Nikkor ED AF-S 400mm f/2.8

[pangloss]

Someone is offering me this lens for around 2,000 euros. This is a real deal I think, it's slightly bunged up, but the glass is clean and it has a 1yr warranty through a camera shop.

Is there a reason not to buy this if i have the money? What's the difference between the AF-S and the AF-S II version that is sold today (besides magnesium alloy body - less weight)

This is the most expensive item i have ever purchased, so I want to be sure.

[Doug Greenberg]

You want reasons NOT to buy it? Assuming that the lens is in great condition and the seller gives you a trial period after which you can return it if there is something amiss with the lens, the biggest consideration I would have is that a 400mm. lens might not provide enough reach for your purposes (bird photography). When considering the superduper teles, I always want as much magnification as I can possibly get. I own a couple of 400mm lenses, but for birds I prefer a 500mm. or even a 600mm. With digital it's much easier to sacrifice an f-stop for the sake of longer reach (i.e., you can up the ISO a bit to compensate, if need be).

That said, many photographers use and swear by 400mm. lenses, a maximum aperture of f2.8 makes very low-light photography possible, with top-quality telextenders you can increase your reach, etc. The difference between AF-S and AF-SII is not all that great, but keep in mind that one reason people are selling these lenses in droves at the moment is that the new VR versions of the long Nikkor teles are about to appear on the market.

[Andy Bright]

It sounds a fantastic bargain... but 'slightly bunged up'? Can you elaborate? Hopefully the aperture blades are o.k, that can be a fairly big problem.

There's no significant difference between AFS and AFSII other than cosmetics/build.

edit: I now assume 'bunged up' means it looks rough ;)
cheers,
Andy