Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 30 posts | 
by SantaFeJoe on Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:48 am
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8622
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds
What I used was only a personal example. Take another example that involves a more modern lens: in May of last year, Boulder, CO Craigslist had an excellent condition Nikon 600 f4 afs ed if lens for $3000. I have seen locally a Nikon 300 f2.8 af lens going for $1200. The Nikon 300 f4 lenses(old version) regularly appear for $400-500. Nikon 500 f4 af vr ed if lenses are also going for around $3000. Compare those to new prices. When the Nikon 500 f5.6 pf came out, people were dumping  their 500 f4 lenses to go to a lighter lens. That lens (500 f5.6 pf) was a very successful release and they were, and probably still are, hard to find. If Canon ever goes with the type of technology that Nikon and Sony use to make lighter fast lenses, you will see the value of the old lenses drop dramatically, mark my word on that! Just like with bicycles, most people don’t want to drag around a weighty anchor, especially as they get older and wiser. The ones that bragged about carrying around their beastly 800 f5.6 lenses are now talking about how they are moving to lighter lenses to save their backs and shoulders. So, my point is that as technology makes for improved VR/IS, better focusing mechanisms, silent focusing, better glass formulations, lighter materials, etc., in lenses, and cameras that produce images that can be highly cropped without losing a lot of quality, people will move forward. The need for long lenses is already being made unnecessary, to an extent, by the crop modes of high megapixel cameras? The old technology will become as the transistor radio vs. the Sony Walkman(cassette) vs. the Apple iPod vs. phones that can store 1TB of music or more, plus take photos and much, much more. Does anybody still use an MP3 anymore? That’s only the normal progression of things, only nowadays everything is progressing much more rapidly. That is not to say that the old lenses are no longer capable of producing great images, it’s only that people move on from the old to the latest and greatest. That’s human nature and, IMO, is not a bad thing! Do you know anybody that still uses an old Gitzo aluminum tripod? Most people that still use tripods have moved on to carbon fiber. Old aluminum Gitzos have very little value anymore. Many don’t even use tripods with VR/IS lenses. Weight is increasingly important to most photographers. Tripod heads are another example. Just read the recent threads here on NSN, e.g.: https://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=292897.

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by hullyjr on Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:58 pm
hullyjr
Forum Contributor
Posts: 507
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Location: Grayslake, IL, USA
As these two new RF superteles offer little over their EF equivalents (optically identical and about the same weight) I would think at these lenses will keep their value. Although I have the older 600mm Mark II it works brilliantly with OTCs and R5. Zero incentive for me to buy into the RF superteles. Plus with an EF model, you can re-attach your favorite old DSLR and remember how an optical viewfinder feels and appreciate the clunky shutter noises :P

I was hoping that they would DO versions of these focal lengths (not just the f11 versions). With the improvements in sensors do we really need such fast lenses? Faster give move flexibility but the returns are diminishing and price differentials for that one stop are daunting. Would a 600mm f/5.6 DO with built-in 1.4x make more sense? Easier to carry, half the price, etc. I'm willing to bet that Nikon's 500mm f/5.6 PF outsells all of Nikon's superteles combined.
Jim Hully
Grayslake, IL
Images now at https://www.flickr.com/photos/138068378@N06/
 

by ChrisRoss on Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:45 pm
ChrisRoss
Forum Contributor
Posts: 13182
Joined: 7 Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
I think the biggest issue for value of old super teles is availability of parts, once a few people get caught out and post on forums that their expensive super tele has become a boat anchor that tends to drop their value significantly. I recall one guy who despite being warned about the issue purchased an EOS 500mm f4.5 lens (first AF 500mm from Canon before f4 were introduced) and it was a stretch for him to buy it. The USM failed and no parts could be found so it became an expensive paper weight. That lens could not even MF without the USM in working order.
Chris Ross
Sydney
Australia
http://www.aus-natural.com   Instagram: @ausnaturalimages  Now offering Fine Art printing Services
 

by SantaFeJoe on Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:47 am
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8622
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds
Heres an example of a price on a Nikon 300 f2.8 af lens:

https://phoenix.craigslist.org/nph/pho/ ... 85191.html

$999

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by ChrisRoss on Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:31 pm
ChrisRoss
Forum Contributor
Posts: 13182
Joined: 7 Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
SantaFeJoe wrote:Heres an example of a price on a Nikon 300 f2.8 af lens:

https://phoenix.craigslist.org/nph/pho/ ... 85191.html

$999

Joe
That price is particularly low as it won't AF on newer bodies as it's not AF-S so any new camera body without an AF motor won't be able to AF with the lens.
Chris Ross
Sydney
Australia
http://www.aus-natural.com   Instagram: @ausnaturalimages  Now offering Fine Art printing Services
 

by Dan Wolin on Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:27 am
Dan Wolin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4631
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Marshall, MI
I currently have the 1DXII, the 24-70 2.8 v2, 70-200v2 and the 500v1. I am considering the switch to mirrorless next year likely with the R5 or perhaps the R3 (highly depends on price for the r3). Lens wise I would likely keep the 24-70 (as I hear it works fine on the r5/6), might replace the 70-200 since I use it a lot and keep the 500 (or get the v2 if used prices drop a lot at some point). It would be nice to add a 100-500 as I hear it is a very nice lens. I cannot justify the huge prices for the super telephoto lenses just to get marginal bumps in IQ, especially since I don’t do as much bird photography as I used to.
Dan Wolin
Marshall, MI
 

by Robert Royse on Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:30 am
Robert Royse
Forum Contributor
Posts: 269
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: Columbus, Ohio
SantaFeJoe wrote:Heres an example of a price on a Nikon 300 f2.8 af lens:

https://phoenix.craigslist.org/nph/pho/ ... 85191.html

$999

JoeThat's still a hell of a lot more than the car I was driving when that lens was made is worth now.

That lens was introduced in the 1980's I believe and even when new it sold for around $3000 I think. The fact that it can still be sold for 30% of it's original price after 35 years or so is remarkable really.  That's a hell of a lot better than the car I was driving back then!
Bob Royse
http://www.roysephotos.com
 

by SantaFeJoe on Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:41 am
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8622
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds
Robert Royse wrote:
SantaFeJoe wrote:Heres an example of a price on a Nikon 300 f2.8 af lens:

https://phoenix.craigslist.org/nph/pho/ ... 85191.html

$999
That lens was introduced in the 1980's I believe and even when new it sold for around $3000 I think. The fact that it can still be sold for 30% of it's original price after 35 years or so is remarkable really.  That's a hell of a lot better than the car I was driving back then!
Touché

But here’s another modern lens:

https://santafe.craigslist.org/pho/d/santa-fe-nikon-afs-300mm-f4-pf-ed-vr/7308501309.html

Nikon 300 f4 pf for $1150.

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by Robert Royse on Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:10 pm
Robert Royse
Forum Contributor
Posts: 269
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: Columbus, Ohio
SantaFeJoe wrote:
Robert Royse wrote:
SantaFeJoe wrote:Heres an example of a price on a Nikon 300 f2.8 af lens:

https://phoenix.craigslist.org/nph/pho/ ... 85191.html

$999
That lens was introduced in the 1980's I believe and even when new it sold for around $3000 I think. The fact that it can still be sold for 30% of it's original price after 35 years or so is remarkable really.  That's a hell of a lot better than the car I was driving back then!
Touché

But here’s another modern lens:

https://santafe.craigslist.org/pho/d/santa-fe-nikon-afs-300mm-f4-pf-ed-vr/7308501309.html

Nikon 300 f4 pf for $1150.

Joe

I guess the moral of the story is just don't buy any camera equipment. You might like it and want to use it and keep it a while and you'll never get all the money back that you spent on it.
Bob Royse
http://www.roysephotos.com
 

by natureshooter606 on Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:14 am
natureshooter606
Forum Contributor
Posts: 15
Joined: 12 Sep 2020
I've been away from my computer for a bit so it's been a few days since I've been able to visit NSN... but I have to say... I feel like I REALLY dodged a bullet with the RF 400 and 600 announcements. Seems like I've bought myself at least a few more years before my EF 600 drops a lot more in value! :-)
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
30 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group