Used lenses... what’s the risk?

[Aerial Vision]

Hi guys!

Please excuse me as I’ll be talking in AUD (not sure what that converts to USD etc)

My trusted camera retailer (DigiDirect) where a new Sony 70-200 F4 costs $1600 and a new Sony 70-300 costs $1700 (approx). Now I’ve found the same copy of the lens on sale on Gumtree (Aussie version of EBay) for $1200, well in my budget. So my question, and general discussion, is what are the overall risks of buying new lenses (not camera bodies, lenses). I am moving from the 55-210 to the 70-200 for my aviation photography, as I need good sharpness, contrast and AF (would any of these be affected by previous use?). My 55-210 is pretty decentered, so I obviously need to be sure that the lens isn’t decentered, which is something that generally you can only tell after months of use. The ad describes the lens as “mint condition” so I’m assuming in should be in fairly good nick. Now I know I’ll have to go to the seller’s place and test the lens. Also, has anyone got any good or bad stories about buying used lenses and the lessons to take from them?

Cheers for any help and I’d love to see how this discussion plays out.

 

[Mark_A]

I have bought used second hand lenses but only from businesses that offer some kind of warranty.

A warranty gives me time to test the lens and become comfortable that I haven't bought a dud.

Mark_A

 

[embie]

Hi,

Personally I never bought or will buy second hand electronic nor mechanical products from a private person above 100$, so I can't tell anything about my experiences.

What I do can tell you is what I read on the internet regarding selling used goods is

- how's the "reliability score" of the seller ? Regular seller ? Occasionally seller ?

- Is there a return policy involved ?

- Can it be paid with PayPal ?

- What's his reason for selling this ?

Maybe the (positive) answers on these questions could help you decide.

Success,

eMBie

 

[Rosemary Herbert]

I've heard horror stories of people going through 2 or 3 lenses before getting one that is not decentered or that does not have other issues.

I worry all those "bad copies" end up on the used market.

If you are interested in Sony then google Sony Bad Copy Lens and see all the related results.

 

[canuck dave]

I've heard horror stories of people going through 2 or 3 lenses before getting one that is not decentered or that does not have other issues.

I worry all those "bad copies" end up on the used market.

OMG thats's so scary!!

If one buys a used lens from a reputable dealer such as KEH or B&H they will indicate precisely what the condition of the lens (or other gear) is.

Hundreds of thousands are bought this way every year, by amateurs and pros alike.

 

[Rosemary Herbert]

I've heard horror stories of people going through 2 or 3 lenses before getting one that is not decentered or that does not have other issues.

I worry all those "bad copies" end up on the used market.

OMG thats's so scary!!

If one buys a used lens from a reputable dealer such as KEH or B&H they will indicate precisely what the condition of the lens (or other gear) is.

Hundreds of thousands are bought this way every year, by amateurs and pros alike.

Depend on the lens. Here is an article about it.

I think there’s no question we’ve seen support for what a lot of people are claiming: the 35mm f/1.4 ZA lens is very likely to have some tilt with one corner or side out of the plane of focus. Depending on what you photograph this may make no difference to you, or may be a huge issue. But I doubt sending copy after copy back is going to make much difference (you may trade a soft right upper corner for a slightly soft left side, etc.). We’ve taken a couple of these apart and there’s not a ton of optical adjustments that can be made: there are a set of shims behind the front group that can be modified a bit, but it’s a crude and very time-consuming adjustment, so I don’t think it’s generally going to be something that can be fixed.

The 55mm f/1.8 is really a good lens, very sharp and consistently made. The 90 mm f/2.8 is a decent lens, reasonably sharp, but there seems to be a fair bit of copy-to-copy variation in overall sharpness.

So I guess it depends on the lens. A used 55/1.8 is very likely to be a sharp, really good lens. A used 35/1.4 ZA is very likely to have problems.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpness-bench-tests/

(I picked Sony because the OP mentioned Sony)

 

[Prognathous]

Needless to say, if I can buy a new lens from a local store with good reputation for replacing defective lenses then I'd prefer that, at least if the price is not much higher than second hand.

Bottom line, if you can visit the seller and can test a second hand lens yourself, it's actually an advantage.

 

[markster234]

Sometimes there is variation in production. While most lenses are good, some excellent, sometimes some examples are less good.

Anyone buying a lens, and finding he is disappointed with it, is more likely to sell it. He may not even be aware that there is anything wrong with the lens -- he just bought it, didn't like it, and decided to sell it.

Sometimes you run into a lens that is way better than you had imagined. You keep that lens, no matter what. I have given up Canons, but I got this one canon lens that is so good, that I kept a Canon body just so I can use that one lens. You will not find that on e-bay, that's how good it is.

That is my reasoning not to buy used lenses on ebay. It is just statistics -- if there is variation in quality (Or especially if it is a lens where some examples are known to perform worse than others, such as Fujinon 18-55) it is more likely that the ones being sold are the ones the former owner didn't think worth keeping.

Just my 2c

 

[JDC1958]

Get a return policy. Do the hated brick wall test, use a yard stick and check for front and back focus issues ( you can fix this in camera ). I do a couple of long exposures of night shots usually set at affinity to check for light leaks; even small ones will show up.

All this takes me about 2 - 3 hours including looking at the photos in a raw viewer. I do not like buying used preferring a full one year warranty or more instead; but I test my new equipment in the same way.

--
Common sense is common knowledge; not everyone's common knowledge is the same. Meaning: A farmer runs circle around the city dweller on his farm. The city dweller likewise runs circles around the farmer in a downtown environment. None of us are idiots and it is not very nice to assume that about anyone.

 

[fishy wishy]

Hi guys!

Please excuse me as I’ll be talking in AUD (not sure what that converts to USD etc)

My trusted camera retailer (DigiDirect) where a new Sony 70-200 F4 costs $1600 and a new Sony 70-300 costs $1700 (approx).

!!! - do they make you pay more in Oz? Call an ambo, I feel faint.

Now I’ve found the same copy of the lens on sale on Gumtree (Aussie version of EBay) for $1200, well in my budget. So my question, and general discussion, is what are the overall risks of buying new lenses (not camera bodies, lenses). I am moving from the 55-210 to the 70-200 for my aviation photography, as I need good sharpness, contrast and AF (would any of these be affected by previous use?). My 55-210 is pretty decentered, so I obviously need to be sure that the lens isn’t decentered, which is something that generally you can only tell after months of use. The ad describes the lens as “mint condition” so I’m assuming in should be in fairly good nick. Now I know I’ll have to go to the seller’s place and test the lens. Also, has anyone got any good or bad stories about buying used lenses and the lessons to take from them?

Cheers for any help and I’d love to see how this discussion plays out.

Personally, I wouldn't risk it for such a high value purchase. Not for 25-30% off new, no warranty, as seen. Half the lenses I've had off ebay were hiding something.

25% off new from a reliable dealer with a warranty is different.

Think why someone would accept a lower price for selling in person... it's a natural thing to do if you hope someone will overlook a problem in that short time. Of course there are other legitimate reasons, but that reason alone is a big concern.

It might be a lens from one of those horror stories you read here all the time, when someone sends it back a couple of times to the manufacturer and the manufacturer returns it as "Within specification". If it was well used then you could have reasoned at least the lens was once good, let's see if it still is. If it's hardly used it might be because the guy is a dilettante who doesn't really know what he wants, or it may mean that he was never satisfied with it.

 

[alcelc]

Back in 2012, an accident happened and my camera and the lens had been dropped into a river. Dried and can use it again. Back home, examined by Service Center and I was advised not to repair it (need to replace the oxidized component inside, which meant a total new content!). I received a death certificate for the gear for insurance purpose. The camera had been kept on shooting for 2 more years until its retirement. The lens is still one of my major lenses today.

On the appearance the lens is nearly 90% new. No watermark anywhere to show the accident. Of course I know this lens will 100% die suddenly one day.

If I put it on sale, it could be advertised in mint condition. So, if you buy it... might keep on shooting without problem for 6 more years or longer? Or might suddenly die one day?

I avoid buying used. If I must do it, shall only buy from reliable source.

 

[Kumsa]

I use a different metric to weigh out the decision making on used equipment. Basically, I'm looking at my return value for the savings. If the only measure is ultimate equipment quality and warranty, then I'm not buying used. So, for example, I was looking at used strobes, for family portraits (speedlites were not cutting it). In the end of my analysis, buying used didn't provide any significant advantage because wireless, battery powered strobes are now amazingly less expensive, with a decent build. I bought new.

On the other hand, I really needed a 35 MM IS for my FF camera, and the pricing can be high. A used lense will shave off an easy 20% of the price. I only buy used equipment from trusted retailers (Lensrentals.com, B&H, Adorama, and KEH) who will accept a return and I trust that they have vetted the offering. My question, is what does that 20% do for me ? Can I do more work and produce quality output with a used lens and additional equipment ? Or does the lens have-to-have-to be the latest and newest ?

 

[FrancoD]

Hi guys!

Please excuse me as I’ll be talking in AUD (not sure what that converts to USD etc)

My trusted camera retailer (DigiDirect) where a new Sony 70-200 F4 costs $1600 and a new Sony 70-300 costs $1700 (approx).

!!! - do they make you pay more in Oz? Call an ambo, I feel faint.

The OP is quoting in AUD not USD.

The Sony 70-300 is $1150 at B&H, that is $1589 in AUD.(plus shipping , plus GST when it gets here)

Add our 10% gst (included in the local prices) and you get $1747.

So right now it is less expensive in AU than US for an Australian to buy.

BTW, it isn't all that difficult to get the exchange rate.

Go to Google and type in , in this case, USD to AUD ( or the other way) and then you fill in with the numbers