hubsand
Offline
Image Upload: On
|
 p.1 #5 · Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f2.8D-IF | |
I'm trying to break into the pro-service loan club, but thus far all the lenses I've tested have been bought new or used and either kept or sold depending on their usefulness.
My 17-35mm AFS came from Bob Rigby in Macclesfield: used, mint and complete with all its original packing and leather case at £695 including VAT.
The 12-24mm Sigma I just bought, new, was purchased on the understanding that it if I was unhappy with that particular lens' performance, I could return it within 30 days. The salesman didn't believe in sample variation. I hope he does now.
I buy lenses used, opportunistically, so I can sell them for pretty much what I paid. Overall the exercise isn't too costly. I lost £250 on the Schneider 28PC I bought and sold, but made £275 on the Leica 21-35 and Zeiss 18mm sales. It's swings and roundabouts . . .
At least everything I write has the credibility of independence; it isn't funded by anyone with an agenda; I used to review restaurants - it was always harder to be honest when the chef paid the bill!
It's not in my interest to do anything other than speak as I find en-route to building the finest arsenal of lenses I can afford. I'm often surprised by what I learn, but I'll use whatever lens does the job best, hence the motley assortment of Canon, Tamron, Nikon, Zeiss, Pentax, Pentacon Jena and even Rodenstock lenses in my work bags.
If optical quality was the only criterion, I'd swap the Nikon for a Leica 19mm, Zeiss 21mm and Canon 24mm but the results would only be evident at 21mm/f5.6; I'd be a lot poorer, my sensors would be a lot dustier, and my mirror would be frakked. As ever, YMMV.
You might also notice than Sinar are displaying the 17-35mm AFS prominently on their very demanding modular 35mm system, alongside the Zeiss optics.
http://www.sinar.ch/sinar/default.htm
That's quite an endorsement . . .
|
