ART When do you decide to buy a lens new or used?

grphx

Active Member
Jul 2, 2010
1,072
Oklahoma
Thinking about getting a lens, but not sure if I should try to look on CL/POTN or just go get one from amazon.
 

MSIGuy

om nom nom nom!
May 30, 2005
4,705
I don't have any problem buying a used lens... I've bought from POTN and FM before, no problems.
 

Wobistdu

tamron 17-50 for $450 new vs $350 used? I buy new

nikon 70-200 VR1 for $1300 used vs $2000 new VR2?

i buy used
 

jigelow

New Member
Dec 16, 2010
2,407
If it's Sigma, I buy new. I want a guarantee there is restitution if it doesn't focus right. If it's a Nikon, I have no issue buying used. I usually try to find a good deal either way, unless I need it immediately.
 

Cesium

OT Supporter
Nov 25, 2004
11,661
Colorado
Lenses that depreciate a lot, I buy used. Lenses that tend to keep their value or even go up over time, I buy new.

For example, my Sigma 20mm was bought used. No way I'd pay $600+ for a new one. My 35L, I got new last year and could probably sell for a profit on the used market today because they seem to never depreciate.
 

MSIGuy

om nom nom nom!
May 30, 2005
4,705
subtle work in a camera store
It's got it's good points... We just took some Canon stuff in on trade (rare at our store...) and immediately I was like, "dibs on the 580 EXII" Price, $175... :rofl:

I'm thinking about upgrading my 40D to a 50D, just because it wouldn't cost me anything...
 

Idyfohu

New Member
Oct 29, 2003
4,460
Utah
The VRII eats the VRI alive in terms of sharpness and overall IQ though. :hs:

Ah interesting...first time I've heard this. I can't stomach the extra $500 to upgrade to the VRII for a lens that I personally rarely use.

And to the OP...if you're buying 3rd party lenses due to the hit and miss AF I'd say buy new if the price difference isn't too much.

However bodies and flashes and Nikon lenses, I'll always buy used. Especially when buying from FM or POTN where there is a feedback system and you can buy with a lot more confidence.
 

FryingPan

Certified Thread Killer
May 19, 2000
51,124
Raleigh, NC
Ah interesting...first time I've heard this. I can't stomach the extra $500 to upgrade to the VRII for a lens that I personally rarely use.

And to the OP...if you're buying 3rd party lenses due to the hit and miss AF I'd say buy new if the price difference isn't too much.

However bodies and flashes and Nikon lenses, I'll always buy used. Especially when buying from FM or POTN where there is a feedback system and you can buy with a lot more confidence.

I've been trying to find a comparison I saw when the VRII as just announced- it was literally a night and day difference. From the MTF charts posted up on DPReview, it appears that the VRII does much better on FX than the VRI did as well.
 

Idyfohu

New Member
Oct 29, 2003
4,460
Utah
I've been trying to find a comparison I saw when the VRII as just announced- it was literally a night and day difference. From the MTF charts posted up on DPReview, it appears that the VRII does much better on FX than the VRI did as well.

I know it's better optimized for FX (no vignetting), but that's good to know for the additional cost that there are some other improvements. As mentioned I haven't used mine much (maybe 10 outings total), but the vignetting is always minimal and not enough to bother me personally.

This makes me think of the 200mm F2 that I was trying to snag for cheap...granted I was going to flip most everything, but damn.

Flakiest damn buyer ever...took a month and I even saw the gear and had cash and he ended up selling it to another guy who took a month to finally purchase it (the guy contacted him first), so pissed.

He listed everything for $6,500 and everything was immaculate (ended up selling for $7,000 to the other guy):

D3
200mm F2 VRI
24-70mm 2.8
105mm Macro MF Lens

Basically would've made $1,500 or would've got a free 24-70mm. Still urks me like no other!

The pics I've seen of the 200mm are incredible...ya it's a beast, but damn. People say that the 200mm makes the 70-200mm look like a kit lens. :eek3:
 

Wobistdu

the VR2 should be sharper, but it better be NOTICEABLY sharper - especially at 2.8

5611687157_81962c65f9_z.jpg


I can take 2.8 shots, then crop them to about 1/3 their original size and still get very sharp/usable images

i'd be hard pressed to want to spend $1,000 more for a new VR2
 

FryingPan

Certified Thread Killer
May 19, 2000
51,124
Raleigh, NC
the VR2 should be sharper, but it better be NOTICEABLY sharper - especially at 2.8

5611687157_81962c65f9_z.jpg


I can take 2.8 shots, then crop them to about 1/3 their original size and still get very sharp/usable images

i'd be hard pressed to want to spend $1,000 more for a new VR2

Nga, I didn't even want to pay the $1700 for the VRI, so I bought an 80-200 back in the day. :rofl:
 

Wobistdu

Nga, I didn't even want to pay the $1700 for the VRI, so I bought an 80-200 back in the day. :rofl:
:rofl: :h5: DSLR POOR CROO HOLLA

the 70-200 would be my favorite lens if i used it more. it's so awesome, but so pricey

my ghetto fabulous 17-50 is always on
 

Users who are viewing this thread

About Us

  • Please do not post anything that violates any Local, State, Federal or International Laws. Your privacy is protected. You have the right to be forgotten. Site funded by advertising, link monetization and member support.
OT v15.8.1 Copyright © 2000-2022 Offtopic.com
Served by fu.offtopic.com

Online statistics

Members online
237
Guests online
45
Total visitors
282

Forum statistics

Threads
369,495
Messages
16,889,443
Members
86,873
Latest member
vitalesan