Reason to be concerned in buying a used lens from a pro rather than a less used lens from an amateur ?

[claire_ranier]

Is there reason to be concerned in buying a previously owned lens from

a pro photographer rather than a little used lens from an amateur ?

 

For example, a Nikon 80-200mm AFS. Or 17-35 AFS � but lets stick with

the 80-200 AFS - If the pro has clearly stated and documents that he

has had the lens checked out and tuned up by an authorized repair

facility, would there still be the concern that the metallic,

mechanical workings of the lens may have had much or too much use on them?

 

And that the amateur, with very, very much less use on the lens,

although not checked by an authorized repair facility prior to

selling, would inherently have a more workable and preferable purchase

prospect ?

 

Obviously, the quantity of the shutter usage in a camera body is

limited. But does something of the same apply to a lens in the AFS

category ? The motion of the internal focusing system. Does it have a

parallel limited lifespan ? So that even if the pro scrupulously

perhaps changes the focusing circuit boards prior to offering a lens

for sale, would there still be a factor of concern for the everyday

use that would perhaps wear out the metallic leaves or the gearing, or

whatever, of an AFS lens.

 

In the manual focus world, other than dust, fungus, oil on leaves and

drops onto hard surfaces, etc. there would seem to be not a lot of

concern in the degree of usage of a lens. In fact it would be

preferable to keep the inner workings in motion, regularly. These AF

and in this case AFS lenses are a less known commodity.

 

Again, is it better to buy a relatively less used AFS lens from a non

knowledgeable amateur or an AFS lens from a pro, with considerable pro

usage, but knowledgeable maintenance. Or is there another point of

comparison and decision that I am not aware of. Thanks

[markci]

Provided I could inspect it and had a return privilege, I would choose the lower-mileage lens. AF-S lenses don't have gears, but they do have ultrasonic motors which can wear out.

[claire_ranier]

There you go. That is one intelligent observation that I had forgotten about. There are the electrical impulses that transform into movement through the expansion and contraction of piezo crystals. Also used in Epson printers. That they are wear outable I did not know. This lady with a question is attentive, at this point.

[ShunCheung]

Frequently, used equipment from pros also means abused equipment. Once I was at the tennis US Open in New York, a press photographer had two big lenses (like a 300mm/f2.8 and a 80-200mm/f2.8) hanging off the same shoulder. The two lenses were swinging like two pendulums, kept banging on each other as he walked along. I simply couldn't believe what I saw. In particular, for camera bodies, those that were used by pros typically have a lot of mileage on them with a lot of shutter cycles and mirror flips.

[david_h._hartman]

I once saw an LA Times photographer open the door to ACS (Authorized

Camera Service), Sherman Oaks, California with his new 400/5.6 ED-IF

AIS and F3HP. He did this both coming and going. The owner,

Willie, asked if I had noticed and commented that he was in all

the time with broken equipment.<br>

<br>

<em>"In particular, for camera bodies, those that were used

by pros typically have a lot of mileage on them with a lot of

shutter cycles and mirror flips." --Shun Cheung<br>

</em><br>

I understand this is particularly true for DSLR(s). I had thought

I might buy a used one in about a year. I understand the "miles"

are going on these cameras much faster than film SLR(s).

[claire_ranier]

Shun,

Yes, perhaps he considered the lenses were the property of his bureau and did not care as much as if he bought them himself.

There is a pro who told me that he had a 6 months warranty on an AFS lens he is offering after he sent it in for board replacements. The warranty provided by the camera service shop. He notes two paint marks on the lens. And obviously plenty of use. But claims no lens dropping, etc. Apparently camera service shop told him that after the replacements the lens is perfect. I don�t know to what extent the shop could or would test the lens or how they could even estimate or discern the degree of wear on the AFS internals, if even if any concern to begin with.

However, my eyes have been opened quite often, with this group, as to aspects I had not considered or experienced, in a number of photographic areas. So, I do continue to be interested in what members of this group have to say.

[shem_compion]

Another consideration is if the equipment in question is owned by the pro, or Agency used. I too have seen Pro photographers banging 400mm f2.8s agency lenses around, but with pros who own their own equipment, photographers tend to look after their equipment a lot better.

If the lens in question is owned by the photographer, it may be well used, but at the same time, also better cared for.

I know that when I am working quickly, I change lenses and bodies and leave them "open", and sometimes incur the odd bump. This may seem like abuse, but speed is a necessity sometimes. And after all, cameras are designed to be put through their paces. Saying that, after the action, I clean and maintain my equipment as often as possible.

I wouldnt regard this as abuse, but rather using my equipment to do the job for which its designed and at the same time looking after that which serves me well.

I hope these comment are of worth to you.

Shem

[claire_ranier]

Yes it is of worth, Shem. Thanks. I have used primes and zooms over the years, but all were manual focus. This new element of the workings of AFS is not yet fully known to me. You make a good point, however I do not yet see how one could be attentive to the maintenance of a system which has an apparent reducing life span - such as these piezo cystals.

But perhaps the fact that a pro does spot that the AF is "off" and corrects it speaks well of his attentiveness to the health of his owned lenses.

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

I would buy lenses from a studio and probably location photograper, maybe a wedding photograper, never a PJ or sports photograper.

[walt_donovan]

Obviously your mind was made up before you posted this question. OK There's no difference between buying a well used lens from a pro (who bought it as a tool to make his/her living) -or- buying a slightly used lens from an amateur (who bought it as a toy). Is that what you want to hear?

[ben_hepner]

Lighten up Walt. Try decaf. The lady asked a very good question and I am benefiting from this thread. I hope it is further contributed to.

[ShunCheung]

Yeah, I too feel that Claire has a very reasonable question. Perhaps the "ideal" used equipment is from some rich doctor or lawyer who are not really photographers. They must have some new exotic lens; hold it for a year or two and then sell it to move onto something else. Hopefully they are properly stored; those little-used lenses would be ideal to buy.

 

I once traveled with a well known bird photographer. He had a little cardboard box in the trunk of his car. After a shoot, he would simply put his lens into that box, along with many other lenses, accessories, etc. etc. with absolutly no foam padding between lenses. Some of us saw that and were like "I can't believe that is how he stores his equipment." Again, professionally used frequently means abused.

[ben_hepner]

Thanks Shun, while I am still attuned to this, let me say that I particularly benefit from your inclusions in many of these threads (postings). While you have the specific viewpoint of a professional scientist/engineer and may forget how hungry the less knowledgeable are for insights, please rest assured that we are.

Even reading between the lines and gaining images of the anecdotes is of value and educationally enriching. I am deliberately omitting specific instances so as to not go overboard here on the kudos, but thanks and please continue.

[Carl Stone]

How well the seller is willing to stand behind his item is a measure of the confidence

that you can place in the transaction. If you buy used from the usual suspects, B&H,

KEH, etc., you have their limited warranty to fall back on. But, even with that

advantage, there is a time limit, and it's always a possibility that something will

malfunction, or wear out after the warranty period. The same situation applies to

equipment bought from an individual, sans the warranty. If the lens has been checked

out at by a reliable repair facility, and found to be sound, what more could be done?

There is no guarantee that the lens won't have a problem no matter where you get it.

In the end, if your confidence in the lens is less than you're comfortable with, then it

probably isn't something that you should buy.

 

 

What has already been said about buying from a pro is good advice, but needs to be

tempered by you as it applies to any particular situation. Murphy's law hasn't lost it's

punch. :o)

[dan_andrews]

Claire,

 

Good question--thank you for asking it.

 

The fact that you ask about AFS lenses is itself significant. AFS lenses are designed and built for heavy use by pro photographers. If a pro has used it, and had it checked, and documents that he had it checked, then I would advise you to contact the repair facility and ask them about the exact maintenance performed, and if they will warranty the lens following the maintenance.

 

My guess is that if the seller's maintenance can be verified, then the AFS lens will work well at first, and any remaining problems will become obvious shortly after use. On the other hand, an amateur may have abused the lens without wanting to tell you.

 

Basically, it is a gamble either way, but the fact that the pro claims that he maintained the lens can be verified. If this is true (and it probably is true) then that might be the best course of action.

[david_stott2]

I guess it depends on the price and your willingness to take a gamble.

 

I bought a load of nikon stuff a while back. Of two FE bodies one was mint, shiny and bought from an amateur. It has been in and out of the repairers constantly. The other is a black body which is all brass and dents. works like a dream and has never caused me trouble. (dont know if the above is relevant but it does illustrate that buying used gear is a gamble)

 

David

[will_perlis]

"... never a PJ or sports photographer."

 

Or papparazzi (papparazzum?). When a shot of Ben or Jen can be worth $$$xK they don't worry too much about getting dings on the gear if they have to move fast.

[dj_soroka]

One of Nikon's staff photographers who had a reputation for cherry picking his lenses (Not Moose) used to sell his his stuff basically for list, and other pros used to gobble it up.

 

Sometimes getting a lens at the top of the curve (say, because someone tried out a dozen 17-35 AFS zooms) has its advantages.

 

An extreme example, but sometimes worth noting.

[Carl Stone]

If he sells his stuff for list, why would ANYONE pay that price and not just buy new

getting a warranty in the bargain?

[claire_ranier]

The posts are all very interesting. And specifically for Carl, the pro PJ actually did the opposite in tagging it with a low price. Much lower than those selling the amateur lenses about which they claim to have had minimal use. If the pro PJ offered it at List there would be no issue. And thus the intrigue and catalyzing of this broad, fruitful thread.

 

Which, actually presents an adjunct concept. Almost a who dunnit, here, - of which would be better a very fully used AFS lens with a the 2 boards replaced and a 6 month warranty from an authorized Nikon service center from a local pro PJ. Or the same model AFS lens, from an amateur, geographically at a distance, and claimed to be very minimally used, with the original sales receipt and with several years, or at least some time remaining on the original Nikon USA warranty.

[ShunCheung]

Claire, unless you know the seller who is remote, it is always safer to buy something you can first inspect and play around with in person.

[Carl Stone]

Sorry Claire, Nikon warranties are not transferable. So the amature owned lens does

not come with one.

[Carl Stone]

You misunderstood me Claire. My question was directed at DJ Soroka, and I still

cannot fathom paying list price for a used item. I wasn't talking about your PJ, and

you didn't mention what his asking price was.

[adrian_morgan]

I've bought a number of items from pro's. A 24mm f2.8 that looked like it had been bounced down the road a number of times, as well as a F4E body. The 24mm had perfect glass and had been serviced by a tech i know, so there were no issues there. it still looks well used, and the glass is still perfect, so who cares.

 

the f4e needed a service and it is still going strong.

 

One advantage of buying the pro's used gear is it is generally cheaper than the amateur's and it is more scratched up, so you don't worry about putting the first scratch on it :-)