Canon L series lens' price depriciation

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bhaskar Karambelkar, Sep 27, 2003.

  1. hi,
    what would be a typical depriciation in percentage of a canon L series
    lens over a period of say 1-2 years.
    Assume the lens costs about 540-590$ brand new. And the used lens is
    in very good condiction.

    Just looking for some pointers to buy used lenses at the right price
    --
    bhaskar
    http://members.fortunecity.com/webpagebuilder1
     
    Bhaskar Karambelkar, Sep 27, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bhaskar Karambelkar

    Kenny Guest

    "Bhaskar Karambelkar" <> wrote in message
    news:Rwhdb.8114$...
    > hi,
    > what would be a typical depriciation in percentage of a canon L series
    > lens over a period of say 1-2 years.
    > Assume the lens costs about 540-590$ brand new. And the used lens is
    > in very good condiction.


    There are only a couple of L series lenses anywhere near that price.
    Most L glass costs over $1,000. They are not likely to lose more than
    10% of their value in the first year and again in the second. No lenses
    hold their price as well as L series do.

    Kenny
     
    Kenny, Sep 27, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. >
    > There are only a couple of L series lenses anywhere near that price.
    > Most L glass costs over $1,000. They are not likely to lose more than
    > 10% of their value in the first year and again in the second. No lenses
    > hold their price as well as L series do.
    >
    > Kenny
    >

    hi kenny,
    I was refering to the 70-200 F/4 L lens.

    --
    bhaskar
    http://members.fortunecity.com/webpagebuilder1
     
    Bhaskar Karambelkar, Sep 27, 2003
    #3
  4. Bhaskar Karambelkar

    FOR7b Guest

    >>
    >> There are only a couple of L series lenses anywhere near that price.
    >> Most L glass costs over $1,000. They are not likely to lose more than
    >> 10% of their value in the first year and again in the second. No lenses
    >> hold their price as well as L series do.
    >>
    >> Kenny
    >>

    >hi kenny,
    >I was refering to the 70-200 F/4 L lens.
    >
    >--
    >bhaskar
    >http://members.fortunecity.com/webpagebuilder1


    The best of Canon's lenses lose very little of their value. A good example
    being the non L 28-135 IS.


     
    FOR7b, Sep 28, 2003
    #4
  5. Bhaskar Karambelkar

    PiZzazZ Guest

    Buying used lens is even a better deal. If are lucky, you can get a used
    lens, used for a few years , sell it at same price.

    Over years, I have bought and sold used lens. I can tell you that they
    retain values extremely well.


    "FOR7b" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >>
    > >> There are only a couple of L series lenses anywhere near that price.
    > >> Most L glass costs over $1,000. They are not likely to lose more than
    > >> 10% of their value in the first year and again in the second. No lenses
    > >> hold their price as well as L series do.
    > >>
    > >> Kenny
    > >>

    > >hi kenny,
    > >I was refering to the 70-200 F/4 L lens.
    > >
    > >--
    > >bhaskar
    > >http://members.fortunecity.com/webpagebuilder1

    >
    > The best of Canon's lenses lose very little of their value. A good example
    > being the non L 28-135 IS.
    >
    >
    >
     
    PiZzazZ, Sep 28, 2003
    #5
  6. Bhaskar Karambelkar

    Jane Fondle Guest

    Bhaskar Karambelkar <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > >
    > > There are only a couple of L series lenses anywhere near that price.
    > > Most L glass costs over $1,000. They are not likely to lose more than
    > > 10% of their value in the first year and again in the second. No lenses
    > > hold their price as well as L series do.
    > >
    > > Kenny
    > >

    > hi kenny,
    > I was refering to the 70-200 F/4 L lens.


    That lens is not worthy of the "L" status. Frankly, it sucks my fucking ****!
     
    Jane Fondle, Sep 28, 2003
    #6
  7. Bhaskar Karambelkar

    JIM Guest

    "Bhaskar Karambelkar" <> wrote in message
    news:Rwhdb.8114$...
    > hi,
    > what would be a typical depriciation in percentage of a canon L series
    > lens over a period of say 1-2 years.


    Depreciation in the case of the Canon "L" series pretty much resides in the
    hands of the holder;) About the only way these things lose value is through
    heavy use while being put up wet.........If it hasn't been owned by one of
    those "sling-it-around-your-neck-while-running-through-the-woods" type photo
    journalists, I would have little reservation about buying a used Canon "L"
    lens. I have a couple myself and they are built tank tough. Payback usually
    comes in terms of 'weight' - the faster (2.8 or <) models can never be
    consdered lightweights. I think the 70-200 f4L, is more forgiving in that.

    I have acquired thousands of images with a couple of Canon's non L, more
    pro-sumer type lenses as well, and have yet to experience any problem
    whatever! AAMOF, my 85 f1.8 is sharper than my 70-200 2.8L except at the
    bigger lens' 135 setting! Now that little job is an under appreciated jewel
    in the Canon line, fast, light, a pure joy to use - with a Zeiss softar
    attached, it makes women think they are back in more prime days;) It's just
    not as "convenient" as that zoom I mentioned;)

    Bottom line, I suppose, in considering buying into the "L" line used; just
    don't wind up paying what you could buy it for new!! My personal rule of
    thumb buying used runs something like: $500 and under 25%-35% savings; $501
    to $1,000 becomes more product condition relevant; however, if the savings
    don't make the 20% level then, *for me*, the hassle just aint worth the
    worry - I'd rather pay the $100-$200 more for the security of the new,
    warrantied, "returnable" product!

    Sorry about the schoolhouse tome. Good luck with your purchase.

    Shoot'em up, with anything, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the rest will love you
    for it!!

    Jim
     
    JIM, Sep 28, 2003
    #7
  8. Bhaskar Karambelkar

    Jane Fondle Guest

    "Kenny" <> wrote in message news:<3f75c717$0$240$>...
    > "Bhaskar Karambelkar" <> wrote in message
    > news:Rwhdb.8114$...
    > > hi,
    > > what would be a typical depriciation in percentage of a canon L series
    > > lens over a period of say 1-2 years.
    > > Assume the lens costs about 540-590$ brand new. And the used lens is
    > > in very good condiction.

    >
    > There are only a couple of L series lenses anywhere near that price.
    > Most L glass costs over $1,000. They are not likely to lose more than
    > 10% of their value in the first year and again in the second. No lenses
    > hold their price as well as L series do.
    >
    > Kenny


    Do I detect a bit of brand bias? Asshole.
     
    Jane Fondle, Sep 28, 2003
    #8
  9. Bhaskar Karambelkar

    Jeremy Guest

    TROLL ALERT: WHO IS "JAME FONDLE?"

    x-no-archive: yes

    Just read this troll's inflammatory post, crossposted to 2 newsgroups, and
    decide for yourself. Here's one for the killfile!


    "Jane Fondle" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Kenny" <> wrote in message

    news:<3f75c717$0$240$>...
    > > "Bhaskar Karambelkar" <> wrote in message
    > > news:Rwhdb.8114$...
    > > > hi,
    > > > what would be a typical depriciation in percentage of a canon L series
    > > > lens over a period of say 1-2 years.
    > > > Assume the lens costs about 540-590$ brand new. And the used lens is
    > > > in very good condiction.

    > >
    > > There are only a couple of L series lenses anywhere near that price.
    > > Most L glass costs over $1,000. They are not likely to lose more than
    > > 10% of their value in the first year and again in the second. No lenses
    > > hold their price as well as L series do.
    > >
    > > Kenny

    >
    > Do I detect a bit of brand bias? Asshole.
     
    Jeremy, Sep 28, 2003
    #9
  10. thanks jim,
    that was very useful.
    bhaskar

    JIM wrote:
    > "Bhaskar Karambelkar" <> wrote in message
    > news:Rwhdb.8114$...
    >
    >>hi,
    >>what would be a typical depriciation in percentage of a canon L series
    >>lens over a period of say 1-2 years.

    >
    >
    > Depreciation in the case of the Canon "L" series pretty much resides in the
    > hands of the holder;) About the only way these things lose value is through
    > heavy use while being put up wet.........If it hasn't been owned by one of
    > those "sling-it-around-your-neck-while-running-through-the-woods" type photo
    > journalists, I would have little reservation about buying a used Canon "L"
    > lens. I have a couple myself and they are built tank tough. Payback usually
    > comes in terms of 'weight' - the faster (2.8 or <) models can never be
    > consdered lightweights. I think the 70-200 f4L, is more forgiving in that.
    >
    > I have acquired thousands of images with a couple of Canon's non L, more
    > pro-sumer type lenses as well, and have yet to experience any problem
    > whatever! AAMOF, my 85 f1.8 is sharper than my 70-200 2.8L except at the
    > bigger lens' 135 setting! Now that little job is an under appreciated jewel
    > in the Canon line, fast, light, a pure joy to use - with a Zeiss softar
    > attached, it makes women think they are back in more prime days;) It's just
    > not as "convenient" as that zoom I mentioned;)
    >
    > Bottom line, I suppose, in considering buying into the "L" line used; just
    > don't wind up paying what you could buy it for new!! My personal rule of
    > thumb buying used runs something like: $500 and under 25%-35% savings; $501
    > to $1,000 becomes more product condition relevant; however, if the savings
    > don't make the 20% level then, *for me*, the hassle just aint worth the
    > worry - I'd rather pay the $100-$200 more for the security of the new,
    > warrantied, "returnable" product!
    >
    > Sorry about the schoolhouse tome. Good luck with your purchase.
    >
    > Shoot'em up, with anything, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the rest will love you
    > for it!!
    >
    > Jim
    >
    >


    --
    bhaskar
    http://members.fortunecity.com/webpagebuilder1
     
    Bhaskar Karambelkar, Sep 28, 2003
    #10
  11. Bhaskar Karambelkar

    Bob Sull Guest

    Jane Fondle wrote:

    > "Kenny" <> wrote in message news:<3f75c717$0$240$>...
    >
    >>"Bhaskar Karambelkar" <> wrote in message
    >>news:Rwhdb.8114$...
    >>
    >>>hi,
    >>>what would be a typical depriciation in percentage of a canon L series
    >>>lens over a period of say 1-2 years.
    >>>Assume the lens costs about 540-590$ brand new. And the used lens is
    >>>in very good condiction.

    >>
    >>There are only a couple of L series lenses anywhere near that price.
    >>Most L glass costs over $1,000. They are not likely to lose more than
    >>10% of their value in the first year and again in the second. No lenses
    >>hold their price as well as L series do.
    >>
    >>Kenny

    >
    >
    > Do I detect a bit of brand bias? Asshole.


    Only in the crap you call replies.......
     
    Bob Sull, Sep 28, 2003
    #11
  12. Bhaskar Karambelkar

    Bob Thomas Guest

    Re: TROLL ALERT: WHO IS "JAME FONDLE?"

    On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 12:41:11 GMT, "Jeremy" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >x-no-archive: yes
    >
    >Just read this troll's inflammatory post, crossposted to 2 newsgroups, and
    >decide for yourself. Here's one for the killfile!
    >

    Who is Jane Fondle ?

    Profile:

    Male (barely) but has deeply ingrained desire to be female (thus the
    pseudonym). Unfortunately, does not have brain capacity to be female
    or .. well, anything really.

    Physical Characteristics: Small brain, small dick, may have opposable
    thumb and forefinger but is essentially a long way down the
    evolutionary tree - lowest branch.

    Interests: Writing pointless messages on newsgroups which achieve
    nothing except to indicate to the world what a total loser, loner and
    isolated misfit he actually is. Probably spray paints graffitti on
    toilet walls whilst waiting to watch real men pee.

    Friends: None

    Age: 12

    Mental Age: 3 (with apologies to offended 3 yo's)

    Employment Status: Unemployable. Last worked as an undercover agent in
    state mental institution but became indistinguishable from other
    immates.

    Future: None. Will probably become an alcoholic, live on social
    welfare and eventually die alone from either alcoholic poisoning or
    suicide. No-one will care.
     
    Bob Thomas, Sep 29, 2003
    #12
  13. Bhaskar Karambelkar

    Brothermark Guest

    Re: TROLL ALERT: WHO IS "JAME FONDLE?"

    don't feed the troll. you just fed it.
     
    Brothermark, Sep 29, 2003
    #13
  14. Bhaskar Karambelkar

    Spam Blocked Guest

    Re: TROLL ALERT: WHO IS "JAME FONDLE?"

    Jane/Monica et al thinks he/she is smart. His/her disruption of various
    newsgroups shows some slight idea of the Internet works. However the posting
    headers always points at Google via a New York City rasserver.net
    connection. If somebody had the time and patience they could easily find a
    non pseudonym posting via the same IP number and figure out who Jane is.
     
    Spam Blocked, Sep 29, 2003
    #14
  15. Bhaskar Karambelkar

    Bob Thomas Guest

    Re: TROLL ALERT: WHO IS "JAME FONDLE?"

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 02:00:51 GMT, "Spam Blocked" <>
    wrote:

    >Jane/Monica et al thinks he/she is smart. His/her disruption of various
    >newsgroups shows some slight idea of the Internet works. However the posting
    >headers always points at Google via a New York City rasserver.net
    >connection. If somebody had the time and patience they could easily find a
    >non pseudonym posting via the same IP number and figure out who Jane is.
    >
    >

    I think someone else in an earlier thread posted full details of who
    he is (I doubt that it's a woman .. this is more a childish male type
    thing. I'd suspect a teenager given the immaturity and pointless
    nature of the messages - someone who has more time than brains).

    Btw ... I agree that ignoring it is the best path, but it would also
    be good for the child to know that he'd be better off just sticking to
    wanking, as that's all this trolling amounts to. It's the sort of
    mindless activity that ends up in more serious anti-social activities
    later on.

    Bob T.
     
    Bob Thomas, Sep 29, 2003
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. zxcvar
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,701
    Dave Martindale
    Sep 9, 2003
  2. Replies:
    23
    Views:
    4,048
    bagal
    May 29, 2004
  3. Paul Moloney

    Canon Powershots: A series vs. SD series?

    Paul Moloney, Apr 12, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    429
    Dave Martindale
    Apr 12, 2005
  4. Tom

    Canon 17-85mm IS Lens vs Canon 17-40L Lens

    Tom, May 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    769
    SamSez
    May 21, 2005
  5. shofosho
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    783
    shofosho
    Jul 13, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page