In the recent long debate of 70-200/4L vs 70-300IS, some of the
arguments were "L retains its value better", "try the L first,
because if you don't like it, you can sell it with minimal hit",
and "buy both,and sell the one you don't like". It is with these
statements that I am having a problem.
Items that are known in their industry to be "top notch" always retain their value better than their cheaper counterparts. Buying the $300 Fender over a $1500 Rickenbacher doesn't mean the less expensive Fender isn't a good guitar that can get the job done... but since the value of the Ric starts out much higher common sense tells you it will retain it's value better.
What is special about L lens in the used market? Why does L retain
its value better?
Good reputation. Stands up to professional usage. Durability. Popularity.They start out at higher prices. A lens that is $200 can't retain it's value because there isn't much lower it can go without being just not worth it to sell. If it stands to reason that you pay more for quality (which I'm not saying I
always agree with) and the standard belief in the market is that you pay more for quality, a cheap lens doesn't have as much value to start off with, let alone on the used market.
Like I said... I personally don't believe that line of thinking is
always true, but it's at least partially true.
Why would the L take a minimal hit, and the
non-L take a larger hit?
See above, and think about this.
If I have a lens I bought new for $200 that I sell for $150, I've just lost 25%.
If I have a lens I bought new for $1000 that I sell for $850, I've only lost 15%.
The used market shows because what buyers are willing to pay for an L lens, as a seller I lose less when reselling my second-hand L lens. But it's still a $150 savings to the buyer.
If you are in the market for either, I
would think you want a good deal, regardless whether it is an L and
a non L.
Of course. Hence why I bought 2 second-hand Ls and 1 second-hand non-L. By percentage of retail price alone the best deal I got was on the non-L... but that doesn't mean I didn't get a good deal on the used Ls when you compare the price to new.
I agree that if you're only saving $25 on a $1000 lens it might not be worth it. But saving $100, $150, $200 -- yes, it IS worth it. Like I said, the savings I managed on the two Ls paid for the third lens easily, with money to spare. The savings made it possible for me to get all three lenses, and not just end up with two.
If it is driven availability, I can't imagine the
70-200/4L being in shorter supply than the 70-300IS.
I can't speak to the overall market but I can tell you that if I'm looking for a specific lens and stores are closed for the holidays or out of stock on it and I can save money and get it second-hand while STILL getting good quality, I see no downside. Overall, yes, less people may want to part with their Ls... but that's all relative to what a buyer needs vs. what a seller has. It's also relative to the overall market -- Because of the price-point alone, less people will be looking for the Ls to being with.
When you "buy both, sell the one you don't like", you will
probably, in good faith, sell the inferior copy.
Don't agree. That COULD be the case (which is why you ask for samples before you buy a lens) -- but there is a variety of reasons someone sells any lens. They found they didn't like the focal length, didn't like the size/weight, didn't like the color (which is subjective), didn't like that it lacked USM, needed the money, lost interest, etc. A lens that performs badly that someone sells is only going to cause the seller possible grief, so the fact it's a "bad or inferior copy" is probably low on the list for reasons to sell.
When one of the
two is softer than the other, most of us wouldn't know if it is an
inherent problem, or specific to the copy they got, and would just
put the softer lens for sale.
See above.
Also keep in mind that any lens, regardless of it's L label or not, can retain it's value if it builds a good reputation for itself. If the 70-300 IS proves to be excellent over time, it WILL hold it's value better than the old version has on the used market, since that is known to be "soft".
So, as a buyer, you are getting the
inferior lens, even though the seller is completely honest and
acting in good faith.
Which lens? YOU, as a seller, may have made the decision to sell the 70-200 L because YOU thought it was inferior. These two lenses you use as an example are different lenses. The 70-300 has IS, but it also doesn't have f/4 through it's range, isn't weather sealed, and doesn't focus as quickly. Someone may not need those things, so to them the 70-300 is superior. Someone else may buy the L BECAUSE of those things. Seems to be they are both sharp lenses with good color and contrast (though I'm not the expert on either) -- so it would come down to OTHER features to be the deciding factor.
You also happen to be picking the L lens that is known to be one of the biggest values for the dollar. The 70-200 f/4 L is considered one of the most affordable L lenses, and a lot of bang for the buck.
Lenses ultimately have value because of their starting price and reputation with photographers. As I expressed there are lots of reasons to buy second-hand. If you yourself aren't comfortable with it, than don't buy used glass
Amy
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
http://www.nyphotos.net ~
http://www.something-fishy.com/photography 
