Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Chrissie_Lay, Apr 19, 2016.
This week's poll question - How much would you spend on a second-hand lens? Please cast your vote.
Who designed this poll? The first three options are not mutually exclusive.
Was the first one meant to be "Under £50"?
How long is one of these
Depends on the lens... If I want an M42 50mm lens then it's likely going to be under 50 quid but if I wanted a 500mm Canon L then I'd have to spend over a grand easy...
Pointless poll question. Depends on lens, depends on condition depends what you will use it for. Why the second-hand? Equally poinless if the adjective were "new", " pink with blue spots " etc.
It depends on the lens and how many are around. Also, where you are buying from - getting one from an established dealer is always going to be dearer than eBay but with better reassurance.
Can't see myself paying more than £500 for a used lens, having gone that far once with the Canon EF USM L 28-70 F2.8. Just recently I acquired, for the Contax G film cameras, a Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 35-70 F3.5-5.6 for £400: note the word vario, in the Contax G system we don't use vulgar phrases like zoom.
Paying more than half a grand for something used, even sold in all good faith, strikes me as too much of a risk.
I've paid in categories 2 and 3 up till now - it depended on the lens. I certainly wouldn't limit myself by saying I would only pay a price in one of those bands. If the categories had all been "up to" or "under" then I could have made a single choice.
The most I have spent on a 2nd hand lens was £250 for a Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 in Exc++ condition with 6 month warranty from a reputable dealer (Ffordes).
How much I might spend on a 2nd hand lens in the future? It depends. How much do I "need" a lens of that type, how much would it cost new, how much spare cash I have at the time, amongst other considerations.
Martin, is that just an excuse for the fact that it doesn't focus properly? Cheers, Oly
It seems, to me at least, that the poll is flawed in as much as there seems to be an implicit assumption that the responder can afford to pay up to or over a grand. Some of us have much smaller budgets - my top limit is a couple of ton. Depending on what mood Messrs Barclay and Mastercard are in.
I have paid over £1,000 for a used lens but it was still considerably cheaper than the new cost.
I agree with most others though, it is difficult to see where the question is going. I certainly wouldn't pay much over £50 for 50 f1.8 for instance but equally I wouldn't pay £1,000 for a new one either, it depends on the lens and the price for a new one.
So have I, but in my case it was a lot more than the new cost: $3000 second-hand in maybe 2008, as against £21:19:0d new in 1936. Then again, it was a good price for a Thambar of which only 3000 were ever made in the late 30s and early 40s. That's the most I've ever paid for a second-hand lens, though, by a long way.
Something I realized a long time ago was that if I stopped buying cheap lenses (and cameras) I could "afford", I could save quite a lot of money towards stuff that I really wanted and that was vastly more use. Thus my like-new 135/2.8 Tele-Elmarit, with box and papers, cost (as far as I recall) about £250: the price of a few pieces of "affordable" junk.
I am not sure this is entirely relevant but, I have seen people buy used cars at affordable prices and then complain when they are told to buy genuine spares because they are too expensive. The photographic equivalent is something like buying a top of the range body (used) then complaining that lenses are too expensive. Spending £1,000 plus on a lens to put on an entry level body makes more sense than an entry level lens on a pro body.
Very, very true. I found it hard to believe just how good an old Nikon D70 was when I tested some Zeiss primes on it for an American magazine. The 18-70 off the D70 does the Df no favours at all, though, even when I switch it to Dx format.
On the other hand, when it comes to cars "genuine spares" are not always all they are cracked up to be. Some replacement parts for my old BMW R100RS and Land Rover Series III are generally reputed to be better than the manufacturers' genuine parts; some are made by the same manufacturers, to the same standards; and some, it is true, are rubbish.
Modern high spec zooms are very complex pieces of engineering with lots of wearing parts. I've been down that road and had to lose the lens for periods at the repairer. (Do a search for pieces written by those involved in lens hire). I would be most reluctant to spend big bucks on such an animal (used) while I might shell out good money for an aged manual focus prime.
I have not voted...... as I would spend what ever was the going price of the lens I needed.
This is true of any item new or second hand.
I will rarely spend more than two thirds of the current new price on a used product.
However the more durable and long lasting a product is likely to be, the higher the percentage I might be prepared to pay.
Low cost Items I treat as disposable.
A lens that has been used by an amateur is a very different proposition from one used by a professional.
Those lenses provided for hire will generally be used extensively during the period of hire and will also be turned around quickly for the next user. I don't put my lenses to such use and I find they stand up well. The onus is most definitely on the buyer to be sure that a used lens is fit for purpose and I wouldn't, now, attempt to save money by accepting a less than mint lens.
I'd only ever buy a second hand lens if the cost to buy new was ridiculous....
Separate names with a comma.