Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro CANON MOUNT @ JESSOPS £149 (LOADS CHEAPER THAN CAMERAPRICEBUSTER.CO.UK CHEAPEST PRICE!!) - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
231Expired

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro CANON MOUNT @ JESSOPS £149.00 (LOADS CHEAPER THAN CAMERAPRICEBUSTER.CO.UK CHEAPEST PRICE!!)

£149.00 @ Jessops
I have been following this lens for quite a while now and its always been around £250 (inc delivery). I was shocked when I went into Jessops Meadowhall yesterday to see that they had dropped it to £21…
frakison Avatar
7y, 8m agoFound 7 years, 8 months ago
I have been following this lens for quite a while now and its always been around £250 (inc delivery). I was shocked when I went into Jessops Meadowhall yesterday to see that they had dropped it to £219 (EDIT: NOW £149 IF YOU CAN FIND STOCK!!), this is loads cheaper than the cheapest price quoted on camerapricebuster.co.uk and IMHO is a bargain!!

Great lens for the price and a massive jump up from the 18-55 kit lens.

** THIS IS NOT ADVERTISED ONLINE IN THEIR SALE AND IS INSTORE ONLY HENCE POSTING SEPARATE TO THE JESSOPS SUMMER SALE THREAD **

THANKS TO MKICAMPAIGN FOR SAVING ME £70!!
More From Jessops:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
frakison Avatar
7y, 8m agoFound 7 years, 8 months ago
Options

All Comments

(61) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
What frame mount?
#2
Mount details please
#3
Sorry, it was a Canon mount but they had Nikon too (didnt see the price for that though).
#4
frakison
Sorry, it was a Canon mount but they had Nikon too..


Thanks.
#5
Hot. Nice and sharp from what I've read, and fast at the wide end. Shame it's not 2.8 all the way through but for £209 you can't really complain.
#6
hmm sound tempting as i need a decent replacement for the stock canon 18-55 that came with my 450d
#7
72mm filter size. Whatever happened to 52mm?
#8
Dunno but its a lovely big aperture, weighs a fair bit though. I couldn't believe how cheap and plasticy the 18-55 was when I took it off compared to this monster!!! Its very sharp though from what I have seen so far, just need to get off of the dreaded auto settings (still learning!)
#9
Great to see a lens on here! Im looking for Alpha Macro so this is no good for me - more Alpha gear posts please !! : )
#10
happy1
Great to see a lens on here! Im looking for Alpha Macro so this is no good for me - more Alpha gear posts please !! : )


It comes in Sony/Minolta mount as well
#11
pet2000
72mm filter size. Whatever happened to 52mm?


I dunno, is it possible to get an f2.8 52mm filter mount without vignetting? I know my canon L lenses are all 72mm.....
#12
flyingteddy
hmm sound tempting as i need a decent replacement for the stock canon 18-55 that came with my 450d


Decent replacement for the stock canon lens (Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS )? The lens that comes with the 450d is fantastic quality for a kit lens. It may be cheaply built (light weight, plastic mount etc) but in terms of performance for cost it is fantastic as backed up by many reviews, for example:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1114/cat/11
http://photozone.de/canon-eos/404-canon_1855_3556is_50d

I'm more than happy with mine. I'm curious as to what a "decent replacement" would be on a 450d.
#13
MKICampaign
Decent replacement for the stock canon lens (Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS )? The lens that comes with the 450d is fantastic quality for a kit lens. It may be cheaply built (light weight, plastic mount etc) but in terms of performance for cost it is fantastic as backed up by many reviews, for example:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1114/cat/11
http://photozone.de/canon-eos/404-canon_1855_3556is_50d

I'm more than happy with mine. I'm curious as to what a "decent replacement" would be on a 450d.


This is still a much better lens than the 450 kit, albeit that the IS version of the 18-55 is generally said to be a good lens for the money (and thats the key point as its only £120 new) it is not in the same league. I considered the 18-55IS but this won hands down :thumbsup:
#14
frakison
This is still a much better lens than the 450 kit, albeit that the IS version of the 18-55 is generally said to be a good lens for the money (and thats the key point as its only £120 new) it is not in the same league. I considered the 18-55IS but this won hands down :thumbsup:


As you stated this Sigma lens is not optically stabilised so you can't really make a direct comparison. I'm not denying that this is a very good lens but it is not optically stabilised which a lot of people now want in a lens and you need to be aware of the characteristics highlighted in the following review.

http://photozone.de/canon-eos/312-sigma-af-17-70mm-f28-45-dc-macro-test-report--review

Quoting - "All in all the lens has only one really weak spot - 17mm at wide-open aperture where the extreme border performance is soft and vignetting is quite pronounced (but still not worse than the direct competition)." Bear in mind the age of the review as things have changed since.

If you want to use the lens wide open at wide angle, the results may not be as you hope for. Most lenses tend to have a weak spot, it depends if that spot falls in the range where you are likely to use the lens most.

Also bear in mind that Sigma do not seem to understand the Canon AF protocol completely and this appears to affect older Sigma lenses more than newer lenses. It may not affect this lens but my Sigma 18-125 DC zoom lens had to be calibrated to my Canon EOS 450d body by Sigma yet it appeared to work fine on a 400d. It appears to be pot luck as it the results obtained on pairing some Sigma lenses with Canon bodies.
#15
MKICampaign
Decent replacement for the stock canon lens (Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS )? The lens that comes with the 450d is fantastic quality for a kit lens. It may be cheaply built (light weight, plastic mount etc) but in terms of performance for cost it is fantastic as backed up by many reviews, for example:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1114/cat/11
http://photozone.de/canon-eos/404-canon_1855_3556is_50d

I'm more than happy with mine. I'm curious as to what a "decent replacement" would be on a 450d.


Apologies I meant to say i have a 400d which comes with the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II and I found it is just too soft. and it only manages f/5.6 55mm

from reading that review sounds like the IS is a slightly better lens.
#16
flyingteddy
Apologies I meant to say i have a 400d which comes with the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II and I found it is just too soft. and it only manages f/5.6 55mm

from reading that review sounds like the IS is a slightly better lens.


Thanks for the clarification, the earlier version of the lens is not as good as the revamped version.

The Sigma lens listed here does appear to be a good lens but isn't optically stabilised whereas the new kit lens is and the new kit lens is cheaper. It depends if that is an issue for you.

Now if only Canon, Sigma or Tamron would produce a good "walkabout" lens. Looks like for value for money the Canon 55-250 f4-5.6 IS is a good lens so I may have to go the two lens route.
#17
MKICampaign
As you stated this Sigma lens is not optically stabilised so you can't really make a direct comparison. I'm not denying that this is a very good lens but it is not optically stabilised which a lot of people now want in a lens and you need to be aware of the characteristics highlighted in the following review.

[COLOR="Red"]A lens of this range does not really need to be stabilised though?[/COLOR]

Quoting - "All in all the lens has only one really weak spot - 17mm at wide-open aperture where the extreme border performance is soft and vignetting is quite pronounced (but still not worse than the direct competition)." Bear in mind the age of the review as things have changed since.

[COLOR="red"]I saw that review too, you have to remember that you are quoting professional opinions who expect perfection, the fact that they said that it was NO WORSE then the competition (inc Canon) says a lot.[/COLOR]

If you want to use the lens wide open at wide angle, the results may not be as you hope for. Most lenses tend to have a weak spot, it depends if that spot falls in the range where you are likely to use the lens most.

[COLOR="red"]Very true, as such though this includes the 18-55IS[/COLOR]

Also bear in mind that Sigma do not seem to understand the Canon AF protocol completely and this appears to affect older Sigma lenses more than newer lenses.

[COLOR="red"]This is not an old Sigma lens, reviews suggest it works fine.[/COLOR]


Im not disputing what you say, you seem to know your stuff :thumbsup:, but there is still no way on earth that you would not see a distinct improvement with this lens over the standard kit of either the 400 or the 450... although the 400d lens is generally perceived as VERY poor which is why I upgraded. :thumbsup:
#18
MKICampaign
Thanks for the clarification, the earlier version of the lens is not as good as the revamped version.

The Sigma lens listed here does appear to be a good lens but isn't optically stabilised whereas the new kit lens is and the new kit lens is cheaper. It depends if that is an issue for you.

Now if only Canon, Sigma or Tamron would produce a good "walkabout" lens. Looks like for value for money the Canon 55-250 f4-5.6 IS is a good lens so I may have to go the two lens route.


As I said, the 400d kit lens is reknown as tat, you have a very good body and a very poor lens and you are never going to get the best from your investment. If budget is key, definitely go for the 18-55IS, at less than £120 its a steal. HOWEVER, don't be fooled into thinking that "IS" is a substitute for a quality lens. Its the same as someone who tried to say that a 12mp compact is better than a 10mp DSLR, its just not.
#19
[COLOR="Red"]A lens of this range does not really need to be stabilised though?[/COLOR]

That depends on the individual person, their preference and how the lens is being used.
[COLOR="Red"]
I saw that review too, you have to remember that you are quoting professional opinions who expect perfection, the fact that they said that it was NO WORSE then the competition (inc Canon) says a lot.[/COLOR]

That comment has to be taken in context of the other reviews of lenses published on that web site at the point in time that the review was written. I don't think they had reviewed the IS version of the Canon kit lens at that point although it is hard to be sure as the review has no date on it.

[COLOR="Red"]Very true, as such though this includes the 18-55IS[/COLOR]

Not true, from the review:
"... The border and even the extreme corners remain on a very good level especially at 18mm. This is not unprecedented - the Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED is also darn good - but it's certainly something new for a budget Canon standard zoom lens. Rest assured that you may not be the only one reading this in disbelief. "

This is backs up my own observations. If anything I find the lens weakest at 55mm although the resolution charts don't necessarily show this. This is the reverse of the Sigma lens which is weakest at wide angle.

[COLOR="Red"]This is not an old Sigma lens, reviews suggest it works fine.[/COLOR]

It is at least a couple of years old. Sigma appear to have sorted out the AF issues with Canon bodies at some point between producing the original non-OS versions of the 18-125/18-200 and very recent lenses. Some Sigma lenses in the past have proven to have AF issues on some Canon bodies but not others. Just because a review using a single type of Canon body doesn't have an issue does not mean there aren't any. I am merely pointing this out so that people are aware of the past issues and can verify they don't see it. :thumbsup:
#20
frakison
As I said, the 400d kit lens is reknown as tat, you have a very good body and a very poor lens and you are never going to get the best from your investment. If budget is key, definitely go for the 18-55IS, at less than £120 its a steal. HOWEVER, don't be fooled into thinking that "IS" is a substitute for a quality lens. Its the same as someone who tried to say that a 12mp compact is better than a 10mp DSLR, its just not.


I agree IS is just one factor, as I've said before how important it is depends on the person involved. I also think you analogy is slightly off but I do agree with the comment regarding compact cameras which is why my compact camera is a 6MP Fuji F31fd. :)
#21
MKICampaign
[COLOR="Red"]A lens of this range does not really need to be stabilised though?[/COLOR]

That depends on the individual person, their preference and how the lens is being used.
[COLOR="Red"]
I saw that review too, you have to remember that you are quoting professional opinions who expect perfection, the fact that they said that it was NO WORSE then the competition (inc Canon) says a lot.[/COLOR]

That comment has to be taken in context of the other reviews of lenses published on that web site at the point in time that the review was written. I don't think they had reviewed the IS version of the Canon kit lens at that point although it is hard to be sure as the review has no date on it.

[COLOR="Red"]Very true, as such though this includes the 18-55IS[/COLOR]

Not true, from the review:
"... The border and even the extreme corners remain on a very good level especially at 18mm. This is not unprecedented - the Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED is also darn good - but it's certainly something new for a budget Canon standard zoom lens. Rest assured that you may not be the only one reading this in disbelief. "

This is backs up my own observations. If anything I find the lens weakest at 55mm although the resolution charts don't necessarily show this. This is the reverse of the Sigma lens which is weakest at wide angle.

[COLOR="Red"]This is not an old Sigma lens, reviews suggest it works fine.[/COLOR]

It is at least a couple of years old. Sigma appear to have sorted out the AF issues with Canon bodies at some point between producing the original non-OS versions of the 18-125/18-200 and very recent lenses. Some Sigma lenses in the past have proven to have AF issues on some Canon bodies but not others. Just because a review using a single type of Canon body doesn't have an issue does not mean there aren't any. I am merely pointing this out so that people are aware of the past issues and can verify they don't see it. :thumbsup:


At the end of the day, use the lenses, I did and thats why I went for this one. The 18-55IS is a good lens but theres a reason its so cheap and I think most will find out why after a few uses. Its down to each user BUT I see no reviews that place this better than the (very respected) Sigma 17-70, I did LOTS of homework before buying and this always came up trumps for the price. Most said that the 18-55IS is a good lens for the price..... which it is, then again, a fiesta is a good car for the price but woudl that mean its better than an Audi??

Im not arguing with you as you seem to know what you are talking about (and to be honest I don't fully yet), however, all reviews should always be taken with a pinch of salt as there are too many lens snobs out there who will poopoo any non Canon L lenses. Someone even said on one review that the 17-70 was rubbish compared to their Canon L, which of course costs 10x this so blumin better should be!!

Lets just say that they are both good lenses so its down to choice :thumbsup:
#22
frakison
Im not arguing with you as you seem to know what you are talking about (and to be honest I don't fully yet), however, all reviews should always be taken with a pinch of salt as there are too many lens snobs out there who will poopoo any non Canon L lenses. Someone even said on one review that the 17-70 was rubbish compared to their Canon L, which of course costs 10x this so blumin better should be!!


You also need to be careful that lens reviews are particular fitment of a lens. The same lens in Canon, Nikon and Pentax fit can produce remarkably different results. For this reason I like http://www.photozone.de/ since they test lens on the associated body i.e. Canon compatible lens reviews such as this Sigma on a Canon body. Some other sites just review a version of a lens in a particular fitment. With photozone, the results should reflect what an end user will see.

With regard to L series lenses, if I was going to spend that much money on lenses I would want to by a full frame DSLR rather than using an APS-C DSLR.

frakison

Lets just say that they are both good lenses so its down to choice :thumbsup:


Agreed. I have to admit to being tempted since it is another option in addition to the 18-55 IS and it would be nice as it would provide overlap in ranges in a two lens solution on a day out. The 18-55 IS would still have its place though.

BTW, does this lens produce the traditional Sigma slight yellow cast on photos? I haven't seen a reference to this.
#23
MKICampaign
You also need to be careful that lens reviews are particular fitment of a lens. The same lens in Canon, Nikon and Pentax fit can produce remarkably different results. For this reason I like http://www.photozone.de/ since they test lens on the associated body i.e. Canon compatible lens reviews such as this Sigma on a Canon body. Some other sites just review a version of a lens in a particular fitment. With photozone, the results should reflect what an end user will see.

With regard to L series lenses, if I was going to spend that much money on lenses I would want to by a full frame DSLR rather than using an APS-C DSLR.



Agreed. I have to admit to being tempted since it is another option in addition to the 18-55 IS and it would be nice as it would provide overlap in ranges in a two lens solution on a day out. The 18-55 IS would still have its place though.

BTW, does this lens produce the traditional Sigma slight yellow cast on photos? I haven't seen a reference to this.


TBH I have only taken about 20 or so pictures but from what i have seen the results are outstanding with no visible problems at all. Only thing i would say is that the AF motor is a bit more noticeable than my 18-55(non-IS) but its much quicker and more accurate so far :thumbsup:
#24
frakison
TBH I have only taken about 20 or so pictures but from what i have seen the results are outstanding with no visible problems at all. Only thing i would say is that the AF motor is a bit more noticeable than my 18-55(non-IS) but its much quicker and more accurate so far :thumbsup:


The slight yellow cast isn't a problem, it is a characteristic of Sigma lenses. Canon lenses tend to be neutral in this respect. Try taking a photo outside on a bright day if you aren't sure e.g. a landscape, something with some foreground greenery in it.
#25
MKICampaign
The slight yellow cast isn't a problem, it is a characteristic of Sigma lenses. Canon lenses tend to be neutral in this respect. Try taking a photo outside on a bright day if you aren't sure e.g. a landscape, something with some foreground greenery in it.


Will do and I'll report back. To be honest I mainly take pix of people, I've got a family wedding coming up in August and they have asked me to supplement their offical photographer so I thought this was a good compromise lens, seriously got to get off of the auto settings though but its all a bit confusing :thinking: (any tips?!?!?)
2 Likes #26
You probably don't want to here this but I managed to buy one for £149.00 in my local Jessops at lunch time.

The lens was marked up at £219.00, I asked if it was part of the lens sale (most of the other lenses in the particular cabinet were marked up as on sale) and was told it wasn't. I then asked if that was cheapest they could do, the assistant looked at the computer and then replied that it was marked up wrong and is £149.00. I couldn't resist. I can post a picture of the receipt if required.

Re more info, I have a link to a decent guide somewhere - I'll dig it out.
#27
MKICampaign
You probably don't want to here this but I managed to buy one for £149.00 in my local Jessops at lunch time.

The lens was marked up at £219.00, I asked if it was part of the lens sale (most of the other lenses in the particular cabinet were marked up as on sale) and was told it wasn't. I then asked if that was cheapest they could do, the assistant looked at the computer and then replied that it was marked up wrong and is £149.00. I couldn't resist. I can post a picture of the receipt if required.

Re more info, I have a link to a decent guide somewhere - I'll dig it out.


YOU ARE A COMPLETE STAR!!!!! I just called Jessops and explained whats happened and they have agreed to refund me the £70 overcharge!!! RESULT!!!! I owe you a virtual pint :thumbsup:
#28
frakison
YOU ARE A COMPLETE STAR!!!!! I just called Jessops and explained whats happened and they have agreed to refund me the £70 overcharge!!! RESULT!!!! I owe you a virtual pint :thumbsup:


Great result. :thumbsup: This is now a scorching deal. :-D Shame people won't see it the updated deal as it is a week or so old. Stock does appear to be on a shop by shop basis.

I've only played with the new lens briefly. The focus seems reliable (unlike older Sigma lenses with newer Canon bodies). I haven't downloaded the pictures to the PC yet to take an in-depth look but on quick inspection on the camera they look good.

Now to buy another set of filters (I already have 58mm and 62mm filters) :roll: and to get the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS lens cheaply although it isn't a large amount of money to start with.
#29
I also saw that they had the Sigma 18-200 for just £145, which is another great deal just a shame it wasn't the stabilised version or I would of had it for sure!!!

I have the UV filter on my 17-70, but I see many people saying that it ruins the lens?!?! Would you agree as I only really use it for protection?!?
#30
frakison
I also saw that they had the Sigma 18-200 for just £145, which is another great deal just a shame it wasn't the stabilised version or I would of had it for sure!!!


That is one of the lenses that has issues with AF on some Canon bodies. Depending on the body used you may have to send the lens and body to Sigma for calibration.

frakison

I have the UV filter on my 17-70, but I see many people saying that it ruins the lens?!?! Would you agree as I only really use it for protection?!?


Have you got a link? I haven't looked into it.
#31
Heres one good example of the "debate"
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157603718571636/

Seems like everyone has an opinion, I guess I'll put it on manual and take a few pix with and without the filter and hood to see which looks best :thumbsup:
#32
frakison
Heres one good example of the "debate"
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157603718571636/

Seems like everyone has an opinion, I guess I'll put it on manual and take a few pix with and without the filter and hood to see which looks best :thumbsup:


As I have kids, there is no choice for me, I must use a filter to protect the lens. I've put one of these on my Sigma 18-125:

http://www.hoyafilter.com/products/hoya/pro1d-03.html

General Pro 1D link:
http://www.hoyafilter.com/products/hoya/pro1d-01.html

Hoya have a good reputation as a filter manufacturer and the Pro1 digital filter series are manufactured specifically with D-SLRs in mind. Hoya have acknowledged some filter issues (e.g. reflections/ghosting) and tried to address them with this range. No doubt some of the details will have been through the marketing department spin machine but I've yet to notice any detrimental effect on my pictures. Having said that I haven't spent a lot of time on with and without filter comparisons partly because I have little time and partly because I have little choice as stated above.

Here is the spin:

http://www.hoyafilter.com/products/hoya/hoya-02.html

Whatever you do, don't use a cheap filter. The Hoya Pro1D filters seem to be a good balance of filter cost to lens cost.

That reminds me, I must get one for my 18-55 IS to replace the old filter I inherited.

Edit: I found the following on the web:
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/digitalgfx/3477687-filters-from-ebay-whats-the-catch.html?fpart=all&vc=1

See the last post, I'll check my Pro 1D later. My filter is very thin so I find it hard to believe it would be fake and the coatings are intact. Unfortunately the Hoya website has no info about spotting fakes.

Further edit: Searching seems to show little evidence of fake Pro1 Digital filters.

Also the Hoyas are apparently hard to clean. I've not had to clean much off mine yet so haven't experienced this myself (yet).
#33
A quick search on the web shows that Kenko make a similar filter, same glass but cheaper. It may be worth looking into.
#34
MKICampaign
A quick search on the web shows that Kenko make a similar filter, same glass but cheaper. It may be worth looking into.


I have a 5yr old too, just not worth the risk in my opinion. Ive seen a polariser from Kenko, only £15 delivered so might give theirs a try :thumbsup:
#35
for those looking for a replacement for the standard lens, i urge you to look at the canon fixed 50mm f1.8 mk II. in know its fixed at 50mm but what a cracking bit of kit it is for a very good price of about £79.99 at most places. recently purchased one myself and it is fantastically sharp.
#36
BUZZIN_NICE
for those looking for a replacement for the standard lens, i urge you to look at the canon fixed 50mm f1.8 mk II. in know its fixed at 50mm but what a cracking bit of kit it is for a very good price of about £79.99 at most places. recently purchased one myself and it is fantastically sharp.


I've been umming and ahhing over the "nifty fifty" lens for ages, is it REALLY as good as its made out to be???
#37
frakison
I've been umming and ahhing over the "nifty fifty" lens for ages, is it REALLY as good as its made out to be???


for the money i am blown away, i'm taking my best shots with it. some fantastic shots to be had, some good effects with low f-stop and background blur, but equally some damn good all-over sharp shots with higher f-stops. biggest problem i've had is getting used to keep switching mode on my camera, i tend to favour AV mode or M mode with this lens where normally i use P mode.
#38
The nifty fifty is one of the best cheap lenses you can buy. If you get a good copy of it then you are laughing - very sharp, great bokeh, quick focusing. Just don't knock it around much as it is very cheaply built.

As for the filter debate. I can understand why those with small kids might want to protect the glass (alternatively, just don't let your kids near the lens) and at this quality of lens the filter, as long as it is not a cheap Chinese import, won't affect the IQ much but when you start buying L series lenses it doesn't make sense to use filters - why put another piece of glass on the lens to affect IQ?
#39
JerrardM
The nifty fifty is one of the best cheap lenses you can buy. If you get a good copy of it then you are laughing - very sharp, great bokeh, quick focusing. Just don't knock it around much as it is very cheaply built.

As for the filter debate. I can understand why those with small kids might want to protect the glass (alternatively, just don't let your kids near the lens) and at this quality of lens the filter, as long as it is not a cheap Chinese import, won't affect the IQ much but when you start buying L series lenses it doesn't make sense to use filters - why put another piece of glass on the lens to affect IQ?


Exactly... except you obviously dont have kids :-D my little un is so fast and unpredictable, I was once taking a close up portrait, he saw his reflection and next thing "oooh daddy I can see me" and at the speed of lightning I had a sticky finger wedged into my (filter protected) lens! :-D
#40
Well, I've been thinking of replacing the kit lens that came with my Canon EOS 400, so went into Croydon this morning and got their last one of these for £149. Thanks to the OP and the guy who spotted the price reduction. Heat and rep added

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Looking for Twitter login?
Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!