Buying new for the sake of Buying

paulr

With the new 24-70 Lens about to hit the retailers should we dash out and get the latest lens. having just returned from the Lake District [ Thats our smaller version of Yellowstone} Using the old 24-70 lens, I am not sure the extra investment is worth the trouble.

Elvishefer

If one managed their expectations, there was nothing 'wrong' with the old 24-70. It is an excellent lens for what it is. It would be on the bottom of my list to replace. But if I was shooting events professionally, and buying a 24-70 for the first time, and was a die-hard Nikon fan, then I would definitely get the new over a cheaper, pristine condition used old 24-70. I'd willingly pay the extra money. The differences, although incremental, are there.

NSXTypeR

A pro can justify the latest and greatest just because even incremental updates on an existing product will get them a photo that can be used to generate revenue.

For us serious enthusiasts, it may not be worth the upgrade... unless you have 2.5 k burning a hole in your pocket.

safyre

Buying for the sake of buying is the absolute worst thing you can do as a photographer and pretty much makes you the epitome of a gearhead. If you have no idea why you need the new lens, don't buy it. That being said, even pros will have a hard time justifying getting the newer version unless you absolutely NEED the VR for your job. Otherwise the difference in quality is so minimal that it does not warrant the huge price jump to 2400.

Msmoto

I am still trying to decide if I want the newer VR or the older version. Was there a test which suggested the older one was sharper in close ups?

WestEndFoto

A pro can justify the latest and greatest just because even incremental updates on an existing product will get them a photo that can be used to generate revenue.

For us serious enthusiasts, it may not be worth the upgrade... unless you have 2.5 k burning a hole in your pocket.

I think you are overlooking what you can get for the old one used.

NSXTypeR

I think you are overlooking what you can get for the old one used.

Not exactly sure what you mean by that.

Are you saying the old one performs well too or do you mean the old one also holds its value well?

spraynpray

I think you are overlooking what you can get for the old one used.

Not exactly sure what you mean by that.

Are you saying the old one performs well too or do you mean the old one also holds its value well?

I would say WestEndFoto means the residual value of the old non-VR is going to be high for a while.

Ironheart

I think you are overlooking what you can get for the old one used.

Not exactly sure what you mean by that.

Are you saying the old one performs well too or do you mean the old one also holds its value well?

I would say WestEndFoto means the residual value of the old non-VR is going to be high for a while.

And you don't need $2.5K. Let's say you sell the old lens for $1.5K, you can buy the new one for $1K. Remember you are dealing with a CFO $-)

WestEndFoto

Spraynpray and Ironheart have nailed it.

tcole1983

No point in buying something if what you have satisfies your needs. I feel this way about the 300 f4 and the new vr version. Although vr would be nice it isn't imperative and I find my lenses to be very sharp. For what I use it for and how often I use it I am happy. Of course there are people that use things daily and so it might not be that silly to get the new vr version even though it adds vr and maybe not much else.

spraynpray

An alternate view from an old-timer who shakes a little is; VR? Fantastic!

Of course the huge size, price and weight is not so good but you can't have it all.