I'd actually read the Rorslett review a few days ago. He seemed to experience very little flaring or ghosting but got complaints from Moose Peterson. I guess some people like certain lenses and some don't — that's why there's a market for used glass. I had an older copy of the 18-55 (since sold when I sold my D40) and found it ordinary. Who knows, maybe I suck.

I have toyed (and would still consider) the 16-35 but while I've read amazing things about its sharpness the warnings about distortion at 16-19mm frighten me. I've seen the word "heinous" used twice. I don't use Photoshop, preferring Aperture instead, which doesn't offer the distortion-correcting capabilities. That said, all these POVs are helpful in knowing what to look for. If it's a bad copy some of this stuff will show up (as long as it's a sunny day).

A great lens - but it can flare and/or ghost like a you-know-what in a back lit situation. (Read Rorslett and others.) You have been warned. The 18-55 is better shooting into the sun (or any back light, really). The 18-55VR is better in most any other hand held situation except where you really need the 2.8... Just my experience, yours may vary.

Check the lens rental article about testing lenses- there some good things there to try out. Many problems with alignment (caused by impacts) won't be visible through visual inspection, but will show up in picture under controlled circumstances. I've heard of some problems with the focusing motor for the 17-35, as it is probably an earlier design of the AFs motor, but there's no way to find out how good a condition it is in other than using it.

In general, most issues with lenses can only be found once you've bought the lens and tested it somewhat thoroughly. That's why it's a good idea to buy from a dealer who will offer you a complete refund (even if it's only for couple weeks or so) with no questions asked.

I just thought of a couple more thing I would maybe try...run in through the different apertures and make sure the blades are moving correctly (check pictures at wide, half and mostly closed to see that the exposure looks about right). With focusing maybe set it manually to infinity and try to focus on something close where it will have to adjust the focus through the whole range to get where it needs to be...just to stress the AF capability of it.

I'd like to piggyback on this post rather than start a new thread as I have a very similar question. A local camera shop (high end, great rep, not a chain) has a 17-35 on sale for what I consider a very reasonable $1,200. I took a quick look yesterday and the exterior — as well as the front and rear elements — look pristine. The lens comes with a one-year warranty. And according to them, the owner sold it to "upgrade" to the newer 16-35.
I'm going back in on Saturday to shoot with it using my D90 (they have a quasi-studio in the back). I'll then upload images to Aperture and take a look. My only concern is that I've never bought a used lens before. My question is, aside from the functional issues outlined by tcole, what paces should I put it through to bring out issues should they exist? What else should I be looking for? If I'm trying to make it "fail" how would I go about that?
Thanks.

Congratulations! I can guarantee you will not have buyer's remorse. [Unless you didn't pay this months utility bills ;-) ]

I bought it. The glass looked beautiful with no scratches/dust/discoloration whatsoever. It focused almost instantly and completely silently. Very impressed. I can't wait to get this beast on my D7000 :P Thanks for the help guys.

I am not pro, but just a few tips from me. Check the zoom. Make sure it zooms and focuses smoothly. Listen to the lens. Nikon lenses are pretty silent, so if you hear much noise then I would probably run at that point. Wear is usually a pretty good indication of its shape (as others said with the rubber). Make sure you have good light to look at the glass and elements. Look for anything out of the ordinary such as discoloration, dust, and scratches on the glass coatings. You never know what someone might have used to clean the lens off with, although I hope most would know better.

I like this lens a lot. 2.8 has been fast enough for my purposes, I haven't used my 35 f1.8 in a long time, I don't carry it around anymore, just this and a tele when traveling.

Hi,

One more thing about the price of the lens. That lens is often available refurbished from B&H and Adorama for about that price with a Nikon 90-day warranty. Nikon's Store sells it for $1200. I understand that you want the extended warranty from the seller, but sometimes the warranties don't trasfer - I don't know.

I so agree with TaoTeJared, it is a big SOB, so be aware of what you're toting around.

I like it - it's sharp, but it's heavy.

Good luck and my best,

Mike

The one reason receipts matter is that warranty or no, you want to make sure the person you're buying from actually owns the lens. They usually frown on that whole "receiving stolen goods" thing. :)

Thanks for all your tips and suggestions, TaoTeJared and sblasl.
I am mainly going to be shooting indoors and family, which is why I like the fast aperture on the zoom lens. I know that the lens is huge and heavy from reviews, which is why I'm waiting to get the D7000. That would "balance" it out more since it is much bigger than my teeny D40, right? Also, since I have this money to spend on a lens, I thought I would get a great lens that I would be able to use for years. From my understanding, this lens is built like a tank.

My point regarding the receipt was if the seller was marketing the lens and justifying his price with the idea that the lens had never been registered and the buyer could then register the lens as newl and then obtain a "full" warranty.

TaoTeJared's observations, suggestions, & purchasing processes are on the mark.

Just did this one last week on the same topic and almost price. http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2548

For buying used, I look at the condition and pay note of of the rubber grips. If they are faded or the finish is really warn, I know it was used allot and I tend to stay away - since it had more opportunities to get banged up.

When and where bought and receipts don't mean a thing to me. It was new once and used now - what matters is what happened to it in between.

It sounds like you don't really know if you need the lens or not and from what you wrote, it sounds like you are not sure what to do with $1k for camera gear - Is this correct? (BTW-35mm 1.8 is a keeper.)

If you have $1k for lenses there could (stress could) be more beneficial one's than the 17-55mm which is a big lens and on a D40 is huge. For a small kit like you have, you may like the 18-200mm to combine your other two lenses, and sell them for your camera upgrade. If you are not opposed to buying used and are upgrading to a camera with a AF drive, for a grand and selling a lens or two, you could easily pick up a 50mm, 60mm Macro, 70-300vr and maybe even a 16-85mm or the 18-200mm. Just a thought but you will have to answer that for yourself.

When I look at purchasing lenses, cameras, etc. I always run myself through the following questions. If what I'm looking at lines up with that particular item then I go for it.
Here are the questions I run myself through:
Who or What is your subject?
When are you shooting?
Where are you shooting?
Why are you shooting X?
and How do you want it to look?

sblasl said:
When did the craigslist seller originally purchase the lens, where did he purchase it from, & does he have the sales reciept? It looks good, the price is definitely "reasonable". The only problem is the receipt's "date of purchase", and registering it now if the is a large gap in time. Nikon is pretty sticky about timeliness of registering. I would not let that be a barrier to making the purchase.

I will ask him if he has the receipt or where he purchased it, but he did say that he bought it about 2 years ago.

When did the craigslist seller originally purchase the lens, where did he purchase it from, & does he have the sales reciept? It looks good, the price is definitely "reasonable". The only problem is the receipt's date of purchase", and registering it now if the is a large gap in time. Nikon is pretty sticky about timeliness of registering. I would not let that be a barrier to making the purchase.

Hi, I'm seriously thinking about buying the 17-55 mm f/2.8 lens used. I have about $1000 dollars to spend on a very good lens, and this is what came to mind. I'm going to sell the 18-55mm and possibly my 55-200mm but keep my 35mm 1.8. I've heard very good things about it and this is the posting: **Link Removed**

I'm going to bring my camera (D40, soon to be D7000) to test out the lens and my laptop. Is there anything I should be looking for to know if the lens is in good shape? Or would you recommend a different lens?