Would you buy a "new" 2004 lens?

<p>I'm looking to buy a used (or, as the upscale car dealers say, "previously owned") Nikon 70-200 VR I. I've been looking in all the usual places and am comfortable buying off of eBay where there are literally more than 100 up for sale right now.</p>

<p>One of the offerings states that it's a new lens, never been mounted on the camera, and there are lots of photos to show the condition. It does look new. The owner says he bought it in 2004, and I'm wondering if there's such a thing in the lens manufacturing business as "running changes," those little tweaks and updates through a product's life cycle that generally improve the breed.</p>

<p>So, would you buy a new lens that was built six years ago, or would you be apprehensive?</p>

<p>Thanks for your insight and Happy Holidays,<br>

Peter</p>

<p>I would ask why this lens has never been used and what this owner has been doing with it in the last 6 years. If the answer does not sound sincere, I would avoid it.</p>

<p>Even though if everything is true, a never-been-used 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR first version should not cost more than one that is used but still kept in excellent condition.</p>

<p>Version 2 of this lens is, in my opinion, considerably better, especially on FX. Currently I have both versions. Version 1 is still a good lens, but its value should reflect the difference.</p>

<p>Yes, there were at least two running changes on the 70-200mm VR. The most important was a change in the lens's internal power distribution, it's commonly referred to as the "grounding mod" or "earthing mod", depending on which continent you're currently on. Without that mod, the lens is very susceptible to "going mad" when the contacts on lens or camera are dirty, or when you put a teleconverter or extension tube between lens and camera. This is especially bad on 7.4V bodies (D40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, D100, D200, D300, D700) and not as much of a problem on 11.1v bodies like D2X, D3, D4).</p>

<p>The other change had something to do with making the lens a little quieter when the VR unlocked.</p>

<p>Thanks for the prompt replies.</p>

<p><strong>Shun</strong>: I have a D90 with no plans for FX in the foreseeable future. I have read much on this forum about the differences between V I and V II, and it seems that V I is good for the D90 and my uses - bar/bat mitzvahs and portraits. I've been renting the V I and love it.</p>

<p><strong>Joseph</strong>: Your comment about the grounding mod is very helpful, just the kind of tech insight I was hoping to learn. Since I have a D90 and would like to leave the use of a TC as a viable option, it seems like pursuing a newer lens would be the better choice.</p>

<p>If the seller's feedback is high (in the many, many hundreds or thousands, at or very, very near 100%), why not? (As long as the seller guarantees the lens to be in perfect working condition and will take it back and give you a full refund if it is not as described.) And provided you get a good enough deal on it. A single non-warranty repair could be expensive and negate any savings of buying used unless you get a great deal.</p>

<p>I bought a used (like new) VR1 version from KEH last summer. It's great! I think they're even cheaper now. I guess if you can spare the extra couple hundred bucks get the VRII. But I think getting a used one from BH or KEH (www.keh.com) is a safe bet.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One of the offerings states that it's a new lens, never been mounted on the camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I probably ( me personally) be very very carefull with this one. Maybe find ou the serial number, and check it out first , if possible ?<br />I'd think : Why would someone buy such a lens , and not even mount it on a cam. ?<br />If it sounds to good to be true, it usually is.....</p>

<p>I'd avoid it. If a lens is 6 years old, it is not "new" at all. In fact, a completely unused lens from 2004 will need servicing as the lubricants installed at the factory will have dried up. If you do buy the lens, I'd send it to Nikon for a refurbishing, probably run around $350 labor. It's your call.</p>

<p>More great input. Thanks very much.</p>

<p>To add a bit of info in the spirit of safe buying ... I wrote and asked the seller why the lens had never been on a camera and how it had been stored, taking <strong>Shun</strong>'s advice above. His response was very sharp and annoyed that I had asked and that those two points had nothing to do with the lens.</p>

<p>I then responded that the storage question had <em>everything </em>to do with the lens, especially since he lived in Florida where it's particularly muggy and humid. He has not responded to that yet. I have no intention of buying this lens, especially since he's asking near the top of the eBay price range and has it listed as a But It Now only -- no auction.</p>

<p>The seller's attitude and the fact that he's never auctioned off any other camera equipment is more than enough reason for me to look elsewhere, not to mention the good info from posters above.</p>

<p>Happy Holidays,<br>

Peter</p>

<p>While I tend to agree with your decision, I live in Florida where it is 'particularly muggy and humid' - our homes, businesses and and cars have air conditioners here just like other parts of the country. </p>

<p>As there are many listings of this lens for sale, you should not have trouble finding a great deal. You may also want to take a look at KEH. They have several lenses available in the price range you are looking at and they will take the lens back if you are not happy with it. Their lens ratings are very conservative - I have bought 2 bargain lenses from them and both were in mint condition (looking like new).</p>

<p>Thanks, <strong>Elloit</strong>. I will look again at KEH, glad to have your feedback about them.</p>

Would you buy a 6 year old car that had sat in a garage?