ermintrude
Hinkypuff
Reged: 30/06/2003
Posts: 12524
Loc: London, UK
|
|
Hello peeple 
Im trying to renew my insurance before I go away and theyve changed it so I need to list everything separately again. I am not remotely technically minded when it comes to cameras and stuff, so have I got these right? I mean the letters and all the shenanigans, and a rough logical price for the equivalent new? Half of them are probably overpriced now? :
Nikon D70 digital body ******* £500
Nikon F80 body ******* £100
Nikon AF 35/70 2.8 D Lens ****** £600
Nikon AF-S 80/200 2.8 D ED Lens ****** £1500
Nikkor AF-S DX 18/70 G IF-ED Lens ******* £300
Nikkor AF-S 17/35 2.8 IF-ED Lens ****** £800
Nikon AF-D 60mm 2.8 Micro Lens ******* £260
Nikkor AF-S VR 70/300 G IF-ED ******* £320
Canon Powershot S3 IS Compact ********** £250
Canon Powershot G6 ********** £300
Panasonic NV-GS230 MiniDV 3CCD Camcorder ************£250
Manfrotto 055 MF4 Tripod & 322-RC2 head £300
Ive copied some of it from an old G&H certificate but Im sure I must have half of the letters wrong?
If anything looks like it ought to say something else or doesnt correspond could you let me know, ta
--------------------
   
|
aiwa_yamaha
Bambi
Reged: 09/03/2006
Posts: 1543
Loc: Devon, England
|
|
The the equipment i know, looks fine to me.
--------------------
James
|
Nod
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/04/2006
Posts: 4328
Loc: Devon, UK.
|
|
Best bet would be to get a recent copy of AP and check the prices. Oh, and the F80's only NEW replacement would be an F6...
--------------------
MATWSIJ.....
To avoid being offended, please insert apropriate smiley.
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15456
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
...
Nikon AF 35/70 2.8 D Lens ****** £600
Nikon AF-S 80/200 2.8 D ED Lens ****** £1500
Nikkor AF-S DX 18/70 G IF-ED Lens ******* £300
Nikkor AF-S 17/35 2.8 IF-ED Lens ****** £800
Nikon AF-D 60mm 2.8 Micro Lens ******* £260
...
etc.
Mmmm, nice glass! 
But I digress. One or two of the Nikon prices are a bit dubious - if you're really talking about actual replacement cost. I'd suggest that the 80-200/2.8 needs to be a good deal lower. That AFS version is no longer available, but the previous AF-D version is, as of course is the newer 70-200/2.8 VR, and they're both a lot cheaper than £1500.
OTOH, I think the only really comparable current offering to the 35-70/2.8 is the 24-70/2.8, which costs rather more than £600. The price of the 17-35mm should probably be higher too. I'd suggest checking out Grays' prices and using them as a guide, as far as is possible.
I don't really know about the non-Nikon stuff.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
  
|
ermintrude
Hinkypuff
Reged: 30/06/2003
Posts: 12524
Loc: London, UK
|
|
Quote:
Best bet would be to get a recent copy of AP and check the prices. Oh, and the F80's only NEW replacement would be an F6...
Excellent!!!  
Methinks they wouldnt be offering me new for old there then 
--------------------
|
ermintrude
Hinkypuff
Reged: 30/06/2003
Posts: 12524
Loc: London, UK
|
|
Quote:
But I digress. One or two of the Nikon prices are a bit dubious - if you're really talking about actual replacement cost. I'd suggest that the 80-200/2.8 needs to be a good deal lower. That AFS version is no longer available, but the previous AF-D version is, as of course is the newer 70-200/2.8 VR, and they're both a lot cheaper than £1500.
Ah I might have that wrong then, that's Clive's old lens.
My problem is I have no clue what the difference between AF and AF-S and AF-D is, nor wtf ED or IF are.  Mmmm is IF where it doesnt extend externally when it zooms? I have no clue what ED means...  Why are some D and some G?
Cheers, yeah Ill have a go poking around in Gray's without buying anything 
--------------------
|
ermintrude
Hinkypuff
Reged: 30/06/2003
Posts: 12524
Loc: London, UK
|
|
Quote:
the 80-200/2.8 needs to be a good deal lower. ...... 70-200/2.8 VR, and they're both a lot cheaper than £1500.
Microglobe have the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR for £1200 (reduced from 1400)
Gray's have the 80-200mm f/2.8D AF IF-ED for £779.00 , thats the one Ive got then yeah?
--------------------
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9463
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
My problem is I have no clue what the difference between AF and AF-S and AF-D is, nor wtf ED or IF are. Mmmm is IF where it doesnt extend externally when it zooms? I have no clue what ED means... Why are some D and some G?
AF is the normal system - ie AF is driven by the in-body motor. AF-S is the ultrasonic motor which is in the lens (and is much faster/quieter). AF-D means the lens will report the focus distance to the camera for use with the matrix metering (some earlier AF lenses don't).
IF means Internal focus - the lens is focused by means on a group of lenses moving inside the lens body and no the lens doesn't change length. Non IF lenses normally either extend the front part of the lens or move all the lens elements further away from the film/sensor (often simple lenses like the 28 or 50mm primes do this)
ED means glass with very low dispersion factors - very useful in lenses with large apertures as this minimises chromatic aberration better than normal glass.
D and G lenses (AF-D, AF-G or sometimes ##-###mm f3.5-5.6G (or 5.6D)) both report focus distance to the camera (as above) but G lenses don't have a mechanical aperture ring whereas the D type do. D lenses can be used right back to manual focus cameras but G lenses can't as they can only have their aperture set via the camera controls.
HTH
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15456
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
Gray's have the 80-200mm f/2.8D AF IF-ED for £779.00 , thats the one Ive got then yeah?
No - you've got the one that came after that. I know it's confusing, because Nikon dropped the AF-S 80-200 when they introduced the 70-200 VR, but they were still producing the version that preceded it (the AF-D that's priced there at £779), and they continued that alongside the VR lens. Your lens probably most nearly approximates to the newer VR one, so I think that's a fair one to estimate the replacement cost by.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
aiwa_yamaha
Bambi
Reged: 09/03/2006
Posts: 1543
Loc: Devon, England
|
|
Just to add i would never even pay £1400 for a 70-200 2.8 VR when you can get it for around £1000 on Ebay which are dealers and if you have insurance aswell, either it being camera insurance or house insurance then there you go.
--------------------
James
|
ermintrude
Hinkypuff
Reged: 30/06/2003
Posts: 12524
Loc: London, UK
|
|
Quote:
Just to add i would never even pay £1400 for a 70-200 2.8 VR when you can get it for around £1000 on Ebay which are dealers and if you have insurance aswell, either it being camera insurance or house insurance then there you go.
Eh? I know you can get things cheaper but I never know whether to list its value as high enough to make sure you get a new one or low enough to mean you pay less insurance. At the end of the day the insurance people buy at a lower rate from their preferred dealers so it's no odds to them.
Im just looking for the sensible price to value x at new for old. If I had to make a claim and they paid me in cash yeah I probably wouldnt buy a new one, but generally you dont get the cash, you get the replacement.
--------------------
|
sandyfyfe
newbie
Reged: 21/12/2006
Posts: 43
|
|
Why put the current market value, not the price you paid for them originally?
Surely if there is a loss, the insurance comapy will come to a decision about how much these things are worth, and it I wlll almost invariably be less than you put on the form anyway.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
