[SRoyC]

Hello friends



I have got two offers to buy the above lens in used condition.



One of the lens has a fungus on the 7th element, otherwise there is no problem. This was bought in 2008. The seller is asking for about $800, though he is open to negotiation.



Another seller offered the same lens with a scratch on the front element. He is asking $600 for it. He is saying the the scratch on the front element does not show up in photos and the photos does not suffer at all in terms of IQ. Is it really so? I mean does the scratch on the front element has no effect on IQ?



I have never bought anything used. Please help me with this.



Thank you.

[Klaus]

[quote name='Chhobiwala' timestamp='1322575575' post='13347']

Hello friends



I have got two offers to buy the above lens in used condition.



One of the lens has a fungus on the 7th element, otherwise there is no problem. This was bought in 2008. The seller is asking for about $800, though he is open to negotiation.



Another seller offered the same lens with a scratch on the front element. He is asking $600 for it. He is saying the the scratch on the front element does not show up in photos and the photos does not suffer at all in terms of IQ. Is it really so? I mean does the scratch on the front element has no effect on IQ?



I have never bought anything used. Please help me with this.



Thank you.

[/quote]



Frankly I wouldn't go for a used VR lens.

[SRoyC]

Thanks Klaus, but may I know why?

[Brightcolours]

Fungus can spread, so unless it is cleaned professionally and maybe with that element replaced, I would not touch that lens. The scratch is not so problematic. Indeed, scratches do not show up on images, unless you stop down to crazy amounts (but you can't really do that with that tele anyway).



$600 seems like a fair price, if the 80-400 VR is a lens you like.



I am guessing Klaus means VR units have a life span, they can break. Just like lens motors really. But it is hard to say anything definitive about their life span.

[SRoyC]

Thanks so much Brightcolours



I have been using 70-300VR, but I find the reach pretty short for my Bird and other Wildlife photo requirement. At present I am little short on cash, otherwise I would have gone for AF-S 300 f4+1.4x Nikon TC (would cost me nearly $1400).

I came to know about 80-400VR, that if the lens is stopped down to f8, it produces pro/ nearly pro quality result. Furthermore with my D90, this lens will give me extra 150mm reach, which I think would be enough for my requirement. Though I understand that it is comparatively a slow lens, but it's a trade off I have accept considering my present financial condition. Lastly, later if I need to upgrade, I can still get a good price for an old Nikkor rather than for a third party lens.

I hope my train of logic is acceptable. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Klaus]

[quote name='Chhobiwala' timestamp='1322578364' post='13350']

Thanks Klaus, but may I know why?

[/quote]



There may be opposing opinions about this but after having tested hundreds of lenses I'm quite convinced that lenses with an optical image stabilizer have a comparatively higher tendency of developing centering defects over time. The IS/VR unit is simply a "loose" & constantly moving component. IS/VR lenses tend to have an already worse centering out-of-the-box compared to conventional lenses.

[borisbg]

I wouldn't buy this lens even brand New for 800. Zoom ring is very stiff and CA are quite visible... not a pleasure to use. I rented two times and end ended disappointed with final results. Keep saving and buy better lens.