Camera lens or body?

[akazoly]

Hello,
I have a Nikon d3100 and a 50mm f/1.8 AF-S lens (2011). I would also like to buy a telephoto lens.
Is it a good idea to invest into lenses rather than a new camera body?

I heard lenses keep their monetary value over time.
I'm wondering, for example how much does my 50mm lens worth after 5 years? Now it costs $220. Do you think the price will drop?

 

[MTVision]

Do you need a new body? If not I would buy some nice lenses then down the road buy a new body if need be.

 

[subscuck]

I wouldn't get hung up on down the road value of lenses. As long as you stay Nikon, your best glass will follow you from body to body. As they say, good glass is forever. IMO, it's always best to upgrade glass before body. Great glass will prove itself on an entry level body as well as a higher end body.

 

[KmH]

Yes, the price for a used lens will always be less than the price for a new lens, because a used lens has no warranty from the lens maker.

Nikon's warranty is not transferable, and is only valid for the original owner.

 

[akazoly]

Yes, but I think it doesn't mean my 50mm lens worth half the price after 5 years. I use my lenses with the biggest care. I never clean the glass. I use UV filters all the time.
I'm wondering how much do I loose? $50 in 5 years?

I'm asking the question because I would like to buy more lenses in the near future.

 

[flatflip]

No one knows what the future holds. Only $50 depreciation would be nice but it could as easily appreciate $50 in 5 years (again, because of uncertainty). I have been concerned about resell in many of my ventures, fore and aft photography. I try to get a good deal on whatever I purchase and I usually like what everybody else likes. That makes resell easier. I'm slow to purchase and quick to sell. That way I usually end up with something I need to keep or if I don't need it, I sell it quick while it's still new and popular, to cut my losses.

 

[Patrice]

Look at the price of used 50mm lenses and compare to their price when new, then you'll have an idea.

Common as bread lenses, from any manufacturer, seldom hold high value for very long. The higher end offerings and the 'exotics' do tend to depeciate a bit less. Only in rare instances do lenses appreciate in value.

The quick answer is that lenses are not investments in the true sense of the word. They are a depreciating item and as such don't buy them in the hope they will appreciate. The better lenses from an OEM will likely hold on to more of their original value. But don't expect an OEM lens to always outperform third party lens in this respect. Not all past and present offerings from nikon or canon are gems.

Buy a lens because you want it or need it, and can afford it. Enjoy it while you own it and don't worry too much about future worth.

 

[Bukitimah]

I think with electronics, body price will drop over time. With hardware such as glass, material cost will goes up over time. Not to forget inflation. However, your lens will not goes from $200 to $300 over the years but may not drop to $100 or less. DX lens cannot be use for FX cam. So if you stick to DX, these lenses will still be useful. I don't think there will be new lens technology soon. As to invest on lens or body, it depend if your current body meet your needs. However, your D3100 is an entry model. You may need to consider upgrade at some point

 

[TiCoyote]

Camera equipment isn't really an investment. Used stuff tends to hold its value better than new, only because it has a lower initial cost. I bought a Canon 50 1.8 refurbished, used it for a few years, and then sold it for nearly what I spent on it. After shipping and fees, I had lost a few bucks, but to look at it another way, it was the cheapest rental ever.

I have bought and sold lenses for a moderate profit, but after inflation, fees, and shipping, it's not like I'm going to build a business out of it.

The thing is, bodies are just more prone to wearing out and electronic failure than lenses are. Also, manufacturers come out with new models for the same market segments and at similar price points every 1-3 years (1 yr for consumer models, 3 for higher end stuff). Lenses, however, see rare updates. So if you buy a WhizzBang 1000 Body for $700, and next year the WhizzBang 2000 costs $725, your 1000 isn't worth nearly as much. However, a lens, in good condition, will hold value longer.

Meanwhile, say you buy a lens for $500 now, and sell it for $300 in five years. That's $40/year. Hardly a noticeable loss.

This is an overly long answer. The best advice you'll get is this: Better lenses will improve your photos more than a better body. An external flash can also be a value-oriented way to improve your photos. So is taking a class or picking up a book.

 

[KmH]

Camera bodies get updated more often than lenses do, particularly the entry-level line up of camera bodies, and bodies depreciate faster than lenses do.

The D40 was sold from the 4th quarter of 2006 until the end of the first quarter 2009 - 10 quarters in all.
The D3000 was only sold for 4 quarters, and the D3100 has been sold for 5 quarters so far. There are no rumors that the D3100 will be replaced anytime soon.

The D90 had some legs, and being Nikon's best selling DSLR ever, so far, sold for 12 quarters (3 years).

The Prosumer and Pro bodies don't get updated as often.

 

[Tomasko]

I'm wondering, for example how much does my 50mm lens worth after 5 years? Now it costs $220. Do you think the price will drop?

That's ALL that bothers you? Its price after 5 years? I wouldn't buy a single piece of photographic gear if I planned to use it only for a few years...