A good reason to buy "first-party" lenses

[tirediron]

The 60mm f2.8 AF-D micro that I bought used four years ago for $350 is now in someone else's gadget bag and my wallet is $325 dollars fatter... (And I could have sold it for $350, but I advertised it on the club's board for $25 less than the price I had on Craig's List).

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Well played! I always tell the rookies that spending the extra cash now is a quality investment ...

 

[Kerbouchard]

Possibly should be retitled to be a good reason to buy 'used', rather than 'first brand'.

Every new lens I buy, regardless of the brand, is worth less now then when I bought it.

Every used lens I have bought is still worth the same as when I bought it, regardless of the brand.

For the third party lenses, the depreciation was already taken into account when I bought it, so if you are buying used, depreciation isn't necessarily a factor(except to your wallet).

 

[usayit]

Yeh... I almost always buy used.. and has less to do with 1st versus 3rd party products

Sometimes you win

Sometimes you loose just a little.

Depreciation on new products is almost always a loose.


Purchased my Epson R-D1 refurb direct from Japan for around $1400 and sold it a few years later for $1600 on Ebay.... that's after Epson stopped making it AND offered no compelling interest in making an Epson R-D2. I have one lens that people have offered me several thousand over what I paid for around 10 years ago.

 

[sleist]

This is generally true, but some 3rd party glass also holds it's value quite well. Checking prices recently shows that my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 as well as my Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro might get me very close to my purchase price or more (bought new 2-3 years ago). I think there are also market forces at play that impact the used price of even quality Nikkor glass. If the new 11-16 ever makes it to market, that might change things for the Tokina.

My Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and 30mm f/1.4 don't seem to fair as well after a quick glance on KEH which surprises me a bit. They are considered by many to be excellent lenses. The 50mm really performs well on the D700.

The Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 doesn't hold value too well currently - a lot hitting the market lately perhaps due to DX shooters moving to the D800 and D700 (or getting ready for the D600)

New lens prices are high which really helps things - but only if you're selling. I bought the Tokina for $599 new. It sells new for $699 now and I've seen it for $730 at times. The Sigma 150 is the non OS version and you can't get that new anymore, but I bought it new for $720. The new OS version goes for $1099 new. KEH has the old non-OS version (LN-) for $849.

Sometimes a new lens release kills the price of even a good Nikkor lens. I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 new just prior to the VR2 update being released. The value of the VR1 used is now about $1400, which is $200 to $300 less than I bought it for. I still saved money over the VR2 and since I use the lens mostly on DX (and don't mind the corners on the FX D700) I figure I still made out OK.

I have no desire to sell anything though. I can't think of a single one of my 9 lenses I'd want to get rid off. I guess that's a sign I made some good choices.

 

[jake337]

I'm sure I could sell my tokina 100mm f2.8 macro for more than I purchased it used.


I don't think it's so much 1st vs third party(where's the second party at?) but more about finding the gems in the rough or fairway.

 

[Derrel]

The 60mm f2.8 AF-D micro that I bought used four years ago for $350 is now in someone else's gadget bag and my wallet is $325 dollars fatter... (And I could have sold it for $350, but I advertised it on the club's board for $25 less than the price I had on Craig's List).

Diz-actly!!!!!

 

[tirediron]

Not denying their are some stellar third party lenses (Tokina 11-16) and some relatively inconsequential first party ones (Almost any makers 18-55 kit lens), BUT I'm willing to bet that profiting or breaking even on third party gear doesn't happen too often. Besides, really I was just blowing my own horn, 'cause I thought four years of use out of a lens for only $25 was pretty darn cool!

 

[nmoody]

Although I am still very new to DSLR's I have also noticed a lot of the "good" lenses retain their value very well. Specifically the trinity ones and anything above 300mm by the manufacturer.

These lens actually retain their value so well I can hardly justify buy used for only $200 less and no warranty.

And as mentioned yes the third party's also have a few that maintain their value well, but they are not as common.

Due to this I will be investing in the Nikon trinity instead of trying to save money on third parties