Nikon -New 24-70 or Used 28-70?

[Fleetwood271]

I have a Nikon D90 and plan to purchase one of these two lens very soon.

Found a used 28-70mm 2.8 in Like New conditon for $1,429.

Amazon has the new 24-70mm 2.8 for $1,699.

Can anyone tell me the pros or cons of either? From what I've read I can't really go wrong either way.

But is the 24-70 worth the extra $$?

I am leaning toward the used 28-70, but then I think for an extra $270, I could have the new 24-70.

I'd appreciate your thoughts and comments.

Thanks!

 

[MrLogic]

I have a Nikon D90 and plan to purchase one of these two lens very soon.

Found a used 28-70mm 2.8 in Like New conditon for $1,429.

A used 28-70mm is not worth that much. Not even close.

See:

- KEH.com

 

[Light Artisan]

New = Warranty

 

[Ken Rockwell Fan]

If you can afford to buy new Nikon products then do it. Nikon's USA market products have a 5 year warranty. Best in the business.

 

[Fleetwood271]

I have a Nikon D90 and plan to purchase one of these two lens very soon.

Found a used 28-70mm 2.8 in Like New conditon for $1,429.

A used 28-70mm is not worth that much. Not even close.

See:

- KEH.com

KEH is where I saw the 28-70 for $1,429.

 

[Fleetwood271]

New = Warranty

If you can afford to buy new Nikon products then do it. Nikon's USA market products have a 5 year warranty. Best in the business.

So, the extra $270 I'd be paying would be worth it, not only because I'd be getting a brand new lens (and according to everyone's buddy Ken Rockwell, a better lens), but I'd also be getting the full warranty?

Make sense.

Thanks Guys!

Guess I'll go spend $1,700 tomorrow.

 

[MrLogic]

I have a Nikon D90 and plan to purchase one of these two lens very soon.

Found a used 28-70mm 2.8 in Like New conditon for $1,429.

A used 28-70mm is not worth that much. Not even close.

See:

- KEH.com

KEH is where I saw the 28-70 for $1,429.

Ah, I see. My bad. But, just out of curiosity, what is wrong with a 28-70 in excellent condition for $1,079?

Why does it have to be LN-? You won't notice it in your photos. The 28-70 has a better build quality than the 24-70, as well, IMO.

If you can justify the extra $620, then sure... go with the 24-70. I'd always go with that one if money is not an issue.

 

[Derrel]

Used Nikkor AF-S 28-70's in my city are running around $899-$950 used. Given how fantastic the new 24-70 is, I would rather own the 24-70 than the 28-70.

 

[crimbfighter]

^^^+1

I am in a similar boat. I had a line on what I thought was a used 24-70. Turns out it was a 28-70. After researching the lenses, the 28-70 was a great lens, but it was bulky and heavy. The 24-70 had marked increases in IQ and sharpness and ergonomics and was slightly lighter. Better placement of the zoom and focus rings. For those reasons and the factory warranty, I decided to forgo the 28-70 and save for the 24-70, new. I think you made the right decision! I'm slightly jealous...

 

[Fleetwood271]

A used 28-70mm is not worth that much. Not even close.

See:

- KEH.com

KEH is where I saw the 28-70 for $1,429.

Ah, I see. My bad. But, just out of curiosity, what is wrong with a 28-70 in excellent condition for $1,079?

Why does it have to be LN-? You won't notice it in your photos. The 28-70 has a better build quality than the 24-70, as well, IMO.

If you can justify the extra $620, then sure... go with the 24-70. I'd always go with that one if money is not an issue.

To be honest, probably nothing. But when I read their description of Excellent, it says, "Excellent" 80-89% of original condition."
So, it could be at the low end of that scale, and be in only 80% original condition. Which, for this lens, and considering it is used, is probably ok.

But if buying used, I think I'd rather pay the $1429 for the LN, which includes the original box and instructions and is in 99% -100% of original condition.