I've purchased the majority of my gear used and have had zero issues with it. Saved on average 40% from buying new. I have lenses that are 50 years old that function like new.
What assurance do you have your shiny new lens won't cough up a hair ball right after it's warranty has expired?
I don't have any such assurance; in fact it has been a pet peeve of mine that Nikon appears to have abandoned its former standards of QC and handed such responsibilities on to its customers who, unfortunately, have a harder task to perform than just throwing the faulty item back at the foreman.
No longer having a nearby source for photographic equipment anymore, having no desire to change brands, the best recourse I have is to use Grays of Westminster, a Nikon specialist that, so far, has never let me down. That means dealing by 'phone and e-mail, and I have no idea if their used stock is checked out by a Nikon subsidiary or not, or whether their own company has a skilled tech. to hand.
As I mentioned, I have bought several old lenses from them, all manual Nikkors, but I would not want to imagine that a straight, manual lens has as many possible failure points as one that has to perform af functions and perhaps stabilisation, too. Apart from that, the two af lenses I do own, 1.8/50mm G and a 2.8/180mm do not feel as smooth or as substantial as similar lenses I owned in the past.
But on a broader issue, as a pro, why on Earth would I have considered old stuff when new was going to be charged against tax, anyway? On top of that, the risk of being away somewhere, armed with somebody else's old junk, with no pro facilities available should shit happen, was a concept that never crossed my mind as being worth considering.
As I sometimes suggest, things often improve without getting one whit better, and that's where I think much of this new technology is leading us.
