[angrypizza]

Hello,i am going to buy a nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 ,the seller is selling it old and used, i need to know if those are images shot with lens (in the link below)

in good conditions and if they are worth, or there is any artifacts or problems of any kind?



as i am not an expert in photography and my English isn't that good

i hope someone can explain to me if there is anything wrong in a simple way if possible



thanks you very much!





shots can be found here: http://profile.imageshack.us/user/angrypizza?n=y





NOTE:all shots are made by the seller with a nikon D80 and nikkor 35-70 F/2.8





Sami

[Rainer]

It is hard to tell from the images provided, if the lens is really in good condition or not,

but there is something quite obvious in those images, that would hold me back

from buying this lens:



Look at images 1+2 in the upper row on the first page, 3 in the lower row, and on those

on the next page. This lens is very sensitive to contralight situations as well as on

light from the side touching the frontelement.



Just my thoughts ... Rainer

[arvydas]

Hi,

on pbase you can find much better pictures <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> . It is hard to judge on jpg's and no Exif, at least flare is obvious, but all lenses are more or less prone to it. Here is the link about buying used lenses (thats Pentax, but general rules remains) http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/penta...guide.html Generally this zoom has good reviews.

[edge]

If those are the best shots the seller can provide, it doesn't look good.



In the U.S., the non-D version in excellent condition sells for $200-$300 and the D version in excellent condition sells used for $300-$400.



Before you buy these old lenses, you should check for zoom-creep, fungus/haze, and aperture condition. Also, you probably would want a lens hood.



Also, my opinion is that the 35-70mm 2.8D shines on full frame, but on a APS-C sensor, the focal length isn't that appealing.

[Klaus]

[quote name='angrypizza' timestamp='1281032790' post='1517']

Hello,i am going to buy a nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 ,the seller is selling it old and used, i need to know if those are images shot with lens (in the link below)

in good conditions and if they are worth, or there is any artifacts or problems of any kind?



as i am not an expert in photography and my English isn't that good

i hope someone can explain to me if there is anything wrong in a simple way if possible



thanks you very much!





shots can be found here: [url="http://profile.imageshack.us/user/angrypizza?n=y"]http://profile.image.../angrypizza?n=y[/url]





NOTE:all shots are made by the seller with a nikon D80 and nikkor 35-70 F/2.8





Sami

[/quote]



Well,I don't know whether these images are genuine but they don't overly impressive to me.

[wim]

[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1281034167' post='1518']

It is hard to tell from the images provided, if the lens is really in good condition or not,

but there is something quite obvious in those images, that would hold me back

from buying this lens:



Look at images 1+2 in the upper row on the first page, 3 in the lower row, and on those

on the next page. This lens is very sensitive to contralight situations as well as on

light from the side touching the frontelement.



Just my thoughts ... Rainer

[/quote]

+1



You may be better off with, e.g., a Tamron 17-50 F/2.8, which wouldn't cost all that much more new, and only really a little more expensive for the non-OS version, especially used.



Kind regards, Wim

[angrypizza]

i can't check

zoom-creep, fungus/haze, and aperture condition

i am buying them on an online sale

If those are the best shots the seller can provide, it doesn't look good

on pbase you can find much better pictures

is it maybe the seller can't do any thing better than this,so i might be his fault and not the lens fault??

In the U.S., the non-D version in excellent condition sells for $200-$300 and the D version in excellent condition sells used for $300-$400.

is it the d or the non d?

[Guest]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1281042576' post='1523']

+1



You may be better off with, e.g., a Tamron 17-50 F/2.8, which wouldn't cost all that much more new, and only really a little more expensive for the non-OS version, especially used.



Kind regards, Wim

[/quote]



+ 2



Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but this does not seem like a serious sale. The seller is clearly a terrible photographer, and probably not a reliable person to buy from. Judging from the photos, the lens is no good.



Sami, save yourself some pain and buy from a second-hand shop (where you can test the lens yourself) or from an online seller with a money-back return option.

[edge]

[quote name='angrypizza' timestamp='1281042809' post='1524']

is it the d or the non d?

[/quote]



The only way to definitively tell is to look at the aperture lock (switch-type is D, knob-type is non-D), which unfortunately is hidden by the hand in the picture.

If I had to guess, I'd say non-D because most (but not all) D versions have a D written next to the 2.8 on the barrel. If the seller can provide the serial number for the lens, you can determine approximately how old the lens is by looking it up here: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html



If you can't inspect the lens before purchase or do not have a reliable return policy, I'd say skip this purchase.

[angrypizza]

Judging from the photos, the lens is no good.

as written previously i am no expert,so may i ask and might learn something new as well



how can you tell from the photos that the lens is bad?to what detail should i look at ?