what do you think of this lens

[fausto66]

Used Nikon | Zoom W/A-Telephoto AF-S Zoom Nikkor 28-70mm | 1961

for the price ...a new 1 goes for 1700 so i dunno is this an older model possibly

 

[JimmyO]

What do i think? I think its an expensive pro 28-70m 2.8 lens.....

your not makin any sense...

 

[Overread]

The OP is wondering why the second hand price on a pro end bit of glass is as low as it is in comparison to the new retail price and the fact that most pro grade glass only drops by a small amount when it hits the second hand market.

It's a B&H sale so you are safe to deal with them - ie its not a con - as for the low price I have no idea. I don't keep a good eye on the nikon range, but the description and spec make no mention that its an older model. So if its name and features are the same as the current model I would say its just a good deal!
If you want more info you could send a note to B&H asking for clarification

 

[JimmyO]

If you want more info you could send a note to B&H asking for clarification

Or you could do 2 minutes of research

Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 Review

 

[Derrel]

The OP is wondering why the second hand price on a pro end bit of glass is as low as it is in comparison to the new retail price and the fact that most pro grade glass only drops by a small amount when it hits the second hand market.

Are you sure that's what he's wondering about? I thought perhaps he felt the used price was too HIGH, in relation to the price on new, old stock lenses of this model at $1,700. It's not quite clear, but my gut feeling tells me the OP thinks $1,149 is too much money to pay for a used lens in this model.

Five years ago, at walk-in retail, used 28-70/2.8 AF-S Nikkors were selling for $1,050 at a good low-cost professional dealership that I used to frequently buy from. Occasionally, a consignment example would come in, priced for quick sale at $900 to $950--five years ago. It is "an older model".

 

[fausto66]

i was wondering why it is so low in price compared to the newer model thats all really cause the other 1 is 1700 and is there any real differance in it between the 2

 

[JimmyO]

Today, the newest and even more expensive 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S weighs a little less and is narrower, but longer. Seeing how this 28-70mm AF-S is still selling at it's all-time high price of about $1,450, and used ones aren't much less, I would suggest getting the newer 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S since I suspect the resale value of this lens will be dropping soon. This means that if you'd rather have the newer 24-70mm AFS, I doubt you'll take any more of a hit when you go to sell in several years than with this 28-70mm AFS.

.

 

[Derrel]

Well, if you buy a brand new, Nikon, USA 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S from B&H Photo or another reputable dealer, the lens will come with a Five-year Nikon USA warranty.

If you purchase a used model, you will have a very limited warranty. Be advised, the 28-70/2.8 Nikkor is a discontinued standard zoom, and has ben replaced by the somewhat better and more-versatile 24-70mm f/2.8.

If you think $1,149 is "low" priced on a lens that possibly is five years old and sold new for $1,299 to $1,499, your appreciation of depreciation is somewhat incomplete, or clouded by the idea that the new price has been $1,700 for a long time: This lens was $1,400 back in 2002, so the rate of depreciation is extremely minimal.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I dont' really like the nikon 28-70. It's really fat, and IMO the crinkle coat is ugly. Also 28mm isn't really interesting. 24mm is borderline.

I dunno, i'm prejudice. i can't really see myself owning a midrange zoom unless all i shot was weddings. They're just so...standard. If i'm going to have something in the standard just-barely-wide-angle to just-barely-telephoto area, i'd want it to have a faster aperture than f/2.8 for sure, even if it means carrying a few lenses. I'd rather have a 24 f/1.4, 35 f/2, 50 1.4, and 85 f/1.4 instead of a 24-70. the lenses would be sharper, faster, smaller, and less obtrusive and alienating to other people.

IMO a better approach if you're into zooms would be a 16/17-35, 50 f/1.4, and 70-200. That way you spend potentially less money, have the same range, faster in the middle, and can go much wider.

This is one of the few topics that i agree with Ren Kockwell on.

If i'm going to have a midrange zoom, it would be on something small like a Micro 4/3rds camera where the purpose is little more than snapshots.

 

[PhotoXopher]

Kind of why I went with an 18-50 + 70-200 in f/2.8, 2 lenses cover essentially an 18-200 range give or take a step forward or backward.

 

[JimmyO]

I dont' really like the nikon 28-70. It's really fat, and IMO the crinkle coat is ugly. Also 28mm isn't really interesting. 24mm is borderline.

I dunno, i'm prejudice. i can't really see myself owning a midrange zoom unless all i shot was weddings. They're just so...standard. If i'm going to have something in the standard just-barely-wide-angle to just-barely-telephoto area, i'd want it to have a faster aperture than f/2.8 for sure, even if it means carrying a few lenses. I'd rather have a 24 f/1.4, 35 f/2, 50 1.4, and 85 f/1.4 instead of a 24-70. the lenses would be sharper, faster, smaller, and less obtrusive and alienating to other people.

IMO a better approach if you're into zooms would be a 16/17-35, 50 f/1.4, and 70-200. That way you spend potentially less money, have the same range, faster in the middle, and can go much wider.

This is one of the few topics that i agree with Ren Kockwell on.

If i'm going to have a midrange zoom, it would be on something small like a Micro 4/3rds camera where the purpose is little more than snapshots.

Completly agree with pretty much all of that. I cant justify dropping a grand on a just a basic "normal zoom" lens. Even a 35mm 1.8 is gonna be just as sharp, lighter, smaller, and faster, i dont mind taking 3 steps forward or backward to save a grand.

And yes 28-70 and even 24-70 is straight up dumb for DX.

 

[Derrel]

The 28-70 is not a very handy lens on a 1.5x Nikon or Fuji d-slr. It was designed for 35mm film use, where it is a moderate wide-angle to a short telephoto lens with a modicum of depth of field/background control. THis lens almost demands a full-frame film or FX format Nikon for it to fill is role as a "standard zoom". Optically, it is better than the 28/2.8 AF-D, 35/2 AF-D, 35/1.8 AF-S or 50/1.8 AF-D and a few other older Nikon primes...this is a professional-grade lens and it is large to increase optical quality, but unless youj have an FX Nikon or shoot film, this lens does not "fit" a lot of peoples' shooting styles.

On a 1.5x camera, the FOV being cropped off, and the 2.5x smaller sensor means that the lens is a pseudo-normal to medium telephoto, with less control over depth of field, and a really awkward range of working distances,especially indoors.

Until you have actually put a 28-70 AF-S on a small Nikon body, you do not know what the terms nose-dive-lens or coffee can lens mean; this lens was designed to counterbalance on the heavy Nikon F5 with a boatload of AA batteries in the bottom of its massive handgrip....this lens weighs a lot more than most of today's con sumer Nikons...it is a large, fat, bulky,heavy lens. very sharp, and suitable for use as a defensive weapon on a camera with neckstrap.

 

[fausto66]

that makes sense i do say...currently i have a 16-85 vrII and the 70 -200 2.8 vrI...with a d300s on the way ....was thinking for when i do indor no flash sport shoots like swimming for instance that type of lense would go good on my d90 and the 70-200 would go o my d300s...i dunno

 

[boomer]

I was kind of in the same boat when i was thinking of replacing my nikon 24-120 VR with my new nikon 24-70 2.8. I was still worried about 24mm not being wide enough for my mid range zoom. But since i have the 12-24, having the 24-70 on a crop body didn't bother me. And it'll give me a better reason to go FF sooner.

I don't regret spending 1700 big ones on my 24-70 at all! It is awesome. Too bad ill have to wait a while to get a 70mm+ lens since the 24-70 sent me back so much!