Price of 40-150 f2.8 zoom is zooming

maljo --

Forgive me for presuming that my thoughts on lens portfolio acquisitions are of interest to you.  i only do this (i.e., evaluate capital acquisitions) for a living in the defense sector.  And i've been buying semi-pro photo gear for, er, 45+ years.  Did i mention that i love a deal too?

Firstly i keep a "list" on the back of my mind of lenses that might complement each of my four quite independent photog application "kits"  that i maintain.  At this point in my so-called-life (no kids; cusp of retirement) that list is, frankly, financially unconstrained.  The list evolves, and not just due to applications.  In the past decade escalating resolution demands of newer bodies have driven once-satisfactory lenses out of the portfolio for newer, better, designs for example.

But, on the other hand the list is quite finite: i'm lazy and simply won't carry or use a lot of gear.  And i already have a shelf of MF film lenses that i cannot bear to sell; i don't need another shelf queen.

Anyhoo, for lenses i don't have i more-or-less try to figure how their respective markets work.  So, for example, the 40-150 f2.8 is now a path-breaking premium lens; there is nothing on the market quite as good if you shoot Oly.  So when you see even a modest price break -- and you need it for your use -- i'd say get it.

OTOH there are other types of market situations.  I was in the market for a Panny 12-32 for my PL7 (my go-anywhere, digicam, "kit") last fall.  Hmmm.  It is often included as a kit lens, and thus there is a fairly active secondary market.  i bought a new "white box" kit-breakout for 30% off; in Nikon-land last summer i up-graded my mid-zoom for about 50% off in a similar situation.

But don't miss opportunities: i should have bought that 40-150 f2.8 to shoot my son's indoor Navy graduation last year.  i used a film-era telephoto on my EM5 instead; not the best answer and i'd pay the $1500 to have a good image of him singing the Navy hymn while starting his Navy career . . .