08-05-2010, 09:09 PM
[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1281034167' post='1518']
It is hard to tell from the images provided, if the lens is really in good condition or not,
but there is something quite obvious in those images, that would hold me back
from buying this lens:
Look at images 1+2 in the upper row on the first page, 3 in the lower row, and on those
on the next page. This lens is very sensitive to contralight situations as well as on
light from the side touching the frontelement.
Just my thoughts ... Rainer
[/quote]
+1
You may be better off with, e.g., a Tamron 17-50 F/2.8, which wouldn't cost all that much more new, and only really a little more expensive for the non-OS version, especially used.
Kind regards, Wim
It is hard to tell from the images provided, if the lens is really in good condition or not,
but there is something quite obvious in those images, that would hold me back
from buying this lens:
Look at images 1+2 in the upper row on the first page, 3 in the lower row, and on those
on the next page. This lens is very sensitive to contralight situations as well as on
light from the side touching the frontelement.
Just my thoughts ... Rainer
[/quote]
+1
You may be better off with, e.g., a Tamron 17-50 F/2.8, which wouldn't cost all that much more new, and only really a little more expensive for the non-OS version, especially used.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....