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



## Fleetwood271 (Jan 14, 2011)

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 (Jan 14, 2011)

Fleetwood271 said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2011)

New = Warranty


----------



## Ken Rockwell Fan (Jan 14, 2011)

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 (Jan 14, 2011)

MrLogic said:


> Fleetwood271 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a Nikon D90 and plan to purchase one of these two lens very soon.
> ...



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


----------



## Fleetwood271 (Jan 14, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> New = Warranty





Ken Rockwell Fan said:


> 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 (Jan 15, 2011)

Fleetwood271 said:


> MrLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Fleetwood271 said:
> ...



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 (Jan 15, 2011)

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 (Jan 15, 2011)

^^^+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 (Jan 15, 2011)

MrLogic said:


> Fleetwood271 said:
> 
> 
> > MrLogic said:
> ...



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.


----------

