[aceflibble]

Sounds like either you picked up a really shockingly unusual dud. (Even using live view, focus can knock off a little by the time the shutter has actually gone off, so always be sure to use a tripod and timer or remote trigger when evaluating image quality between multiple lenses.) Every copy of the 18-35 I've used has been much better, technically speaking, for whatever APS-C body I had it on at the time than any similar 'full frame' zoom I had to hand, including that 24-70 f/2.8 II. Same with the 50-100 f/1.8. (Though that one has always had more significant focusing problems, in my experience.) It is frankly bizarre to hear of a copy being noticeably different from the 24-70 mounted on an APS-C body, let alone noticeably worse.

Of course, when you buy used you never know how the previous owner has actually treated the lens. People usually own't tell you if a lens they're selling you once took a big fall and has been massively de-centred ever since, or anything along those lines.

In any case, I would certainly encourage you to keep trying to find another copy, 'cause of the four or five I've handled, every one has been absolutely phenomenal at all focal lengths; so much so that I began seriously questioning why I was maintaining a 1D & 5D gear bag at all. (Disclaimer: I haven't pulled the trigger on it yet 'cause I am waiting for the matching 50-100 to get a magic firmware update to fix the worst of its focus consistency issues, and I want to see what the 7D3 is like. But making the switch fully to APS-C remains on my mind thanks to the 18-35.)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Sounds like either you picked up a really shockingly unusual dud. (Even using live view, focus can knock off a little by the time the shutter has actually gone off, so always be sure to use a tripod and timer or remote trigger when evaluating image quality between multiple lenses.) Every copy of the 18-35 I've used has been much better, technically speaking, for whatever APS-C body I had it on at the time than any similar 'full frame' zoom I had to hand, including that 24-70 f/2.8 II. Same with the 50-100 f/1.8. (Though that one has always had more significant focusing problems, in my experience.) It is frankly bizarre to hear of a copy being noticeably different from the 24-70 mounted on an APS-C body, let alone noticeably worse.

Of course, when you buy used you never know how the previous owner has actually treated the lens. People usually own't tell you if a lens they're selling you once took a big fall and has been massively de-centred ever since, or anything along those lines.

In any case, I would certainly encourage you to keep trying to find another copy, 'cause of the four or five I've handled, every one has been absolutely phenomenal at all focal lengths; so much so that I began seriously questioning why I was maintaining a 1D & 5D gear bag at all. (Disclaimer: I haven't pulled the trigger on it yet 'cause I am waiting for the matching 50-100 to get a magic firmware update to fix the worst of its focus consistency issues, and I want to see what the 7D3 is like. But making the switch fully to APS-C remains on my mind thanks to the 18-35.)

From what I've heard, bad copies are very common.

 

[aceflibble]

Be careful with "what you've heard", especially repeating it. Fact is that when people are content with a product they rarely seek out places to talk about it, but when people have a negative experience they'll go out of their way to make sure everybody hears of it. I'm sure we've all been guilty of doing this at some point; I know I have. Whether it's a lens, a body, a tripod, a computer, phone, car, TV, food, movie, song, whatever, people are always quicker to shout about how much they thought something sucked while if it worked out well for them they just get on and keep using it.

For what it's worth, with this 18-35 lens specifically, I know from talking with local store owners that it is still one of the best-selling zooms available for any system, and if bad copies were that common they'd have a hell of a lot more returns and trade-ins than they do.