Should you consider date code when buying a lens?

I am in the market for a 500 f4 v1. I am stuck waiting right now for some money I should be getting in the next few months...but I happened upon what looks like a good deal on one but it is a UN date code which is 1999. It looks to be in really good shape, just an abrasion near the mount. There is a possibility I would just go ahead and buy one if I found a good deal...but the age of it makes me apprehensive. I figured here would be a great place to ask as I know a good deal of people here own this lens.

Thanks!

Lenses occasionally get revisions or have kinks ironed out after they're out for a while. If this is the case then it would be advantageous to get the revised version. Otherwise, there shouldn't be any difference other than wear and tear.

Whether the 500 had any such revisions, I do not know.

I had a similar concern when shopping for a used 500. Below is my thread asking similar information.

I don't recall my date code (definitely an older copy), but certainly have no regrets.

Good luck.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1054266

Thanks for the input! I will go check out that thread!

If you buy a used car, if you find a 1990 Porsche 911S with 20,000 miles, or a 2010 Porsche 911S with 100.000 miles, which would you buy?

So if a lens was made in 2000 and looks pristine, or one was made in 2010 and looks rather beat, does the date code mean anything in the decision process?!

I bought my used 135L from b&h photo with a date code of 2007 and it looked, glass and body as though it had never left the box. So in the 5 years before I owned it, it was pretty clear the prior owner took very good care of it. So if it still looks in pristine condition I wouldn't let that stop me if the price was right.

Wilt wrote in post #16159693
If you buy a used car, if you find a 1990 Porsche 911S with 20,000 miles, or a 2010 Porsche 911S with 100.000 miles, which would you buy?

So if a lens was made in 2000 and looks pristine, or one was made in 2010 and looks rather beat, does the date code mean anything in the decision process?!

I'd take the 2010 all day if the price were the same. Kind of an odd and silly analogy since a 1990 911 and a 2010 911 are not even close to being the same whereas an old lens and a new lens despite age would look the same, be built the same, and perform the same.

I try to go for the newest year model as I can.

carpenter wrote in post #16159751
I'd take the 2010 all day if the price were the same. Kind of an odd and silly analogy since a 1990 911 and a 2010 911 are not even close to being the same whereas an old lens and a new lens despite age would look the same, be built the same, and perform the same.

I fully understand that the 1990 and the 2010 automobile are quite different because of product evolution. But would you really ignore a superior car with 20000 miles on it simply because it was made in 1990?...the point is that year of manufacture gives no clue about degree of uncaring use or amount of actual usage (vs. setting on an equipment shelf). We have users put 1000 photos per year thru their cameras, and others put 25000 photos per year thru their cameras...which person owned the 1990 lens?!

Should you consider it? Yes. Should it be a determining factor? No

If you know it's older just double check it for issues. Lenses are made to last a long time. Hell people are still using lenses that are over a century old. I just bought a lens that's 26 years old and it looks damn near new. No dust, no fungus, no issues (knock on wood).

Well, I know almost Nothing of the 500mm and of 1990 911 or 2010 Porches, but With some lenses significant upgrades have been made to during their production life. A good example is the 50L, the early production lenses (2007-2009) were significantly more plagued with autofocus issues (some also say they are less sharp) compared to newer, 2010-2013 versions.
So if there is a choice of newer vs older lens and there is no significant difference in their price or physical condition, I would definitely pick the later one...

Good replies here.

I recently sold a UT coded 16-35. Took very good care of it and mostly shot indoors. Lost a few hundred off new when selling it this year - a massively good value of like $4/mo. I was proud of what that lens has done and would continue to do, but worked hard to communicate all issues/concerns with the buyer, including a guarantee in case something happened. Bought a 50L with the proceeds. Was aware of the pre-2010 issue above and bought new. Love the new lens as much as the one it replaced.

The manufacturing of a given lens model doesn't really change over its production lifetime. And when the design changes, the name usually does too. Copy to copy consistency is as different month to month as year to year. What matters is what the lens goes through after the sale. Most are well built and most will show damage or mistreatment on the outside. So you get image samples and you get views of the outside and you balance the risk of what the lens may have been through against the reward of the savings (vs new).

Based on the buy/sell activity on POTN and the low incidents (I've yet to see one) of buyer dissatisfaction, results are hitting expectations everyday. Meanwhile, I've seen various complaints on new lenses, that are not yet field tested. Those are pretty good odds.

Thanks for all the input everyone. If the price stays low I'm going for it. If it gets above a certain point I'm waiting and will keep looking on here. It would be nice for it to happen when I have some time to shoot...school starts up in September and ill be slammed...but it's def happening soon...and I finally have my support setup figured out as well. Can't wait!

Wilt wrote in post #16159693
If you buy a used car, if you find a 1990 Porsche 911S with 20,000 miles, or a 2010 Porsche 911S with 100.000 miles, which would you buy?

So if a lens was made in 2000 and looks pristine, or one was made in 2010 and looks rather beat, does the date code mean anything in the decision process?!

Last I checked though lenses don't have an odometer to know this information. Both lenses could look the same from the outside, but gaskets dry up over time bearing in the IS motor wasr out and there is no way of knowing this information without taking the lens apart and having it serviced.

I requested sample shots but the auction ends at 10-11 am tomorrow so I dunno if ill see them. Ill just say body wise is the most pristine I have seen yet.