1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll - What's the most amount of money you've ever paid for a lens?

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Chrissie_Lay, Sep 22, 2016.

  1. Chrissie_Lay

    Chrissie_Lay AP Editor's PA

    Take part and cast your vote on this week's poll - What's the most amount of money you've ever paid for a lens?

  2. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I can see this generating some comments.
    My most expensive lens was my Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR 11 which was about £1,200, used, but I have a number of others that weren't all that much cheaper.
  3. Fishboy

    Fishboy Well-Known Member

    Those Nikon lenses make a fair old dent in my bank balance! My most recent purchase was the 14-24mm f2.8G bought new.

    Cheers, Jeff
  4. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    curious about the " won't admit it". Does this mean folks delete exif data for the sole purpose of hiding the lens used?
  5. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    Well, I could have truthfully answered under £3000, as under £200 (which I actually chose, being both mean and perennially skint) is included in under £500, is included in... etc.

    Whoever sets these polls needs to think a bit more about the options.
    Catriona likes this.
  6. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    So true! The other aspect is that if you do buy a lens priced higher than £3k it tends to not depreciate in value all that that quickly with time and remains a desirable item so if you get appropriate use from it then it is not bad "value" despite the high outlay.
    Catriona likes this.
  7. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    And the least? For lenses you use? Free, in my case.


  8. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    My most expensive lens is my Nikkor 17-55mm, at just over £1000. It turned out to be rather a white elephant. When I switched from a Pentax manual focus SLR system to Nikon DLSR, I realized I couldn’t have the lenses I would have wanted in a core outfit in full frame without it weighting more than I could comfortably carry for long periods, so I thought I would be permanently locked into APS-C. I take most of my shots with a mid-range zoom, so wanted the best, which seemed to be the 17-55mm.

    Then Nikon launched the D800, and I realized that it would add only a modest amount of weight to replace my D90 and 17-55mm with a D800 and 24-70mm (I chose the Tamron, as neither the Nikkor 24-70mm nor the D800 had image stabilization). Meanwhile, the D800 would capture the images from my other APS-C lenses with more MPx than my D90. So after 2½ years my 17-55mm became largely redundant.

    I’ve had problems with the Tamron 24-70mm. The first gave great resolution (I think that with the D800 locked to APS-C, it would have out-resolved the Nikkor 17-55mm at all shared focal lengths, in addition to adding stabilization). But occasionally it would lose contact with the camera, and I would get the “no lens attached” message when I tried to shoot. I returned it to Intro2020 a few times, and once they replaced the mount, which I expected to solve the problem, but it didn’t. They then exchanged it for another lens, which showed the same loss of contact with the camera, but was optically much inferior. I complained, and Intro2020 tried to improve it, but only made it worse. They’ve recently replaced it with a third lens, of intermediate optical quality. I haven’t experience loss of contact with the camera yet, but it seemed more frequent in colder weather, and as it persisted through 2 lenses and 3 mounts, I’m sceptical whether the problem has been cured. So I’m wondering whether to buy Nikon’s new 24-70mm VR, despite its great size and weight. That would be my most expensive lens by a large margin, but not disproportionately costly; it should be cheaper than my D800, never mind its replacement in Nikon’s line-up, the D810.

  9. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    $3000 or rather over £2000 for a Thambar. The great advantage of Leitz/Leica lenses is that while the price may drop for 5-15 years, then they start going up again, and they seldom lose value after that.


  10. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Think I paid about £2100 for a 70-200/2.8 IS2 which now mostly gets used for pics of my dogs playing outside. Although I did get a really nice pic of some fox cubs earlier this year from it and shots Red Kite can be identified from so I could show my Dad I had finally seen them in the wild. It was originally for shooting sports events with but the only one of those I have planned for it this year is the bairn's gymnastics club comp as a favour to the club who seem to do really well selling CDs of shots to parents (the vast majority of shots sell!). It gets me better access to shoot my kid and puts money into the club.
  11. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    I have never spent more than about £900 on a lens - I must be a cheap-skate
  12. Wheelu

    Wheelu Well-Known Member

    A Canon 24-70 f2.8 L, but it was bought for work so did not cost me a penny. Turned out to be a dreadful lens, requiring major surgery on more than one occasion, and never completely right. I now own a Canon 24-105 f4 bought much more cheaply as part of a kit, and a much better investment in every way!
  13. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    So far I haven't spent over £500 - not least because I have mostly purchased good used lenses.

    Probably the most expensive lenses I have bought were my 28mm and 70-210 Nikkor bought way back in the early '80s, if you allow for inflation over the years the equivalent today is probably well over £500...

Share This Page