refurbished lens

[bob_corby]

<p>Would buying a refurbished Nikon 300mm be as good as buying a used lens or a new lens?</p>

[SCL]

<p>Possibly better than a run of the mill used lens, and not necessarily as good as a new lens, if both are properly adjusted.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>There is no "generic" refurbished lens or used lens; every one of them is going to be a bit different. For example, some used lenses are barely used such that they are almost as good as new, but some others are seriously abused and are falling apart. For that matter, some new lenses could be defective as well.</p>

<p>The key is that the buyer needs to know how to check a refurbished lens, a used lens or for that matter even a new lens. For Nikon USA refurb, they provide a 90-day warranty, and stores such as Adorama and B&H have very good return policies for defective products. I happen to have terrible experience with Nikon USA refurbished lenses; all three out of three I have ordered (or a friend of mine ordered) were still defective and we returned all three to Adorama or B&H for full refunds.</p>

<p>When you buy used, the return policy varies.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I always buy used stuff myself, although I have bought two Nikon refurbished cameras.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[stephen t]

<p>Shun, I am considering one of the refurb Nikon 7100's as well as a couple of lenses. I am just wondering how it is possible that they could come in defective if they are in fact, as Nikon states, completely adjusted to factory specs??</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I am just wondering how it is possible that they could come in defective if they are in fact, as Nikon states, completely adjusted to factory specs?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Stephen, that is a question you need to ask Nikon.</p>

<p>The two refurb lenses I bought were a 70-300mm AF-S VR and a 80-400mm AF-S VR. Both lenses had some subtle unsharpness issues on their respective long end. I can see that a technician may have missed something rather subtle like that. However, the refurb 70-300mm AF-S VR my friend received rattled out of the box when you shook it. Apparently some screw was loose inside. The entire focusing mechanism didn't work for both manual focus or auto focus. The focusing ring was completely disengaged from the focusing mechanism. How could that lens possibly pass quality check is beyond me.</p>

<p>I understand that a lot of members here have much better experience than I have with Nikon USA refurbished lenses, but I don't have much confidence with their refurb process. I am still willing to give them another try in the future, since I know how to check and I can return any defective lenses.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Refurbished is a way to repair defect products and sell them instead of scrapping them. Also equipment used by Nikon on trade shows or as loaners would end up there.<br>

Nikon says their refurbished products are factory reconditioned.<br>

I do not think they're returns from customers changing their mind as those would be returned to the vendor and not Nikon.<br>

Lenses today are as complicated as the camera body or perhaps even more so as they have more optical parts besides the mechanical parts and the electronics. </p>

<p>The more expensive the lens would be the less inclined I would be to buy a refurbished. If they were as good as new Nikon would honor full warranty on them but they don't.</p>

<p>Just as an example, a refurbished 24mm f1.4 is $1,750 at Nikon Store. A new one at B&H is $2,200.<br>

The refurbished has 90 day warranty and the new one has 5 years. I'd never buy the refurbished one as I'd rather pay the extra $450 and know for sure that I have a working lens the next five years instead of a very expensive door stop perhaps in 6 months time.<br /></p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd never buy the refurbished one as I'd rather pay the extra $450 and know for sure that I have a working lens the next five years instead of a very expensive door stop perhaps in 6 months time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would you end up with an expensive door stop after 6 months?</p>

<p>As far as warranty goes, the difference between a Nikon USA new lens anda Nikon USA refurbished is 5 years vs. 90 days. When a lens is out of warranty, you simply have to pay for repair yourself. That is what will happen after your new lens is over 5 years old, or any new lens that changes hands as Nikon warranties only apply to the original, first-hand owner.</p>

<p>I have been using Nikon lenses since 1977 with over 40 lenses. I can count in one hand the lenses that have had repairs. Only one lens has ever had warranty repair within the first year. I dropped my 17-55mm/f2.8 DX after about a year and that wasn't covered by warranty. All other issues occurred after 5 to 10 years.</p>

<p>As far as I am concerned, Nikon lens warranty means very little. In fact all Nikon warranties don't mean much to me. In some 38 years I have had three warranty repairs within the first year:</p>

<ul>

<li>35-70mm/f2.8 AF</li>

<li>SB-800 flash</li>

<li>D750 GPS connection + flare recall</li>

</ul>

<p>If I can save $450 on a $2200 lens and trade the 5-year warranty with a 90-day one, I'll be more than happy to take the chance on the refurb. But I'll test the refurb very thoroughly and return it if I find any issues. That was exactly what happened to the 80-400mm AF-S VR I bought.</p>

[stephen t]

<p>Shun, would I be correct in assuming that in general, if I bought a refurb, body or lens, and thoroughly tested and used it for a month or so without problems, that it would be OK for the long term?</p>

<p>I know things can "break" at any time, but in my experience, if something "new" is going to "break," it will do it soon after purchase, and thus, extended warranties are potentially unwarranted.</p>

<p>I also have bought a lot of Nikon stuff over the years, but the last new purchase was several years ago. I'm not sure things are made quite like some "battleships" in the past.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>I've had good luck with reforms from Nikon bought from high-reputation dealers. </p>

<p>On the other hand, I did get a bad D600 that was brand-new, not a refurb. QC is not perfect. Shop where there's a good return policy, test immediately, don't be afraid to return if you don't like it.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Stephen, generally speaking, if there are any manufacturing defects or improper refurbishing, the problem should show up immediately or within the first few weeks. That is why the typical warranty is one year and for refurb, 90 days. As far as I am concerned, Nikon USA's extended 5-year lens warranty, extending the original one year with four additional years, is largely meaningless. I have never had a Nikon lens that has manufacturing defects that show up after one year but within five years.<br>

<br />But there are always some exceptions in life.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure things are made quite like some "battleships" in the past.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just like there are different quality of used equipment, Nikon makes different grades of camera equipment. For example, the 105mm/f2.8 AF-S VR macro lens is still very well made, even though manufacturing has been moved from Japan to China. However, there are some plastic-mount lenses such as the various 18-55mm DX zooms. Those lenses maybe ok new, but any moderate impact can mis-align the lens elements.</p>

 

[stephen t]

<p>Shun and Sebastian, many thanks for your thoughts and for sharing your experiences. </p>

<p> </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I have always had good luck with used and refurbished items. But likewise new. Its best to buy from a reputable dealer with a reasonable return policy and warranty.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I've never bought refurbished camera equipment but I did buy a refurbished iPod with good results one time on the recommendation of one of the IT people at my day job. Her theory was that a refurbished item could theoretically be a better deal because each one has been checked out, fixed if necessary, and tested before it goes out the door. New products, on the other hand, roll off the assembly line by the thousands and only a few samples here and there get looked at individually.<br /><br />I agree that return policy would be key.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Her theory was that a refurbished item could theoretically be a better deal because each one has been checked out, fixed if necessary, and tested before it goes out the door.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some of the well known mail-order stores are pushing refurbished Nikon product with that same kind of reasoning. Unfortunately, my personal experience in three different occasions, documented above, completely contradicts such theory.</p>

<p>Of course, I don't think Nikon and Adorama, B&H, Cameta ... are selling defective refurbished products on purpose. Otherwise, they would be busy selling, shipping, refunding, paying for return shipping over and over. They'll be paying for a lot of shipping overhead and make absolutely no money. That is clearly not a viable business model.</p>

<p>However, I am afraid that some refurbished products are not that carefully inspected. It will be up to the buyers to check it out carefully.</p>

[pete_s.]

<blockquote>

<p>Why would you end up with an expensive door stop after 6 months?<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When replacing the VR and AF-S costs more than the lens is worth.<br>

<br>

If VR stops working or AF-S motor craps out within 5 years warranty you know for sure that Nikon will replace it under warranty. So it's zero risk. When you buy refurbished you take a larger risk but as a reward you pay less. <br>

<br>

Again, if Nikon thought the odds of they having to do any kind of warranty would be very low, they would offer a much longer warranty on their refurbished lenses. A year would seem reasonable. So personally I'd rather buy used from someone I trust and pay even less, since a 90 day warranty isn't worth anything to me and it doesn't inspire confidence.<br>

<br>

I'm guessing that most of Nikons refurbished items are warranty returns. I'm too old to believe that in this day and age someone at Nikon spend a huge amount of time fixing their lemons. I think it's a quick in and out again. Therefor I believe a refurbished lens is a lot more likely to have additional problems down the road.<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

[chuck]

When they say manufacturer "refurbished" lens, does that mean it was a previously defective lens that had been sent by

the owner back to the manufacturer for repair, and is being resold by the owner after the repair is complete? or that the

lens somehow came under the ownership of the manufacturer and it is the manufacturer that is trying to resell it?

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>When replacing the VR and AF-S costs more than the lens is worth.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pete, I own two first-generation AF-S lenses, a 300mm/f2.8 and a 500mm/f4, both of which I bought in 1998. I also bought a 17-35mm/f2.8 and a 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S in 2002. I still own those four lenses today plus over 10 other AF-S VR lenses. So far I have never had any AF-S or VR failure. You are merely imagining some highly unlikely scenario.</p>

<p>But has it crossed your mind that a lens is still totally capable of taking pictures without both the AF-S motor and VR mechanism? For years a lot of us used manual-focus lenses.</p>

<p>To me, VR is useful in very few lenses such as the 70-200mm/f2.8. If I need to pay for VR repair, most likely I'll just choose not to repair, since I switch off VR most of the time, anyway.</p>

<p>Again, there are a number of sources for refurbished lenses. It could be test samples that Nikon sometimes sends out for review (e.g. I have received many of those), it could be demo items in trade shows, etc. It could be returned defective products and hopefully have been repaired ....<br>

Helen Oster from Adorama has explained on this forum in a few occasions:</p>

<ul>

<li>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00W7BH</li>

<li>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bMUW</li>

</ul>

<p>Please keep in mind that Helen represents Adorama. It is her job to put a positive spin on refurb products. My personal experience with refurbs is quite different.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I've bought all kinds of factory refurbs, Nikon cameras, computers, printers and I've never had a problem with any of them.</p>

[heimbrandt]

<p>As already mentioned; store return policy (and goodwill) is more important than new vs. used or refurbished.</p>

<p>To each their own, right? For some it may be worth several hundreds of dollars to feel safe if the af motor dies and the manual focus ring no longer engages the focusing mechanism some three years after purchase. For some it is not, since they deem the probability for that to happen to be so little it simply does not justify the extra cost.</p>

<p>Personally, I do not frown upon used or refurbished.</p>

[johnny_kleso]

<p>Back in the 80s I worked as a model maker for Keystone Camera..<br>

Yes I know Keystone is nothing close to Nikon :)<br>

We sold cameras we called B-Stock..<br>

They were cameras that did not pass final QC and had to go back and be adjusted..<br>

Some were just a scratch or blemish in the finish but most would be an adjustment..<br>

Sometimes a assembly jig would go out of adjustment on the assembly line (700+ women) you might have 100s of cameras..<br>

I'm not sure were customer returns are sold but I would hope they are not sold as refurbs </p>

 

[Mike_R1664876643]

<p>The one refurbished lens I bought from Cameta Camera, a Nikon 18-70mm DX, was excellent. Other than it came in a plain white box, the lens itself looked and performed just like a new lens.</p>