Are Second hand prices realistic

Bampson

Bampson

Suspended / Banned
Messages
131
Name
Noel
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been looking for a Nikon 24-70F2.8g for a while now and cant help but wonder why I would buy a year old secondhand lens for £900 when I could buy a brand new one for £1100.
I know the sellers would like to get as much as they can for the item but the gamble to me is not worth the slim saving.

But on the other hand if they are selling for that kind of money then i must be the only one that thinks this way ..

Just a thought, and i wonder what you guys think ??
 
I bought my used and totally mint condition 24-70 2.8 nikon on ebay for 750. you just have to wait for better deals to come along. there are plenty of them, this isnt a good time of year to buy. just before xmas you get some rediculously good deals on ebay.
 
Except you can't buy a new one for £1,100; cheapest is £1,225.
 
Nikon offer a £120 cash back so that makes it £1105..

but whats a fiver between friends ?;)
 
the savings never that great on quality second hand lenses especially if they are the current model
it's not a bad thing in my view at least when you decide to sell or upgrade the lens will still hold a good value

weather it's worth buying second hand to save a couple of hundred quid can only be answered by you personaly i'm quite happy to buy second hand and keep the change :)
 
If those prices are being achieved then the answer is yes they are realistic
 
But the best thing about selling/buying a second hand lens is watching the offers being made. Watched deals been lost over £5 on a £1000 lens FFS. And then because the lens is in a different county, they don't want to pay the postage.
 
Well, I only joined TP in August and I had always told myself I would never buy a previously used lens. After months of research I bought a new Canon 70D in December and had only the Canon 100mm f2.8L IS Macro lens on my 'definite' list and a Canon 70-200mm f4L IS on my 'later perhaps' list. Even before I visited Park Cameras to buy the 70D body only, I idly looked at TP's Classifieds with no plan whatsoever. But there was a 70-200 which was brand new and unused being a no longer wanted insurance replacement. I ended up buying it and saving several hundred pounds (I forget how many).

Then about 2 days before I was going to visit Park a Canon 100mm f2.8L came up for sale on TP Classifieds. Guess where it is now? - Yes, in my camera bag. More £00hundreds saved. Then a tripod collar for it and then a Canon 1.4x III for my 70-200 - Both on TP Classifieds.

Then just over a week ago a Canon 400mm f5.6L only 3 years old with little use came up on TP. I'm now loving it shooting birds and was able to meet the seller to check it out. Overall I have easily saved the cost of one Canon L lens - Buy 2 and get 1 free.

My conclusion is that prices on TP Classifieds are realistic - The Admin here manage it extremely well and the system of feedback keeps people honest. Would I buy from either overseas or eBay? No way!!
 
Last edited:
Ok it depends on the lens, but the better lenses usually keep their price, but Prices do vary, you've just got to use several sources from used websites, forums, eBay etc and have a rough idea of the going rate.

An example recently were several 24-70mm canon lenses, most OPs wanted £750/800 (selling for £750), but one wanted £900 for the same lens, which would you pay?
 
£200 is hardly a slim saving. For a year old, mint? quality lens then that's fine. I think there is more of an unrealistic expectation of second hand purchasers thinking they will get things at a vast discount.
 
pete.rush said:
An example recently were several 24-70mm canon lenses, most OPs wanted £750/800 (selling for £750), but one wanted £900 for the same lens, which would you pay?
Click to expand...

....It depends very much on age and condition. I would much rather pay £900 for a really mint and almost new Canon 24-70 L lens than £750 for an older more used one. £900 still offers a worthwhile saving if we are talking about the same very highly rated fast L lens. Perhaps I should check it out :D.........

But I definitely don't need a 24-70 at this time. I need a good lightweight tripod.
 
Last edited:
essexash said:
£200 is hardly a slim saving. For a year old, mint? quality lens then that's fine. I think there is more of an unrealistic expectation of second hand purchasers thinking they will get things at a vast discount.
Click to expand...

I think this is the real point how much do you actually expect to save.. your saving a fourth of the new price and as said good lens dont loose value that much.

One problem is you always get someone needing to sell quickly for some reason. They sell it for alot cheaper that the going used price which means everyone expects that to be the new price . Even though any sold just before were the higher price.
Ive noticed this alot in the nikon sales especially. . The d700 the d800 & now with the 24-70.. someone sold all his kit extremely cheap in my view including a 24-70 for only 600 a month before the going rate was 875/900 now there people posting back to that thread trying to price compair.
 
It depends where you are looking at what for.
On here and on POTN the asking prices are sensible,on Ebay depending on the lens in many cases they are not.
But in a lot of cases that is due to a deliberate attempt at fraud which relies on the buyer not having done their homework or asking the right question.
This is particularly noticeable for Canon lenses where both a Mk1 and Mk2 exist,frequently a Mk1 will have a starting or BIN price not far off a Mk2 ,( the 24mm TS-E is a classic case ), where if as a buyer you don't ask the question, which is it? or the date code you will get conned.
And if you do ask you will not get a reply and your question will not appear on the listing.
Basically if it looks wrong it probably is. The easiest way is to look what a reputable dealer is selling one for and adjust accordingly
 
Depends what you want and how important your money is to you and the risk/benefit of the deal.
You can get a brand new 'grey import' for £1049 or from a Nikon Dealer with 2 year-warranty for £1245 ... risk/benefit.
Or you can get one used for £850-£950 maybe ... is the risk worth it? Is it a chance to get the lens you want significantly cheaper? ... risk/benefit.

I would say that some sellers do appear to try it on ... what does 'mint' mean for example?
Is 'mint' a 3rd-hand lens with heavy marks on the mounting plate and wear on the rubbers ... is it 'mint except for a small scratch on the glass', or 'mint apart from the broken xxxxx'?

Risk/benefit and a clear understanding of what you are buying could save you money ... or disappointment :)
 
tijuana taxi said:
If those prices are being achieved then the answer is yes they are realistic
Click to expand...
Precisely. It's a market, so if people are paying that sort of money they consider it worthwhile. If they didn't, they wouldn't buy at that price point.
 
Alternatively some lenses sell much cheaper second hand
New 24-70 f/2.8 £1225 - used £900 (ish)
New 17-55 f/2.8 £1060 - used £600ish!
i know everybody is selling their DX lenses for full frame but that represents (comparitively) amazing value :)
 
maybe its just me but for a 20% saving on a second hand item, with only the sellers word that it is "mint" and no come backs .
i would rather the peace of mind that extra 20% will bring..
 
Bampson said:
maybe its just me but for a 20% saving on a second hand item, with only the sellers word that it is "mint" and no come backs .
i would rather the peace of mind that extra 20% will bring..
Click to expand...

....That's what I used to think but after separately buying 3 Canon L lenses from TP Classifieds I now feel differently. I doubt if I would buy secondhand from elsewhere though.
 
well i suppose the good thing is that you will be expecting to sell anything you do buy new for a susbtantial loss as your system/kit bag evolves then :)
keep an eye out for some bargains from Bampson ;)
 
Unlike a camera body a lens doesn't have components that wear in use, limiting its future lifespan and thence value, so there's little devaluation for that aspect. The number of images shot through a lens bears no relationship to its quality or anticipated life - it's as good as the day it left the factory so why should it be significantly cheaper?
 
Dave1 said:
I would have to disagree, there are a number of components that can wear in a lens, (gears, ribbons, IS mechanism, diaphragm, coatings etc).
Click to expand...

I knew somebody would argue with that comment :-)

The moving parts within a lens are way less liable to fail than those in a body where you have life limited components - shutter and mirror mechanisms. Yes it can happen - I've had it happen to me - but the chances of component failure in a lens is small by comparison.

Used prices are determined by a number of factors but, in my experience, quality and longevity are pretty high on the list.

YMMV :-)
 
Bampson said:
maybe its just me but for a 20% saving on a second hand item, with only the sellers word that it is "mint" and no come backs .
i would rather the peace of mind that extra 20% will bring..
Click to expand...

If I were you I'd buy a new one now (i.e. before 26th January) and get the cashback. £120 off is a good deal - it's £14 less than the best ever lowest price (which was in 2010).
 
Last edited:
Some prices are realistic and others (IMO) are not.

I've been looking for a Canon 300mm F2.8 IS for a bit (and been saving up) and as Canon have launched a new version and also upped the price, the 2nd hand ones of the previous model are commanding a high price due to the new version very high price..

As my father in laws, "if you are happy with the price you have paid, then it was a good price and you've a good deal"
 
Ozei said:
If I were you I'd buy a new one now (i.e. before 26th January) and get the cashback. £120 off is a good deal - it's £14 less than the best ever lowest price (which was in 2010).
Click to expand...

I wonder if it is due for replacement soon?
 
I've bought a 24-70 F2.8L from the classifieds here, as well as a 5D2 body. Both are excellent. I was a little hesitant about buying, but checked the feedback from the vendor, did a little background checking on him and went ahead with the deal.

Both were a bit under market prices as they have been 'well used' which is possibly what has caused people to keep away from them. I know there is a premium for 'mint' kit, but I use my kit outside a lot, around off road motorsport, so keeping it mint would be a massive challenge. Why would I expect everyone else to keep their kit mint ready for resale?

HOWEVER I won't expect to pay top dollar for kit that has been well-used (there's a difference between well-used and abused). As a result, the kit I bought came with patina, which I was expecting, but is perfectly serviceable and I love it and am enjoying it a great deal, no matter that there's a bit of grit visible around the edge of the lens and the 5D2 is a bit grubby. They're only going to get grubbier over time!

At the end of the day buying second user, on well-used kit has given me access to kit I wouldn't have been able to afford if I bought new, or mint. I wouldn't hesitate to do the same again.

I've also part-ex'ed an EF-S 10-22mm lens against a 100mm F2.8 Macro through MPB, a deal which went well and swapped out a lens I couldn't use for one which has been huge fun, for a minimal outlay.

SLR kit stands pretty much alone in consumer-ish electronics because it IS serviceable and can be repaired and reconditioned. That alone is enough to give me more confidence in buying second user than anything else electronics-wise.
 
I've been after a second hand 24~70 f2.8 myself and have thought similar - they sure hold their value as a used item! I wouldn't normally worry about buying second hand but it is a great deal of money to risk.

One just sold for £675 in the classifieds that I originally offered £750 for. It was described as mint but that wouldn't be how I'd have described it with dust and marks on the focus barrel and some scuffs on the hood (all superficial). I opted for new in the end as I've recently inherited some money.
 
I bought mine 24-70 from this very same forum for 865. As new. 4 months ago. See no problems in buying from forum. Would not buy From ebay.
 
Sometimes people do ask to much for their stuff,I won't paid it might as well buy new,but saying that brought quite a few things here at good prices.
It's just a matter of checking around :)
 
Bristolian said:
The moving parts within a lens are way less liable to fail than those in a body where you have life limited components - shutter and mirror mechanisms. Yes it can happen - I've had it happen to me - but the chances of component failure in a lens is small by comparison.
Click to expand...
Buy yourself 500 lenses, use them intensively, and then tell me they don't have "life limited" components. Or maybe I've been spending £10-20,000 per year on servicing and repairs just for the fun of it?

*All* components are life limited. The zoom mechanism of a lens has a limited lifetime based on the number of operations and the engineers who designed it will know what the MTTF is. For most people it's not a concern because it's sufficiently high - but for me it is an issue. The only real difference with the shutter and mirror mechanisms is that see a lot of violent action, so they're usually the things which are likely to wear out first, and hence the MTTF of these components is likely to drive the MTTF of the camera.
 
Bampson said:
I have been looking for a Nikon 24-70F2.8g for a while now and cant help but wonder why I would buy a year old secondhand lens for £900 when I could buy a brand new one for £1100.
I know the sellers would like to get as much as they can for the item but the gamble to me is not worth the slim saving.

But on the other hand if they are selling for that kind of money then i must be the only one that thinks this way ..

Just a thought, and i wonder what you guys think ??
Click to expand...

You sell it for what people are willing to pay. Can't blame the seller.

Personally... I'd buy new with lenses. Get a warranty.
 
gramps said:
I would say that some sellers do appear to try it on ... what does 'mint' mean for example?
Is 'mint' a 3rd-hand lens with heavy marks on the mounting plate and wear on the rubbers ... is it 'mint except for a small scratch on the glass', or 'mint apart from the broken xxxxx'?
Click to expand...

If we're being accurate, 'mint' means "perfect, as it came from the factory". That is the purpose of the term, to distinguish it from merely "excellent".

An item is either mint or it's not - like you can't be a little bit pregnant.
 
StewartR said:
Buy yourself 500 lenses, use them intensively, and then tell me they don't have "life limited" components. Or maybe I've been spending £10-20,000 per year on servicing and repairs just for the fun of it?

*All* components are life limited. The zoom mechanism of a lens has a limited lifetime based on the number of operations and the engineers who designed it will know what the MTTF is. For most people it's not a concern because it's sufficiently high - but for me it is an issue. The only real difference with the shutter and mirror mechanisms is that see a lot of violent action, so they're usually the things which are likely to wear out first, and hence the MTTF of these components is likely to drive the MTTF of the camera.
Click to expand...

Stewart, your situation is different to the vast majority of camera owners so your experiences will be different too and I have no doubt that with the intensive use your lenses get you see a number of failures. The OP isn't in your situation though - or his original question would suggest he's not - so I stand by my point that one of the reasons lenses hold their value in the used market is that they don't markedly deteriorate with age or use. Look at the last two words of the sentence you quoted from my previous post - "by comparison".

Of course, all components have a lifetime and I have personal experience of designing both "up to specification" and "down to price" and how to calculate the MTTF of components and assemblies. You said it yourself, the camera body sees much more violent action which is why manufacturers give a lifetime figure for the shutter ... ever wondered why there's no similar figure for zoom or focusing actuations on a lens?
 
Pookeyhead said:
Personally... I'd buy new with lenses. Get a warranty.
Click to expand...

I have no qualms about buying second hand, or even a 40 or 50 year old lens. As someone who prefers to shoot with manual focus lenses, often with film bodies, I don't often* get a choice to buy new since Canon, Olympus and Contax aren't making FD, OM and C/Y mount lenses any more. It's not just that they're cheap, a few of the lenses I own would set you back more than many Canon Ls cost new.

Then again, one of the attractions of these lenses is that they're relatively simple purely mechanical devices and they don't have AF motors and IS mechanisms which might fail. Since I mostly use primes, there's no zoom mechanism to worry about. Fungus and sticky aperture blades. which are the main problems encountered, are fairly easy to check for.

* I do have a couple of FD primes that I bought as 'new-old stock', though they are 25+ years old :)
 
Last edited:
Musicman said:
If we're being accurate, 'mint' means "perfect, as it came from the factory". That is the purpose of the term, to distinguish it from merely "excellent".

An item is either mint or it's not - like you can't be a little bit pregnant.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm with you ... but clearly not everyone understands the term! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top