# Should I get these lenses used? 70-200; 24-70; maybe a prime?



## DGMPhotography (Oct 10, 2017)

So I think I'm finally going to be able to invest in decent glass, and my budget is about $2,100.

Ideally I would like to get the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII, and the 24-70 f/2.8 VR. Each of these are about $2000 refurbished... Do you think it'd be worth the risk to get a used one for cheaper (around $1300)?

I know I probably won't be able to get both on my budget. But I'm thinking I can get one, and then get a decent prime instead with the left over money.

I'm currently working with a D750 and 50mm f/1.8, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6,  70-300mm f/4.5-5.6. 

Thoughts?


----------



## goooner (Oct 10, 2017)

The Tamron 70-200 G2 is supposed to be the bees knees. I'm very happy with the older version of the lens. Any reason you are not looking at Tamron?


----------



## Destin (Oct 10, 2017)

If you stretch your budget $300 you could get a Tamron 24-70 and 70-200, both G2 versions. 

If you can’t stretch your budget you could get the 24-70 G2 for $1199 and a used 70-200 VC for $800 or so. 

I have the 70-200 VC and it’s incredible. Bought mine used for $775 on eBay and absolutely love it. No desire to upgrade at all. 

Third party lenses are as good or better than the Nikon equivalents right now in many cases.


----------



## Destin (Oct 10, 2017)

goooner said:


> The Tamron 70-200 G2 is supposed to be the bees knees. I'm very happy with the older version of the lens. Any reason you are not looking at Tamron?



Great minds think alike.


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 10, 2017)

for weddings and portraits, the 70-200 f2.8 was our most used lens, followed by our 85mm. 
i got most of our gear used. i find it a great way to get a little more for your money.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Oct 10, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> for weddings and portraits, the 70-200 f2.8 was our most used lens, followed by our 85mm.
> i got most of our gear used. i find it a great way to get a little more for your money.



Yeah, I'm finding that I use my current 70-300 quite a bit for weddings, so it makes sense to get the 70-200. But I do need a better wide angle, in general, so either a wide prime or a 24-70. 

I'm not really interested in third party lenses. I've looked at comparisons, and I've read quite a bit about it, and it seems that while some may be good, they're simply not _as _good as the Nikon brand. And they have compatibility issues when new cameras and firmware comes out.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 10, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> for weddings and portraits, the 70-200 f2.8 was our most used lens, followed by our 85mm.
> i got most of our gear used. i find it a great way to get a little more for your money.


Yep...  out of all the lenses I own, I've only bought three new.  Everything else, including my key lenses (70-200 208,  85 1.4) have been bought used.  In my experience lenses either work or they don't.  Out of my entire stable, I've only ever had one lens with issues (my 24-70, bought new).


----------



## Destin (Oct 10, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > for weddings and portraits, the 70-200 f2.8 was our most used lens, followed by our 85mm.
> ...



Your call man. 80% of the lenses I’ve owned have been third party, and I’ve never had an issue with any of the higher end ones. I’ve never heard of an actual compatibility issue with a new camera or firmware.. just of the theoretical possibility. 

The Tamron 70-200 G2 is rated by most people as better than the Nikon VRII and as good or better than the newest $2800 Nikon 70-200. 

I was hesitant to get one as well until I got my hands on one and checked out the photos. But on your budget the newest generation of third party stuff is certainly better than going back a generation or two with the OEM stuff. 

Is it as good as the latest Nikon lenses? That’s debatable, but they’re both well out of your budget anyway. 

That’s just my opinion. If you wanna get OEM that’s totally your call and you’ll get great photos, but you’ll be buying used over new (no warranty) and getting an older generation of tech.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Oct 10, 2017)

Destin said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



You're saying the G2 is as good or better than the 70-200 FL? Imma need some sources on that, my man.


----------



## Destin (Oct 10, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > DGMPhotography said:
> ...



Going to find them now. 

But it shouldn’t matter. You aren’t looking at an FL in your budget anyway. And it’s rated better than the VRII by just about everyone.


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 10, 2017)

i can see the argument for forwards compability, but dont discount third party lenses because of OEM "superiority". 
the days where tamron and sigma were miles behind Nikon and Canon in terms of IQ and image rendering as well as VR are long gone. 
going third party gets you probably 97% of the Nikons quality at half (or less) the cost. might let you add another lens or two to the budget. 
filling out needed or wanted lenses would rank higher on my list than going stirctly OEM. if ya got the cash, by all means go OEM. can never go wrong there. but if you really want to get the most bang for your buck,  its heard to beat tamron and sigmas newest lenses. 
middle ground of course is to go used OEM, which is not a bad option either.


----------



## Destin (Oct 10, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > DGMPhotography said:
> ...



https://petapixel.com/2017/03/07/hands-new-tamron-70-200mm-f2-8-g2/

At work so I don’t have time to hunt down a ton of sources, but here’s one test claiming they can’t see much of a difference between the two. 

I’m sure the Nikon wins on an MTF chart. But MTF charts are useless in the real world.


----------



## coastalconn (Oct 10, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > DGMPhotography said:
> ...


FWIW.... 




I love my G2, Hopefully Ill use it more with Hawk season coming up.  
Testing Tamron 70-200 G2


----------



## DGMPhotography (Oct 10, 2017)

I'm looking at the FL, and I think if I can book another gig or two I could be able to get it. I'm finding it listed for $2400. The more I read about it the more in love I fall.

I think I need to test out the G2 and the FL and see what I think.


----------



## coastalconn (Oct 10, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> I'm looking at the FL, and I think if I can book another gig or two I could be able to get it. I'm finding it listed for $2400. The more I read about it the more in love I fall.
> 
> I think I need to test out the G2 and the FL and see what I think.


FYI if you are seeing the FL listed for $2400 new it is probably grey market..


----------



## DGMPhotography (Oct 10, 2017)

coastalconn said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking at the FL, and I think if I can book another gig or two I could be able to get it. I'm finding it listed for $2400. The more I read about it the more in love I fall.
> ...



Ebay from a well rated seller.


----------



## coastalconn (Oct 10, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> > DGMPhotography said:
> ...


Yep Grey market then.. Nikon USA will not touch it. US version is $2796


----------



## DGMPhotography (Oct 10, 2017)

coastalconn said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > coastalconn said:
> ...



I've heard something about this before.. can you elaborate?


----------



## coastalconn (Oct 10, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> > DGMPhotography said:
> ...


What are Gray Market Products?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 10, 2017)

I had the 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR, and then later the 80-200/2.8 AF-S, and never used either at f/2.8 because the image quality is not that great at f/2.8, and there's very little DOF at f/2.8. I really want the 70-200 f/4 AF-S VR model, and not the f/2.8; personally, in this day of better high-ISO cameras, I think the f/2.8 70-200 zoom lens is mostly a hold-over from the days of ISO 100 to 200 color films.

I think the f/4 lens would be a better investment, at around $700 Craigslist used, up to around $990-$1050 used brick and mortar for a USA-imported (not gray market) used model.

I have bought 95% os my lenses used for the better part of four decades now; used is the way to go, IMHO.


----------



## Destin (Oct 11, 2017)

Derrel said:


> I had the 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR, and then later the 80-200/2.8 AF-S, and never used either at f/2.8 because the image quality is not that great at f/2.8, and there's very little DOF at f/2.8. I really want the 70-200 f/4 AF-S VR model, and not the f/2.8; personally, in this day of better high-ISO cameras, I think the f/2.8 70-200 zoom lens is mostly a hold-over from the days of ISO 100 to 200 color films.
> 
> I think the f/4 lens would be a better investment, at around $700 Craigslist used, up to around $990-$1050 used brick and mortar for a USA-imported (not gray market) used model.
> 
> I have bought 95% os my lenses used for the better part of four decades now; used is the way to go, IMHO.



Maybe for portraiture and stuff. But if you shoot sports or anything in low light (weddings) that stop of ISO performance makes a big difference. 

For me it’s the difference between 6400 and 12800 when shooting football under the lights. That’s still a significant difference in image quality.


----------



## Tomasko (Oct 11, 2017)

Sure, but there are other factors as well. For example the price is double for 2.8 and also it weighs twice as the f/4 version. If you need to carry it all day, it's a significant difference too.
But yeah, it ultimately ends up being decided by what you really need. If that 1-stop difference is that huge in your application, it's a great lens.


----------



## nerwin (Oct 11, 2017)

I'd go for the 70-200 for sure.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Oct 11, 2017)

Has anyone shot with the FL?


----------



## Cody'sCaptures (Oct 11, 2017)

Why not just rent a few and try them before dropping thousands?
 I also remember reading Tamron licences Nikon tech, not sure of the validity of that though.


----------



## coastalconn (Oct 11, 2017)

That reminds me Roger over at lens rentals did a bench test awhile ago with the G2.. MTF Lens Tests of the New Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 SP Di VC USD G2
I have not and will not shoot with the FL because I think the price is ridiculous... My 500 F4 was only like 1k more and that is a real lens....


----------



## Frank F. (Oct 11, 2017)

1.4/105E


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 11, 2017)

I too would recomment getting the Tamron G2 lenses. I'm not much into zooms, but from what one can hear from others, they are cheaper, optically as good or better, and autofocus isnt an issue either, so what more can you ask ?




Derrel said:


> I really want the 70-200 f/4 AF-S VR model,


 I own that lens; it was among my first three full frame lenses. But while its indeed super sharp, I think its nowadays a really bad bang for the buck deal.


----------



## jaomul (Oct 11, 2017)

Compatability is not so much an issue now with sigma leading and tamron copying the idea of a dock to upgrade the lens through a pc rather than sending it in to get sorted by a dealer.

The tamron 150-600 was getting slightly better reviews than the sigma 150-600c when I bought about a year or so ago, but the siggy had a dock that comforted me in its purchase. I got the dock, never used it. The lens has been permanently attached to my d7200 for about 6 months- it's sharp and responsive. Graphs and user preferences will say there are better lenses, but at a cost. It supposedly matches the Nikon 200-500, but is 150-600 at a slightly lower price.

Third party lenses have come a long way and without the worry they'll not be compatible. Have a look at the Tammy's suggested, the g2 versions supposedly kick as..


----------



## Cody'sCaptures (Oct 12, 2017)

Those docks sound really interesting with being able to calibrate at different zoom levels.


----------



## goooner (Oct 12, 2017)

Cody'sCaptures said:


> Those docks sound really interesting with being able to calibrate at different zoom levels.


It's a PITA to do, but is like owning sever primes, after calibrating my 150-600 over the different focal lengths.


----------



## benhasajeep (Oct 14, 2017)

The question to ask and answer is - "What is your final output?"  If your taking pictures that will be printed to 8x10 or 11x14 or "normal" photo sizes then do you need the absolutely best IQ lens there is?  Becasue you will not see the difference between the Nikon and Tamron G2 at those sizes.  Even less so if your using the photos for online viewing!   If you have a camera sensor large enough to be making poster prints then the lenses might start to show a difference.  Maybe!  Especially with lens and camera corrections in software now.  Many lens faults are now corrected in post.  So, there is even less that can be discerned when comparing "normal" sized prints.

If your output will never show the small quality difference between lenses.  Why pay the extra?  Now having said that, the majority of my AF lenses are Nikons though.  With about 1/2 purchased used.  And that's not for absolute quality though.  But for compatibility reasons.  Although I just recently ran into an issue with Nikon teleconverters that are NOT backwards compatable!  And new P lenses are not backwards compatable.  So, even Nikon is moving away from full compatibility (at least backwards that is)!


----------



## DGMPhotography (Oct 14, 2017)

benhasajeep said:


> The question to ask and answer is - "What is your final output?"  If your taking pictures that will be printed to 8x10 or 11x14 or "normal" photo sizes then do you need the absolutely best IQ lens there is?  Becasue you will not see the difference between the Nikon and Tamron G2 at those sizes.  Even less so if your using the photos for online viewing!   If you have a camera sensor large enough to be making poster prints then the lenses might start to show a difference.  Maybe!  Especially with lens and camera corrections in software now.  Many lens faults are now corrected in post.  So, there is even less that can be discerned when comparing "normal" sized prints.
> 
> If your output will never show the small quality difference between lenses.  Why pay the extra?  Now having said that, the majority of my AF lenses are Nikons though.  With about 1/2 purchased used.  And that's not for absolute quality though.  But for compatibility reasons.  Although I just recently ran into an issue with Nikon teleconverters that are NOT backwards compatable!  And new P lenses are not backwards compatable.  So, even Nikon is moving away from full compatibility (at least backwards that is)!



That's a good point. I'm sure the G2 will be a fine lens. But I know myself, and I know I'll feel some type of way knowing I could have had the best lens, but don't. However, the TAP console seems to assure people that compatibility shouldn't be an issue, but durability is yet to be seen, since it's so new. But I got my hands on it yesterday in-store and it feels pretty solid.


----------



## Destin (Oct 14, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> benhasajeep said:
> 
> 
> > The question to ask and answer is - "What is your final output?"  If your taking pictures that will be printed to 8x10 or 11x14 or "normal" photo sizes then do you need the absolutely best IQ lens there is?  Becasue you will not see the difference between the Nikon and Tamron G2 at those sizes.  Even less so if your using the photos for online viewing!   If you have a camera sensor large enough to be making poster prints then the lenses might start to show a difference.  Maybe!  Especially with lens and camera corrections in software now.  Many lens faults are now corrected in post.  So, there is even less that can be discerned when comparing "normal" sized prints.
> ...



Can’t speak for G2 durability. 

My VC (previous generation) is 4-5 years old. I’m the second owner and I’ve not been gentle with it. It’s been in rain storms, covered in mud, banged off of trees/walls, etc and it’s held up really well. Small scuff marks in the lens hood are the only damage visible and it’s never needed focus calibration.


----------



## ac12 (Dec 5, 2017)

IMHO, if this is for business.
I would get a NEW lens, with the Nikon USA 5 year extended warranty.

What makes me say that is the VR mechanism.  This is a major moving part that if it fails, may be fatal to the lens.
Non-VR lenses do not have that problem, so buying a used non-VR lens is much less of a risk.
So having that warranty can be worth the extra cost, compared to out of warranty repair.


----------



## shadowlands (Dec 5, 2017)

I bought my Nikon 24-70 F2.8G for $1000.00 & my Nikon 70-200mm F2.8G VR1 for the same. Both keh.com Bargain Grade, last year, I think.
Love 'em both!


----------

