Refurbished Canon lenses
Has anyone else bought manufacturer refurbished lenses in the past?
I bought two from Adorama and I can't believe how good they are. They are both indistinguishable from new (the 400 is even a 2006 build) apart from the smallest of paint chips where the hood mounts to the 400. The 24 looks brand new.
Saved a pretty penny over the normal prices too.
The saving pretty much paid for the 24 on its own (300 included just for reference).
Here is the link, am I missing something?:
FYI; 400mm was USD5,500 and 24mm was USD950.
And here is the only mark I could find on either lens (except some minor scuff marks on the 400's lens trunk/storage).
All came with all the goodies too - lens hoods are indiscernible from new.
Drool. . . More Drool. . . "Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed again."
Originally Posted by cwphoto
I wish I hadnt seen this post, as I have bookmarked that link:o :o :(
i'd wonder why it had to be refurbished in the first place but 5500 seems like a great price for that lens. all functions normal and all four corners are equally sharp, right?
i've gotta ask though, in your opinion is the size and weight impractical for normal everyday use? you've probably got it for doing pro sports but i usually head out with everything i have and shoot whatever comes up. i'm planning to get that 300 f2.8 IS some time late next year but what i really want is the 400mm focal length (400 DO is off the list for a few reasons). the reason i'm asking is because there was a time when i could not picture myself carrying around a lens as "large and heavy" :rolleyes: as a 70-200 f2.8 but now it's very normal to use. i've never used anything close to the size of a 400 f2.8 so i'm wondering if it's really as impractical to use as i'm thinking.
So far so good ReF. I have a 90-day warranty on this beastie so (even though it's impractical from Aus) I have some comfort in that.
Originally Posted by ReF
I tell you, if it wasn't for the mark as detailed and the scuffs on the box this lens would pass as new - no problem at all, it's in THAT good condition.
I too wondered about why it had to be refurbished but decided that the saving of around USD1k would go a long way to any necessary repairs.
The 400 is amazingly well-balanced. Obviously it's a tripod/monopod only situation, and if you use it thus it is very manageable and operationally speaking it's a breeze. It feels a lot more compact than either of the older non-IS 400/2.8s from memory too.
The biggest down-side to the lens is the weight for extended walking (ike motorsports, wildlife, some field sports (soccer you just sit in a chair behind the goal-line!) etc. When I used the 400/2.8 at PI recently I was having to change hands almost every 30-60 seconds when carrying for extended periods as it gets quite heavy. This is where the 300/2.8 really shines and personally I think it's a much more versatile lens and should be the first lens one should consider when getting serious about the long stuff.
Sharpness of one over the other? More than you'll ever need, nothing in it.
I plan to go after sports fairly seriously next year and one obviously looks at one of the 'big three' when considering competing with others in this area. If it was motorsport alone I was targeting I would probably have chosen the 500/4 as it is a little lighter (and cheaper) and the 300/500 combo is a good compromise for that game.
However I have been able to expand my action-shots contract with my local soccer club to incorporate the older grades (not just Funskills which is on a reduced field; 300/2.8 is perfect) as well as the A-League opportunity which has presented itself so the 500/4 was suddenly unsuitable for this.
So I decided the 400/2.8 would give me the most flexibility for almost every sporting discipline (just add 1.4x for some of the motorsport stuff and there's your 500-600/4), albeit at the expense of weight when carrying.
I didn't plan on buying until Q1 2007 as I have been borrowing long stuff when I need it, however USD5,500 and an exchange rate of around 78 cents in the dollar was too good to refuse. I figure that if things don't work out I could sell this baby for next to what I paid (especially locally) so where's the risk?
My Dad always said: Bite off as much as you can chew and chew like hell!
Like you, I found a 70-200 imposing when I first started using it. Honestly, it's amazing how you get used to the size of this stuff so don't let that worry you.
ReF if you want to just go out with your kit and shoot whatever comes up the 300/2.8 and 1.4x (and 2x) is your set-up - no question.
Originally Posted by ReF
The 400/2.8 is really a tool for when you get more focused (pardon the pun) if you know what I mean.
Yah, Canon... weird thing is, it was sharper than new copies, LOL. Must be the more careful attention it got the 2nd time around?!
Originally Posted by cwphoto
Are you a CPS member? If you are have canon AU take a look at it. I heard of a horror story someone had picked up a KEH "ln" one and found out it had about a 100 microdoplets on one of the inner elements, couldn't see it but canon analyzed it and said most likly an element needed replacing and some electronics may be damaged/corroded.
On something that expensive I'd want it checked out.
Refurbished means Canon already went over it.
Originally Posted by timmciglobal
KEH sells used, not refurbished, unless stated as refurbished. LN isn't refurbished.