Lens as an investment?

On another thread david wrote (jokingly?) that his lens investment has done better recently than his 401k. The statement intrigues me. What is the history of top quality "L" lens value?

Your answer could intice me to buy the higher quality glass as I fill out my lens collection.

Now I have the 24/85 and 75/300IS and was planning to get the sigma 15/30 next. The sigma is about $550 whereas the cannon 16/35L is over $1400. Sure the cannon is better and I would prefer to have the best, but can I use future value probability as a justification to spend the extra money?

I still have my old Brownie camera in its original box and i think it is worth more now than in the 1950s but I also have an old minolta 7000I system and it has lost almost all of it's original value.

I expect my new d60 to lose value quickly but do "L" lens?

Thanks Steve

I had to move up when I couldn't get flash bulbs for the Brownie anymore.

stephen s brown said:

On another thread david wrote (jokingly?) that his lens investment
has done better recently than his 401k. The statement intrigues
me. What is the history of top quality "L" lens value?
Your answer could intice me to buy the higher quality glass as I
fill out my lens collection.

Click to expand...

The S&P 500 is down about 35% over the past year? A good L lens might loose 10% of it's value in the same time, going from new to used. So, yes, lenses are a better money-investment than a lot of stock right now. And a worse money-investment than a savings or money-market account. If you want to have more money in a year, put it somewhere that pays interest.

stephen s brown said:

Sure the cannon is better and I would prefer to have
the best, but can I use future value probability as a justification
to spend the extra money?

Click to expand...

The resale value only matters if you're actually willing to give your stuff up.

The real "return on investment" from high-quality photo gear is incredible photographs. Like if you can take an artistic photo, but you're disappointed with it's technical quality. If creating as close to a flawless image as you possibly can appeals to you, you might want the better glass ... but if you want your money to outgrow David's 401(k), I'd look into bond funds for now.

as other expenditures.

THe point being made over and over is that the glass in general tends to hold value longer as it is upgraded or replaced less frequently.

The references to "investment" that compare to 401K and other investment vehicles really refer to the loss of value in the investment vehicles.

Most of my glass is L quality. I bought it because I could afford it and I would rather start there than wish I had done better later. I would only consider the expenditures investmentws if I planned on buying them no to sell them at a gain later.

I didn't.

Just my take!

Robert

stephen s brown said:

On another thread david wrote (jokingly?) that his lens investment
has done better recently than his 401k. The statement intrigues
me. What is the history of top quality "L" lens value?
Your answer could intice me to buy the higher quality glass as I
fill out my lens collection.

Now I have the 24/85 and 75/300IS and was planning to get the sigma
15/30 next. The sigma is about $550 whereas the cannon 16/35L is
over $1400. Sure the cannon is better and I would prefer to have
the best, but can I use future value probability as a justification
to spend the extra money?

I still have my old Brownie camera in its original box and i think
it is worth more now than in the 1950s but I also have an old
minolta 7000I system and it has lost almost all of it's original
value.

I expect my new d60 to lose value quickly but do "L" lens?

Thanks Steve

I had to move up when I couldn't get flash bulbs for the Brownie
anymore.

Click to expand...

--

1D, 50 1.4, 16-35 2.8L, 28-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L, 550EX and looking for greater reach!

The values of L glass appear to decrease slower over time than consumer and non-Canon glass, but it does depreciate. And when it is replaced, there is a definite step function in depreciation. Case in point: I bought a 28-70L for $1100 five months ago that I was only able to sell for $800. Thats a 25% loss. Hardly an investment unless you consider all the great pictures I was able to take with it over those 5 months.

stephen s brown said:

On another thread david wrote (jokingly?) that his lens investment
has done better recently than his 401k. The statement intrigues
me. What is the history of top quality "L" lens value?
Your answer could intice me to buy the higher quality glass as I
fill out my lens collection.

Now I have the 24/85 and 75/300IS and was planning to get the sigma
15/30 next. The sigma is about $550 whereas the cannon 16/35L is
over $1400. Sure the cannon is better and I would prefer to have
the best, but can I use future value probability as a justification
to spend the extra money?

I still have my old Brownie camera in its original box and i think
it is worth more now than in the 1950s but I also have an old
minolta 7000I system and it has lost almost all of it's original
value.

I expect my new d60 to lose value quickly but do "L" lens?

Thanks Steve

I had to move up when I couldn't get flash bulbs for the Brownie
anymore.

Click to expand...

I have a Canon EOS L lens brochure that I got back in 2000. On it, I have the B&H prices of all the lenses (except the 1200/5.6) from that time (early 2000).

The telephoto L lenses were a LOT higher than they are now. By several thousand dollars in some cases.

stephen s brown said:

On another thread david wrote (jokingly?) that his lens investment
has done better recently than his 401k. The statement intrigues
me. What is the history of top quality "L" lens value?
Your answer could intice me to buy the higher quality glass as I
fill out my lens collection.

Now I have the 24/85 and 75/300IS and was planning to get the sigma
15/30 next. The sigma is about $550 whereas the cannon 16/35L is
over $1400. Sure the cannon is better and I would prefer to have
the best, but can I use future value probability as a justification
to spend the extra money?

I still have my old Brownie camera in its original box and i think
it is worth more now than in the 1950s but I also have an old
minolta 7000I system and it has lost almost all of it's original
value.

I expect my new d60 to lose value quickly but do "L" lens?

Click to expand...

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

The big investment is that so lomgas you stick with the Canon EOS system you'll have lenses for life (or as close as you can get) - I've just bought a 13yr old 80-200L and it's perfect, I expect my 16-35L and 28-70L to last as long if not far longer - the Sigma 28-70EX DF optically is a superb lens and a total bargain but I'd expect one to fall apart in 2 years if not less with the use I give a lens in that focal range in my work - L lenses aren't all about optical quality (though that is a big part) they're also about LONGEVITY.

Of course a consumer lens can last as long if you don't use it, I have a Mk1 50mm F1.8 prime which was made in 1987 and it's mint and perfect but then the guy only used it on his EOS650 about 5 times ! ;-)

--
My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

Interest rates are at historic lows, with hardly anywhere to go but up. That doesn't bode well for long-term bond investments.

Forrest said:

... but if you want your money to
outgrow David's 401(k), I'd look into bond funds for now.

Click to expand...

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

IMHO is used L glass. Can be tough to find just what you want sometimes, and of course there's higher risk. Works best when something has been replaced and people are upgrading.

I have both a 28-70L and a 17-35L. One directly from someone upgrading, one from Canoga Camera. I'm pretty confident I could turn around and resell either of them for as much as I paid if not a little more.

Plus, for the difference between what I paid for these two L's and the price of a new 16-35L and 24-70L, I could get a new non-IS 70-200L.

Just another angle to consider. Not without risk, of course, and not necessarily for the impatient either, but well worth it.

-- Lew

Harlod said:

stephen s brown said:

On another thread david wrote (jokingly?) that his lens investment
has done better recently than his 401k. The statement intrigues
me. What is the history of top quality "L" lens value?
Your answer could intice me to buy the higher quality glass as I
fill out my lens collection.

Now I have the 24/85 and 75/300IS and was planning to get the sigma
15/30 next. The sigma is about $550 whereas the cannon 16/35L is
over $1400. Sure the cannon is better and I would prefer to have
the best, but can I use future value probability as a justification
to spend the extra money?

I still have my old Brownie camera in its original box and i think
it is worth more now than in the 1950s but I also have an old
minolta 7000I system and it has lost almost all of it's original
value.

I expect my new d60 to lose value quickly but do "L" lens?

Thanks Steve

I had to move up when I couldn't get flash bulbs for the Brownie
anymore.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Forrest said:

Forrest41926 said:

On another thread david wrote (jokingly?) that his lens investment
has done better recently than his 401k. The statement intrigues
me. What is the history of top quality "L" lens value?
Your answer could intice me to buy the higher quality glass as I
fill out my lens collection.

Click to expand...

The S&P 500 is down about 35% over the past year? A good L lens
might loose 10% of it's value in the same time, going from new to
used. So, yes, lenses are a better money-investment than a lot of
stock right now. And a worse money-investment than a savings or
money-market account. If you want to have more money in a year,
put it somewhere that pays interest.

Forrest41926 said:

Sure the cannon is better and I would prefer to have
the best, but can I use future value probability as a justification
to spend the extra money?

Click to expand...

The resale value only matters if you're actually willing to give
your stuff up.

The real "return on investment" from high-quality photo gear is
incredible photographs. Like if you can take an artistic photo,
but you're disappointed with it's technical quality. If creating
as close to a flawless image as you possibly can appeals to you,
you might want the better glass ... but if you want your money to
outgrow David's 401(k), I'd look into bond funds for now.

Click to expand...

I really wasn't concerned about other investments - just wondering if there really any improvement in the value of "L" quality glass. It would make it much easier to sell the idea of spending the extra money to my wife and myself !

I had to move up when I couldn't get flash bulbs for the Brownie anymore.

I've used my 70-200mm L & 100-400mm IS L lenses for the last 18 months on my D30 to sell everything from 5"x7" photos to 2'x3' posters at school events (drama, sports, ceremonies). The schools ask me to come & parents solicit me at the events because they know that I can get the shot that their f5.6/8 zoom lens can't.

I'm betting that my work gets even better when I take that same glass and slap a 1D on the back. 1D prices falling like a spring rain.

JTGB
Just You Average Photo Enthusiast

stephen s brown said:

On another thread david wrote (jokingly?) that his lens investment
has done better recently than his 401k. The statement intrigues
me. What is the history of top quality "L" lens value?
Your answer could intice me to buy the higher quality glass as I
fill out my lens collection.

Now I have the 24/85 and 75/300IS and was planning to get the sigma
15/30 next. The sigma is about $550 whereas the cannon 16/35L is
over $1400. Sure the cannon is better and I would prefer to have
the best, but can I use future value probability as a justification
to spend the extra money?

I still have my old Brownie camera in its original box and i think
it is worth more now than in the 1950s but I also have an old
minolta 7000I system and it has lost almost all of it's original
value.

I expect my new d60 to lose value quickly but do "L" lens?

Thanks Steve

I had to move up when I couldn't get flash bulbs for the Brownie
anymore.

Click to expand...

It won’t appreciate in value, but an L lens in good condition wont loose its value very quickly either.

stephen s brown said:

On another thread david wrote (jokingly?) that his lens investment
has done better recently than his 401k. The statement intrigues
me. What is the history of top quality "L" lens value?
Your answer could intice me to buy the higher quality glass as I
fill out my lens collection.

Now I have the 24/85 and 75/300IS and was planning to get the sigma
15/30 next. The sigma is about $550 whereas the cannon 16/35L is
over $1400. Sure the cannon is better and I would prefer to have
the best, but can I use future value probability as a justification
to spend the extra money?

I still have my old Brownie camera in its original box and i think
it is worth more now than in the 1950s but I also have an old
minolta 7000I system and it has lost almost all of it's original
value.

I expect my new d60 to lose value quickly but do "L" lens?

Thanks Steve

I had to move up when I couldn't get flash bulbs for the Brownie
anymore.

Click to expand...

RSO said:

as other expenditures.

THe point being made over and over is that the glass in general
tends to hold value longer as it is upgraded or replaced less
frequently.

The references to "investment" that compare to 401K and other
investment vehicles really refer to the loss of value in the
investment vehicles.

Most of my glass is L quality. I bought it because I could afford
it and I would rather start there than wish I had done better
later. I would only consider the expenditures investmentws if I
planned on buying them no to sell them at a gain later.

I didn't.

Just my take!

Robert

Click to expand...

Thanks Robert, At the moment I am looking at a $550 Sigma lens that will probably be nearly worthless vs. a $1400 "L" lens that will hold some value. I'll probably never sell either one - just pass it along to the kids someday; however, if things got tight or I wanted something else it would be nice to know that my "investment" was a good decision. For instance: If the cheap lens loses all its value and the L lens only lost 20% over a 5 year period I would certainly be ahead of the game with the L glass - not even considering the better quality output. Someone in this forum must have some numbers that would make the decision easier. With those numbers I'll have to consider if the better quality is worth the price as I fill out my lens collection.

Again thanks for your continued input. Steve

Harlod said:

The values of L glass appear to decrease slower over time than
consumer and non-Canon glass, but it does depreciate. And when it
is replaced, there is a definite step function in depreciation.
Case in point: I bought a 28-70L for $1100 five months ago that I
was only able to sell for $800. Thats a 25% loss. Hardly an
investment unless you consider all the great pictures I was able to
take with it over those 5 months.

Click to expand...

We would all expect to lose substantial value at first. Afterall the dealer can't buy it back for the same price he sold it for, but, there should be some leveling off after that and eventually as the new prices rise they should help drag along the price of older high quality equipment.
So what is the history of "L" lens value over 5 years?
Steve

DavidP said:

I have a Canon EOS L lens brochure that I got back in 2000. On
it, I have the B&H prices of all the lenses (except the 1200/5.6)
from that time (early 2000).

The telephoto L lenses were a LOT higher than they are now. By
several thousand dollars in some cases.

Click to expand...

Wow, This does not bode well with my thought that "NEW" prices would normally go up and drag the price of used equipment along with it.

Steve

Adam-T said:

The big investment is that so lomgas you stick with the Canon EOS
system you'll have lenses for life (or as close as you can get) -
I've just bought a 13yr old 80-200L and it's perfect, I expect my
16-35L and 28-70L to last as long if not far longer - the Sigma
28-70EX DF optically is a superb lens and a total bargain but I'd
expect one to fall apart in 2 years if not less with the use I give
a lens in that focal range in my work - L lenses aren't all about
optical quality (though that is a big part) they're also about
LONGEVITY.

Of course a consumer lens can last as long if you don't use it, I
have a Mk1 50mm F1.8 prime which was made in 1987 and it's mint and
perfect but then the guy only used it on his EOS650 about 5 times !

Click to expand...

I understand the quality issue and of course the pride of ownership and better results with the high quality glass. It would be nice to know what the 80-200L lens originally cost and what the owner sold it for 13 years later. Did he lose much on it?
Steve

stephen s brown said:

to know what the 80-200L lens originally cost and what the owner
sold it for 13 years later. Did he lose much on it?

Click to expand...

Well I paid £450 so I would expect that in monetary terms, he lost a lot BUT it was the guy's favourite lens (and WOW did he look after it!) and wanted to upgrade to IS - imagine how much he MADE on it if he was professional in those 13 years! . Just imagine how many images have passed through that iris, imagine how many lost opportunities he would have had if he'd gone for the consumer 80-200 F4.5-5.6 - how many times he'd had have to have replaced it because the cheap option fell apart, broke down, wasn't fast enough or just good enough quality.

He had a lens he could rely on and what's more even starting 13 years into it's life I know that I have a lens I can rely on for many more years to come.

There are hundreds of used Consumer Canons, Sigmas etc passing through E-bay and dealers every day, a 20-35 F2.8L, 28-80 F2.8-4.0L or 80-200 F2.8L is a rare sight indeed (in the UK at least) - good glass is for LIFE .

--
My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

jtgb said:

I've used my 70-200mm L & 100-400mm IS L lenses for the last 18
months on my D30 to sell everything from 5"x7" photos to 2'x3'
posters at school events (drama, sports, ceremonies). The schools
ask me to come & parents solicit me at the events because they know
that I can get the shot that their f5.6/8 zoom lens can't.

I'm betting that my work gets even better when I take that same
glass and slap a 1D on the back. 1D prices falling like a spring
rain.

JTGB
Just You Average Photo Enthusiast

Click to expand...

You really need the higest quality glass to make and sell photos at low light events. I also on ocassion do some local theater and then sell the photos to recover cost, but only as a hobby. I usually don't get many keepers, but, the parents and student actors are very apprecative for the ones I do get. I commonly take about 600 photos and sell about 400. Of course in my community theater there are normally large casts so there are plenty of people who want them for scrapbooks etc. I am sure I would get many more saleable photos with "L" glass.

My original question about lens value really only concerns the actual dollar value of used equipment. The ability to make money (a for profit business) is strictly another matter. I'll have to weigh that separately.
Steve

Do you print them on speculation? What size?

--
BillG

I have the same issue. I am trying to justify buying a 400 DO with my 1D and wonder what it would be worth in 5 or 10 years if I needed to sell it.

--
BillG

Bill Gilbertson said:

Do you print them on speculation? What size?

--
BillG

Click to expand...

Yes Bill, I started doing this many years ago and have a pretty good feel as to how many will be wanted or sold - usually about 5 per cast member on the average. Also about 50% want 8x10 cast pictures. I take the photos during dress rehersals and then put the prints on a big table in the lobby during the play. Its an honor system, I just put a coffee can in the middle of the table with a sign " Take picture & put money in can" On the can it says Small $1, Medium$2, and Large $5. The sizes are 3.5x5 , 5x7 & 8x10 .

Usually a few disappear but thats OK - some of the kids just don't have much money. And I always have a few left over, but somehow I always recover my printing costs plus a very few dollars. While taking the photos I pay particular attention to trying to get all of the actors at a time they will look like the center of attention on the stage. It's real easy to capture the "stars", but its kind of hard to get the background players at just the right moment. I usually watch the play in practice beforehand so that I can move to just the right place as I am taking the pictures. Bye the way I am finding digital to be much better than film for this difficult lighting. beforehand

Steve
I had to move up when I couldn't get flash bulbs for the Brownie anymore.