Need advice on used Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S

I have the opportunity to buy a used Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S for about
$870 (the price for a new one is about $2500)

It is approximately 3 years old and is (according to the owner) in
mint condition.

However he says that he has experienced failure of the AF - i.e. no AF
possible, but this problem could be solved by either turning off/on
the camera or removing/attaching the lens. According to him the
problem is only periodic (not very often) and almost impossible to
provoke.

His reason for selling is that he has changed to Canon (he is a pro,
but this lens was *only* used on his vacation camera - a F90X).

Should I stay away from this lens or is it something that can be
repaired easily (and cheap!) ?

If not - do you have any idea what will have to be replaced/repaired
in the lens and an approximate cost ?

Thanks!

/Niels

This lens is not $2500 new! Check B&H, I think it's a little less than
$1500. If he's reporting problems with it, stay away. Not worth the risk.

"Niels J. Larsen" <> wrote in message
news:...
> I have the opportunity to buy a used Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S for about
> $870 (the price for a new one is about $2500)
>
> It is approximately 3 years old and is (according to the owner) in
> mint condition.
>
> However he says that he has experienced failure of the AF - i.e. no AF
> possible, but this problem could be solved by either turning off/on
> the camera or removing/attaching the lens. According to him the
> problem is only periodic (not very often) and almost impossible to
> provoke.
>
> His reason for selling is that he has changed to Canon (he is a pro,
> but this lens was *only* used on his vacation camera - a F90X).
>
> Should I stay away from this lens or is it something that can be
> repaired easily (and cheap!) ?
>
> If not - do you have any idea what will have to be replaced/repaired
> in the lens and an approximate cost ?
>
> Thanks!
>
> /Niels
>

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:03:35 -0500, " B.o.w.s.e.r" <> wrote:

>This lens is not $2500 new! Check B&H, I think it's a little less than
>$1500. If he's reporting problems with it, stay away. Not worth the risk.

Sorry, I forgot to write that - I'm in Europe and here it is
(unfortunately) $2500 new.

/Niels

"Niels J. Larsen" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:03:35 -0500, " B.o.w.s.e.r" <> wrote:
>
> >This lens is not $2500 new! Check B&H, I think it's a little less than
> >$1500. If he's reporting problems with it, stay away. Not worth the risk.
>
> Sorry, I forgot to write that - I'm in Europe and here it is
> (unfortunately) $2500 new.

$2500 in Europe???

I'd freakin move to Noo Yawk!

;-P

Dan from Noo Yawk.

Niels J. Larsen wrote:

> I have the opportunity to buy a used Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S for
> about $870 (the price for a new one is about $2500)

Huh? $1329.95 with Nikon USA warranty, from B&H
http://tinyurl.com/3xmnx

> His reason for selling is that he has changed to Canon (he is a pro,
> but this lens was *only* used on his vacation camera - a F90X).

Sounds fishy. I'd stay away.

Piece of good advice: get used lenses only from places where
you can return them with no questions asked (like B&H. Sorry,
they don't have one right now, I just checked for you.)

Niels J. Larsen wrote:

> Sorry, I forgot to write that - I'm in Europe and here it is
> (unfortunately) $2500 new.

OK, got it, but if you want to buy a used lens from the US, at least
get it from a reputable source where you can return it if you are
not completely satisfied.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 02:29:50 GMT, "Paolo Pizzi"
<> wrote:

>Niels J. Larsen wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I forgot to write that - I'm in Europe and here it is
>> (unfortunately) $2500 new.
>
>OK, got it, but if you want to buy a used lens from the US, at least
>get it from a reputable source where you can return it if you are
>not completely satisfied.
>
Ok, just to make it completely clear :

I'm located in Europe and the lens in question is also located in
Europe - if I were to buy it in the US, I would have to pay VAT and
tax as well.

/Niels

Doh! Small world, isn't it?

Anyway, what the others have said about buying from a reputable source is
the best protection. It's a fabulous lens. I had one, but could not tolerate
the sheer physical size and bulk, so I stayed with my old 35-70 2.8D lens,
which, although it lacks the "low end" of the 28-70, is an excellent lens.

"Niels J. Larsen" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:03:35 -0500, " B.o.w.s.e.r" <> wrote:
>
> >This lens is not $2500 new! Check B&H, I think it's a little less than
> >$1500. If he's reporting problems with it, stay away. Not worth the risk.
>
> Sorry, I forgot to write that - I'm in Europe and here it is
> (unfortunately) $2500 new.
>
> /Niels

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 20:52:55 +0100, Niels J. Larsen
<> wrote:

>I have the opportunity to buy a used Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S for about
>$870 (the price for a new one is about $2500)
>
>It is approximately 3 years old and is (according to the owner) in
>mint condition.
>
>However he says that he has experienced failure of the AF - i.e. no AF
>possible, but this problem could be solved by either turning off/on
>the camera or removing/attaching the lens. According to him the
>problem is only periodic (not very often) and almost impossible to
>provoke.
>
>His reason for selling is that he has changed to Canon (he is a pro,
>but this lens was *only* used on his vacation camera - a F90X).
>
>Should I stay away from this lens or is it something that can be
>repaired easily (and cheap!) ?
>
>If not - do you have any idea what will have to be replaced/repaired
>in the lens and an approximate cost ?
>
>Thanks!
>
>/Niels

Niels,

This is a problem for an experienced buyer. Given the market model in
your location, I can see why you are attracted to the lens.

Just to add to your dilemma.... I have a Nikon F100 and Nikon F5. I
use two different zoom lenses, one AF-S. On my Nikon F5 body ONLY, my
AF-S lens sometimes flakes out on AF and my non AFS (a 35-70 f2.8 AF)
occasionally gives an incorrect maximum aperture reading. I first
thought it was the AF-S lens and had it checked and of course the
repair people found nothing wrong. Then I started experiencing the max
aperture problem with the second zoom. The problem, still
intermittent, is apparently in the body, possibly in one of the
contacts. When the problem occurs, if I unmount either lens and then
make sure there is a positive mounting (e.g. hard stop at the end of
the lens mount twist) all functionality is "restored".

I need my camera the next two weeks, then it goes into the shop for
inspection.

Reading your description, the problem sound similar to mine. However,
I might just be blowing smoke for your situation. You will have to
assess the potential repair costs for your situation if it should
require replacing the Silent Wave motor, etc. Given that risk, and
without more thorough evaluation, I pass on the sale. However, if the
seller is willing to let you have the lens inspected, it might be
worth you while (but probably at another price point). You might ask
the seller if he would, after inspection, split the repair costs in a
manner you both find satisfactory.

BTW: I've also been considering this same model lens, but I've decided
to stay with my excellent 35mm-70mm f2.8 AF lens (prior to the "D"
model). I carry a compact 24mm f2.8 AFD Nikkor to make up for the loss
of wide angle capability over the 28-70 model. The bulk of the 28-70
was just too much for me.

Regards,
Roger

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 07:42:24 -0600, Roger <> wrote:

>Niels,
>
>This is a problem for an experienced buyer. Given the market model in
>your location, I can see why you are attracted to the lens.
>
>Just to add to your dilemma.... I have a Nikon F100 and Nikon F5. I
>use two different zoom lenses, one AF-S. On my Nikon F5 body ONLY, my
>AF-S lens sometimes flakes out on AF and my non AFS (a 35-70 f2.8 AF)
>occasionally gives an incorrect maximum aperture reading. I first
>thought it was the AF-S lens and had it checked and of course the
>repair people found nothing wrong. Then I started experiencing the max
>aperture problem with the second zoom. The problem, still
>intermittent, is apparently in the body, possibly in one of the
>contacts. When the problem occurs, if I unmount either lens and then
>make sure there is a positive mounting (e.g. hard stop at the end of
>the lens mount twist) all functionality is "restored".

Based on your description this sounds exactly as what the seller has
described to me.
>
>I need my camera the next two weeks, then it goes into the shop for
>inspection.
>
>Reading your description, the problem sound similar to mine. However,
>I might just be blowing smoke for your situation. You will have to
>assess the potential repair costs for your situation if it should
>require replacing the Silent Wave motor, etc. Given that risk, and
>without more thorough evaluation, I pass on the sale. However, if the
>seller is willing to let you have the lens inspected, it might be
>worth you while (but probably at another price point). You might ask
>the seller if he would, after inspection, split the repair costs in a
>manner you both find satisfactory.

I've spoken with my local Nikon Service Centre and they had no
experience of that type of error with this lens.
Out of interest I asked what it would cost to have the AF-S motor
replaced. The answer was "close to $1000".

I could be foolish, but I've offered the seller that I will buy the
lens for $870 and reserve the right to return it within a week if I
don't like it.
If I were to have it inspected it would cost me about $200 and the
lens would have to be at the Nikon Service Centre for about 2 weeks.
Maybe this is what I should've done - maybe not.

Regards,
Niels