Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
  

Archive 2014 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly

  
 
johnvanr
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


panicatnabisco wrote:
Once the mirrorless fad ends, people will rediscover the 24-105 and 17-40 and prices will go up again. This is a good time to buy L lenses


It's not a fad.



Sep 23, 2014 at 09:26 PM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


It was for me. I figured it must be good since everybody was talking about it. Not. Hated using that 2.4 million dot EVF and glad to be back to the clarity of an always on optical finder. And a nice fat grip that doesn't give me hand cramps!


Sep 23, 2014 at 09:48 PM
snapsy
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


panicatnabisco wrote:
Once the mirrorless fad ends, people will rediscover the 24-105 and 17-40 and prices will go up again. This is a good time to buy L lenses


Either that or when they invent a pill that lets us aging photographers carry 10 lbs of gear with them without breaking a sweat. Until then I think MFT and other smaller formats have a long future.



Sep 23, 2014 at 09:53 PM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


ggreene wrote:
Retro doesn't let reality get into the way of his Sony ML biases.


I spit coffee at that.



Sep 24, 2014 at 06:18 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


panicatnabisco wrote:
Once the mirrorless fad ends...


... in about 117 years. ;-)

By the way, when film was first introduced some photographers felt the same way. The same thing happened when 35mm cameras were first available. Lather. Rinse, Repeat.

Edited on Sep 24, 2014 at 10:55 AM · View previous versions



Sep 24, 2014 at 09:00 AM
Access
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


Steven Campbel wrote:
I have noticed that certain lenses and bodies seem to suddenly plummet in value, seemingly overnight. It wasn't long ago that the Canon 17-40 f4 was selling for about $700 on the used market. I see them for $500 now! I know the 16-35 f4 is the latest and greatest, but it's fairly new and sells for $1200 plus tax. The 17-40 is still over $900 new. Same with the 24-105. Yes, I know it's a kit lens and they are everywhere, but they were always that way and were still selling used for $900 regularly. Now they are
...Show more
You see this in a lot of hobbies that involve gear in some form, the 'flavor-of-the-month' club of people who flock toward the latest piece of 'hot' gear, keep it for a few months, and then sell it to afford the next big thing when it is no longer 'in'.

A bit of a misnomer because the cycle can actually last anywhere from a week to a couple of months.



Sep 24, 2014 at 09:36 AM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


panicatnabisco wrote:
Once the mirrorless fad ends, people will rediscover the 24-105 and 17-40 and prices will go up again. This is a good time to buy L lenses


Not to be too much of a jerk but mirrorless cameras are not a fad. Sony and Oly (and others) have demonstrated that excellent images can be taken without a mirror. I'm out on a limb here, but my crystal ball suggests that the SLR is starting to reach its technological EOL. Sure plenty more will be made and sold (I own and shoot the heck out of a pair of high end ones), but the nature of technological advance is to simplify and miniaturize. The flopping mirror is archaic technology. What hasn't happened yet in the non-mirror camera world is something that can respond to movement (particularly in low light) like the top end DSLR. At this point in my professional career (at least the sports reporter part of it) nothing touches the 1Dx though I'm sure Nikon's equivalent is just as good.

It's all very fashionable to bash Canon's sensor development and who knows <shrug> maybe they deserve it. I'm willing to bet a good cold beer that somewhere (quite likely within Canon as well as other places) serious work with on-chip detection/phase detection/?? is going on. Let's tell the truth. The whole mirror/shutter thingy of the SLR is probably the weakest link in its design. I mean why else is everyone so concerned about "number of clicks" when buying a used camera?

A camera without a mirror that can detect movement electronically with the same speed and resolution as current D4s or 1Dx will be a game changer. I have no special knowledge and frankly am quite happy with my gear (technique could always improve Still, even a vague sense of the history of science suggests the SLR is going the way of the hand-crank Ford or, more accurately, the manual transmission. Sure there will always be some around for some types of work, but the thrust of development is already moving to the chip/CPU interface where some serious mathematical mojo is going on.

Robert



Sep 24, 2014 at 10:28 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


^^^

+1

I think we are a ways yet from a EVF camera that can replace a DSLR for photography where capturing fast moving subjects is the issue — but what's a decade in photography years? ;-)

Clearly we are at a point where EVF cameras are viable for a lot of other things and where they provide some advantages over SLR systems for some uses.

(Like the previous poster, I combine DSLR and mirrorless cameras in my own photography.)

Dan

OntheRez wrote:
Not to be too much of a jerk but mirrorless cameras are not a fad. Sony and Oly (and others) have demonstrated that excellent images can be taken without a mirror. I'm out on a limb here, but my crystal ball suggests that the SLR is starting to reach its technological EOL. Sure plenty more will be made and sold (I own and shoot the heck out of a pair of high end ones), but the nature of technological advance is to simplify and miniaturize. The flopping mirror is archaic technology. What hasn't happened yet in the non-mirror camera
...Show more



Sep 24, 2014 at 10:56 AM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


You need an award for this post.
OntheRez wrote:
Not to be too much of a jerk but mirrorless cameras are not a fad. Sony and Oly (and others) have demonstrated that excellent images can be taken without a mirror. I'm out on a limb here, but my crystal ball suggests that the SLR is starting to reach its technological EOL. Sure plenty more will be made and sold (I own and shoot the heck out of a pair of high end ones), but the nature of technological advance is to simplify and miniaturize. The flopping mirror is archaic technology. What hasn't happened yet in the non-mirror camera
...Show more




Sep 24, 2014 at 11:04 AM
Bacalhau
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


continuing from 2 posts above, indeed the mirror slap is a "nuisance", but most of people here grew up with that sound.
If Canon comes up with a full frame mirrorless that allows current ef lenses without adapters, I will jump in.

As far as lens value/depreciation...they are tools with a life expectancy. Even if you place them inside a time capsule, they will lose perceived value.
If you just use them every time you need, and get the results you want, then they are priceless....and ever valued


Edited on Sep 24, 2014 at 11:06 AM · View previous versions



Sep 24, 2014 at 11:04 AM
boingyman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


Supply, Demand, Competition


Sep 24, 2014 at 11:05 AM
ggreene
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


gdanmitchell wrote:
I think we are a ways yet from a EVF camera that can replace a DSLR for photography where capturing fast moving subjects is the issue — but what's a decade in photography years?


The big problem for me with ML is battery life. Whether by making the EVF more efficient or developing better battery technology something has to change to make it plausible for me. Carrying around 10+ batteries and constantly switching them out to get a 2000-3000 shot football game in is going to be a PITA.



Sep 24, 2014 at 11:24 AM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


ggreene wrote:
The big problem for me with ML is battery life. Whether by making the EVF more efficient or developing better battery technology something has to change to make it plausible for me. Carrying around 10+ batteries and constantly switching them out to get a 2000-3000 shot football game in is going to be a PITA.


I get about 300 images from my Olympus E-P5 and VF-4. So yeah, batteries in pocket galore. Oddly battery life is about the same with the LCD. I'd think the EVF would require less power but it doesn't. It's one of the best EVFs but still not great for panning or fast action. I'd take that flipping mirror any day of the week over an EVF. One thing I really like about the EVF is can tilt 90 degrees.



Sep 24, 2014 at 11:34 AM
Access
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


I wouldn't compare mirrorless to a 'fad' as much as a regional phenomenon. Where I live, it is almost nonexistant; at the same time, I understand it has caught on pretty well in some parts of the world.


Sep 24, 2014 at 01:13 PM
Photon
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


Does your Canon L lose its value on the lens shelf overnight?



The market price of particular lenses will fluctuate until they are no longer used on any current camera. Then it will presumably settle at some value appropriate for collectors or niche users of antique equipment. So for example, the 24-105L for the next 1-4 years may go up and down a bit depending on market saturation (the kit lens phenomenon already described), what competitors become available, and how broad a range of cameras can use it. After 10 or 15 years, it may be worth about as much as a Minolta Rokkor 50/2 is right now. I say that as one who uses the 24-105 for thousands of paid shots each year, and just shot an event this evening using no other lenses. That, of course, is why I'm not worried about its resale value.



Sep 24, 2014 at 08:51 PM
Michael White
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


I learned a long time ago you date you camera body and marry you lenses. Meaning bodies have a short live span of maybe five year on average but lenses can have twice to four times that life. Most of the lenses mentioned are first generation digital lenses. I myself have two on the lenses mentioned and do not have plans on upgrading them as they are working well for me but I'm one of the ones waiting on the 7DII to hit the uses market


Sep 25, 2014 at 11:11 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


Michael White wrote:
I learned a long time ago you date you camera body and marry you lenses. Meaning bodies have a short live span of maybe five year on average but lenses can have twice to four times that life.


Roughly. But I hope my 1D3 keeps putting out for a while to come.

Bacalhau wrote:
If Canon comes up with a full frame mirrorless that allows current ef lenses without adapters, I will jump in.


Me too!



Sep 25, 2014 at 11:20 PM
Steven Campbel
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


I just noticed someone selling a 17-40 on POTN for $485 shipped. The lens appears to have no issues. Really? This is where the price on this lens is heading? This is a good quality L lens and people are pushing the price well under $500 now? I'm sorry but I find the way these trends happen so suddenly to be baffling.


Oct 16, 2014 at 06:26 AM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


Steven Campbel wrote:
I just noticed someone selling a 17-40 on POTN for $485 shipped. The lens appears to have no issues. Really? This is where the price on this lens is heading? This is a good quality L lens and people are pushing the price well under $500 now? I'm sorry but I find the way these trends happen so suddenly to be baffling.


Yep. And that's not the only one where the price dropped severely. Look at the mirrorless market and options combined with this technology, and you know why prices for Canon lenses are going down. The 17-40 itself is hit by this and in addition with in house competition now with the 16-35/4.



Oct 16, 2014 at 06:58 AM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Why Do Some Lenses Lose Value Quickly


OntheRez wrote:
Not to be too much of a jerk but mirrorless cameras are not a fad. Sony and Oly (and others) have demonstrated that excellent images can be taken without a mirror. I'm out on a limb here, but my crystal ball suggests that the SLR is starting to reach its technological EOL. Sure plenty more will be made and sold (I own and shoot the heck out of a pair of high end ones), but the nature of technological advance is to simplify and miniaturize. The flopping mirror is archaic technology. What hasn't happened yet in the non-mirror camera
...Show more

Fully agree here.

The whole mirror/shutter thingy of the SLR is probably the weakest link in its design. I mean why else is everyone so concerned about "number of clicks" when buying a used camera?

Shutter is still an issue in some mirrorless cameras, too. Example: The A7 has a full electronic shutter where the numbers of clicks aren't an issue whereas the A7R has a mechanical shutter which can fail at some point. Reason for this is to handle the larger file size with 36 MP and processing better with a mechanical shutter which was obviously an issue with the electronic shutter. Likely the next mirrorless camera generation will also use an electronic shutter for the higher resolution sensors.

A camera without a mirror that can detect movement electronically with the same speed and resolution as current D4s or 1Dx will be a game changer. I have no special knowledge and frankly am quite happy with my gear (technique could always improve Still, even a vague sense of the history of science suggests the SLR is going the way of the hand-crank Ford or, more accurately, the manual transmission. Sure there will always be some around for some types of work, but the thrust of development is already moving to the chip/CPU interface where some serious mathematical mojo is...Show more

Size and adaptability are the main two pros for mirrorless systems (other than lower manufacturing cost compared to a DSLR with more mechanical parts). Trend was and is to smaller camera systems if affordable. Leica rangefinder system was the best in this regard for a long time but price-wise not many were able or willing to afford it. Mirrorless now opens an alternative to the traditional rangefinder system (even many wide angle rangefinder lenses don't work well yet with mirrorless sensors but it's just the first step). It is a transition period - even Sony itself needs to find better solutions to develop smaller sized high IQ and AF-based lenses for mirrorless systems.






Oct 16, 2014 at 08:03 AM
1       2      
3
       4       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.