• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New v Second hand Sigma (1 Viewer)

Vernon Barker

Well-known member
I am looking for a second hand Sigma 170-500 Canon EOS fit for my first foray into bird photography. On eBay, one has just reached£460. New ones can be obtained for £530.
Do SH lenses really hold their value like this, it seems the new option is far better when you consider the guarantee aspect.
Advice would be welcome.
 
The closer second hand lenses are to "mint condition," the closer the price will be to a new price. If the item includes all original accessories the price is boosted, and even the inclusion of the original box will render the item more attractiive and therefore more costly. There should always be a marked drop in price, however, just as a brand new car depreciates the moment you drive it off the dealer lot.

If you are searching ebay, use the "advanced search" option to see how much these lenses have sold for in recent weeks. I apologize if I'm repeating something you already know, but you need to tick the "completed listings only" box to get access to these finished transactions.

It's always comforting to get a new item with a full warranty, of course, but most camera lenses from major manufacturers don't have all that much that can go wrong with them. The VR/IS lenses are an exception, of course, and I would advise people to be careful about buying these models second hand without being sure all is in order mechanically.

You might ask the seller(s) whether the lens originally had a warranty valid in the country where you live, as with some brands, at least, the distributors will not even do repairs off of warranty on grey market items.

You also should know in advance what the return policy is for your item. If the seller won't agree to a short period during which you can return the item, don't deal with him or her. Then when you get the lens you should try it out vigorously right away to make sure it meets your expectations.

The truth is that when you get second hand items, particularly from non-dealer sources, one of the reasons you pay less is that there is an element of risk involved.
Again, I'm sorry if I am belaboring obvious points here, I don't mean to preach. But I have bought a lot of second-hand gear on ebay, and I've learned to be circumspect. But I've gotten some terrific bargains in the process.
 
Vernon Barker said:
I am looking for a second hand Sigma 170-500 Canon EOS fit for my first foray into bird photography. On eBay, one has just reached£460. New ones can be obtained for £530.
Do SH lenses really hold their value like this, it seems the new option is far better when you consider the guarantee aspect.
Advice would be welcome.
eBay bidding is a mystery to me. Some people must get carried away, if one believes the bids made. Make sure when bidding on a Sigma lens that it is the latest DG version. This is not always clear from the descriptions. I have noticed that several 170-500mm lens have been the older non DG version. If it is not clear ask the seller. Many don't bother to reply!!
 
Ebay madness indeed - I've seen many examples of used stuff on Ebay going for more than a new one would have cost.

The only "significant" difference between DG and non DG Sigmas is better internal coatings to prevent unwanted flare/ghosting, but most people never have problems with that with older Sigmas, so don't let that put you off if the price is good.
 
Last edited:
baillieswells said:
Make sure when bidding on a Sigma lens that it is the latest DG version. This is not always clear from the descriptions. I have noticed that several 170-500mm lens have been the older non DG version. If it is not clear ask the seller. Many don't bother to reply!!

As Keith says I wouldn't worry about the DG suffix. A non DG lens at a good price will be a sound buy. I've got 3 Sigma lenses and the worst performing by a long way is the 24-70 f2.8 DG. The 2 non DG's are fine!

The only word of caution is how old the lens is. Some models (400 f5.6 I think particularly) won't work with recent camera bodies. If possible try the lens on the body and make sure everything works. I'm not sure how big a problem this is though. Accord to a DPreview regular my 500mm f4.5 EX HSM won't work with my 20D and yet it works perfectly!

Vernon,

Regarding your original question that is crazy money for that lens. I sold an immaculate 50-500 for £400 and a friend of mine was after about £275 for his 170-500. Keep looking Sigma's are good value secondhand.

Paul
 
Last edited:
It is easy to be confusued by the DG suffix, whilst they may have better coatings on the rear element to combat the internal flare effect caused by the highly reflective surface of the sensor, they are also designed to only cover the area of the smaller C type sensor, and not the larger sized full frame sensor. This results in the lens actually having a fall off in edge definition by comparison to a 'normal' lens which due to its larger coverage gives the advantage of a bigger "sweet spot" across a smaller sensors area.
It is really to the manufacturers gain that the DG or S suffix type lenses are produced as it means less glass, and fewer reject lens elements during manufacture, so production costs are possibly quite a bit less!
 
nigelblake said:
It is easy to be confusued by the DG suffix, whilst they may have better coatings on the rear element to combat the internal flare effect caused by the highly reflective surface of the sensor, they are also designed to only cover the area of the smaller C type sensor, and not the larger sized full frame sensor. This results in the lens actually having a fall off in edge definition by comparison to a 'normal' lens which due to its larger coverage gives the advantage of a bigger "sweet spot" across a smaller sensors area.
It is really to the manufacturers gain that the DG or S suffix type lenses are produced as it means less glass, and fewer reject lens elements during manufacture, so production costs are possibly quite a bit less!


I thought that the DC suffix was for aps-c sensor bodies and DG was a modification to the old lenses. Warehouse Express clearly state DG lenses can be used on 35mm bodies.

If they got their production costs down they certainly took the opportunity to jack the prices up!

Paul
 
nigelblake said:
yes some DG are modified older lenses, but the majority are new build

Well that is interesting. So does that mean that the DG lenses are likely to be completely useless on FF camera's? Could scupper a plan I was hatching!

Edit. Impartial advice would be appreciated, I know you're not a paid up member of the Sigma fan club ;)

Paul
 
Last edited:
As I understand it 'DG' is for full-frame that have coatings suitable for digital cameras and 'DC' are digital-only for smaller sensors, I wasn't aware of any DGs that won't fit full-frame. Incidentally - unlike Canon's EF-S lenses - some independents, such as Sigma's DC lenses can be fitted to full-frame cameras and will give full coverage over some of the zoom range. The 18-50mm F3.5-F5.6 DC lens covers the full frame from about 25mm upwards (my EOS50E body doesn't have 100% viewfinder coverage, so I'm not sure at what exact point the cut-off disappears).

Whilst non-DG lenses are fine for most of the time, there are odd occasions when unwanted reflections can appear - especially when shooting into the light. I only had one shot like this below from three taken at about the same time with only a fraction difference in viewpoint:
 

Attachments

  • _MG_2429.jpg
    _MG_2429.jpg
    29.3 KB · Views: 124
A scroll through the Sigma lenses on Warehouse express web site will show which are full frame or C-type designed lenses, they have a blue 35 and digital or orange digital only icon. Tamron lenses are similarly notated.
This is something to be aware of when buying new lenses if you are considering upgrading to full frame in the future.
 
Hmmm...

While I hesitate to disagree with Nigel, it is my understanding that only the DC lenses are in any way physically different from a compatability point of view.

As Paul says - and here I'm quoting straight from my copy of the 2006 UK Sigma catalogue:

[DC lenses] are special lenses designed so that the image circle matches the smaller size of the image sensor of most digital SLR cameras. Their specialized design gives these lenses the ideal properties for digital cameras.
Whereas DG lenses are described as:

ideal lenses for digital SLR cameras whilst retaining suitability for traditional 35mm SLRs.
That suggests that any non-DG Sigma lens which would have been suitable for 35mm - and therefore FF - cameras, will continue to be suitable for FF in its DG designation, because there's no indication that they've been changed in any way that would effect that compatibility.

Unless I'm missing something (entirely possible! ;)), if DG lenses work for DSLRs and 35mm, then that "spread" would also cover FF, wouldn't it?

Obviously the DC range is ruled out for FF though...
 
Last edited:
Always foolhardy commenting on here when ones had a few...... However Sigma DC, Canon EFS and Tamron Di II lenses are designed to fit C type sensors only, whereas Canon EF, Sigma DG and Tamron Di are for use with full frame and C type sensors.
But the point that I was making .......
"They are designed to only cover the area of the smaller C type sensor, and not the larger sized full frame sensor. This results in the lens actually having a fall off in edge definition by comparison to a 'normal' lens which due to its larger coverage gives the advantage of a bigger "sweet spot" across a smaller sensors area."
....... still stands, so it is wise, from an optical quality view, if you only have a C-type camera body to still buy a full frame coverage lens.
 
nigelblake said:
....... it is wise, from an optical quality view, if you only have a C-type camera body to still buy a full frame coverage lens.

This is very true! 1Ds-type bodies may be out of the range for many of us, but the 5D and whatever comes after it is much more within the scope of the average enthusiast. That Sigma 18-50mm is the only small-sized lens that I have and I bought it as an economical holiday/snapshot lens where one would have a 28-80mm in full frame.

We've drifted off-topic a bit - I'd definitely not pay the kind of price quoted at the start of this thread for a secondhand 170-500mm lens without gaurantee, etc.
 
nigelblake said:
But the point that I was making still stands, so it is wise, from an optical quality view, if you only have a C-type camera body to still buy a full frame coverage lens.
Aye, I'd heard that there are certain manufacturing/design "shortcuts" used in the making of digital-only lenses - this is why they're often cheaper and lighter than the non digital-only equivalents - and I've suspected that there could be an IQ trade off as a result.

I can't see any good reason not to buy a FF compatible lens even though I've got no current interest in FF, for this very reason.
 
Keith Reeder said:
Aye, I'd heard that there are certain manufacturing/design "shortcuts" used in the making of digital-only lenses - this is why they're often cheaper and lighter than the non digital-only equivalents - and I've suspected that there could be an IQ trade off as a result.

I can't see any good reason not to buy a FF compatible lens even though I've got no current interest in FF, for this very reason.

The reason they're often cheaper and lighter is that they don't need to use so much glass as they're producing a smaller image. It's like P&S cameras - they have very small sensors, with correspondingly small lenses.

As for image quality - have a look at some reviews of Canons 10-22mm and 60mm macro EF-S lenses. Both have exceptional IQ.
 
As has been said, ebay sees some ridiculous prices, I looked long enough for a used 170-500 or 50-500 for my Pentax, they seemed to be like rocking horse manure, and the ones that did sell went for ludicrous prices, even old manual focus K mounts went OTT, looking at secondhand from dealers wasn't much different, in the end I bought new, after all when your spending that amount of cash whats another £100-£150 if your getting it brand spanking new with full warranty?

Warehouse Express seem about the best advertised price, though I got mine from SRS who matched the WE price.

PS the 50-500 is a beast, can anyone reccomend the Velbon CF630 tripod?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top