SOLD: Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM

Nikolai

Price: $439 (with hood and UV filter) shipped to ConUS (compare with B&H: $515 + s/h + tax, no hood, no filter).
Paypal please add 3%.
MO/Bank checks ok.
Personal checks would have to wait for clearance.

Status: used, but not abused. Had UV filter on it since day one. Hood is a bit tight to take off/set on, but that was a condition I got it at (I'm second owner, bought it on FM ~16 months ago). At least it's next to impossible to lose:-)

Included: both caps, UV filter, Canon issued hood and all the other stuff I can find (like box, etc.).

Reason for sale: I'm upgrading to 17-55

Contact: PM/Email

Pictures of the lens: will upload later tonight if needed

Pictures taken with this lens:

Ann McRae

Hi Nik
I have this lens and it really is the workhorse of my bag. That is a great price - these are over $700cdn new still!!!

I am a bit surprised that your kettle shot is from that lens - my issue is low light shooting. Of course, my other issue is tripod shooting!!!

Why do you consider the 17 - 55 an upgrade?

Good luck

ann

Nikolai wrote:

Price: $439 (with hood and UV filter) shipped to ConUS (compare with B&H: $515 + s/h + tax, no hood, no filter).

Frank Kaiser

Very interested. PM and email in a minute.
Thanks,
Frank

Nikolai

Frank Kaiser wrote:

Very interested. PM and email in a minute.
Thanks,
Frank

Sale pending...

Nikolai

Sold!
Well, it may not be the fastest sale in Dgrin history (I mean, I'm not in the same league as Andy and Troy:-), but making a deal in 30 minutes and completing it just a couple hours later - that's definitely hit my book of records! Thanks to Frank who was kind enough to drive all the way from LA!

Nikolai

Hi Ann,

Ann McRae wrote:

Hi Nik
I am a bit surprised that your kettle shot is from that lens - my issue is low light shooting. Of course, my other issue is tripod shooting!!!

It's not only a tripod, it's also 580EX :-)

Ann McRae wrote:

Why do you consider the 17 - 55 an upgrade?
Good luck
ann

Ann, you GOTTA be kidding...
f/2.8 across the board? 77mm instead of 72mm? Somebody was talking about low light, eh?
Just compare the prices: one is ~$500, another is ~$1,000. For me, that's a definite upgrade...

Ann McRae

So that isn't the one that was a 'kit' lense in the early days? Ya, f2.8 is the way to go.

ann

Nikolai wrote:

It's not only a tripod, it's also 580EX :-)



Ann, you GOTTA be kidding...
f/2.8 across the board? 77mm instead of 72mm? Somebody was talking about low light, eh?
Just compare the prices: one is ~$500, another is ~$1,000. For me, that's a definite upgrade...

Nikolai

Ann McRae wrote:

So that isn't the one that was a 'kit' lense in the early days? Ya, f2.8 is the way to go.

ann

Oh, I got it... You were talking about 18-55 "kit"...
No, this is 17-55 /f2.8 IS USM. Introduced a year or so ago.
By all the reviews, an L class optics without L markings, not weather sealed and probably not that capable of withstanding the abuse of the pro shooters...
I realized I will not be able to get the funds ready form MarkIII in time anyway, so instead of them sitting in my paypal account I decided to let them work for me a bit. Made this upgrade and also dumped a few Benjamins for the ad campaing (got a rather sweet deal there, too).
I have a couple of weddings to shoot this summer/fall, I think this baby would help for the reception shooting.

ChrisJ

Congratulations, Nik! I've been thinking about doing the same thing... I may hold off on the 17-55 for a while and get a 10-22, though.

Nikolai

ChrisJ wrote:

Congratulations, Nik! I've been thinking about doing the same thing... I may hold off on the 17-55 for a while and get a 10-22, though.

Thanks, Chris!
Since I already have one, 17-55 was kinda natural thing to do next:-)
Afterall, what's the point of having these nice lightweight EF-S bodies and do not use some good EF-S lenses like 10-22 and 17-55?

Scott_Quier

Nikolai wrote:

I have a couple of weddings to shoot this summer/fall, I think this baby would help for the reception shooting.

The 17-55 is my go to lens. The last couple of weddings, and most other "people" shooting, I think I have used this lens for at least 50% of the shots taken. Receptions a bit more, outdoor portrait work a bit less (where I use the 70-200 f/2.8, yum).

You are going to absolutely LOVE this lens!

Nikolai

Scott,

Scott_Quier wrote:

The 17-55 is my go to lens. The last couple of weddings, and most other "people" shooting, I think I have used this lens for at least 50% of the shots taken. Receptions a bit more, outdoor portrait work a bit less (where I use the 70-200 f/2.8, yum).

You are going to absolutely LOVE this lens!

Yep, that's gonna be my "wedding couple": 17-55 and 70-200. Both f/2.8 IS USM, 77mm filter ring. When I was considering this upgrade I played around my future "blind spot" (55-70) and realized that it's the one I tend to use the least. Push comes to shove, I can always crop a 55mm shot :-)

Thanks!