Invest In Quality Glass? Really?

68lbs

68lbs

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,450
Name
April 2008
Edit My Images
No
Everyone tells us to "invest in quality glass". But as a newbie, it's hard to justify spending say £1k on a Lens when your camera only cost a fraction of this and seems to do the job ok.

Let's say I am looking to buy a new lens. It's price is 3x and it's a very nice lens. Does the job well, but does get some criticism regarding softness towards the edges, etc etc. Then there's another Lens. This one costs 6x, but is the dog's wotsits with extra spunk! It's 2/3 stop faster and reviewer's are peeing themselves with excitement at the quality etc.

So... If the newbie has the money, should they buy the lens at a cost of 3x, or the Lens at a cost of 6x?

Suppose they don't use the lens much and want to sell it on after 6 months. From what I can see, the lens will now be worth 2x. Would the Lens be worth 5x, or would it have depreciated at the same rate and now be worth 4x? Do you see what I am getting at? If the Lens is worth 5x, then it's cost no extra and you know that you've at least been 'testing' the best and that if you don't get on with it, then it's not a fault of the Lens. Whereas, if you buy the lens and don't get on with it, you might always be thinking "well, maybe it's the lens. I should have got the Lens".

Thoughts?
 
As a 'newbie' (hate that term!) its up to you to decide. If you think you'll get the use out of £4000 worth of L glass and think that it represents good value for you at the time, whats the problem?

Everyone has a different budget and shouldn't really be forced into spending muchos dough because someone else thinks they should.

Me, I bought a few cheap lenses then realised how nice an L series would be so I went for it. If I sold it tomorrow I'd probably get 80% of what I paid for it so for me thats great value.
 
68lbs said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think you're making a record attempt for the number of times you can use the word 'lens' in a single post! :eek:

:D



In all seriousness, I've just been through the sasme process between a lens and a Lens and, with most things I spend a fair bit of my hard earned cash on, I researched it to the point of confusion!

My underlying though though was if I'm investing in some glass that will last for a considerable amount of time, I might as well invest in the best that I can justifiably afford. As it happens, the wife told me I could justify the Lens, so that's what I bought.

The bottom line is simple. People will tell you a different thing to the next and the last, but it's down to what YOU can justify spending. If you can afford the best, then get it. If you can't, then get the best you can afford.
 
Simmotino said:
I think you're making a record attempt for the number of times you can use the word 'lens' in a single post! :eek:
Click to expand...

HE LOOSES :D

LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS.LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS.LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS.LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS.LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS. LENS.
 
get the best you can afford
Click to expand...
^ copy and paste works then:)

Sums it up really.
 
68lbs said:
Everyone tells us to "invest in quality glass". But as a newbie, it's hard to justify spending say £1k on a Lens when your camera only cost a fraction of this and seems to do the job ok.

Let's say I am looking to buy a new lens. It's price is 3x and it's a very nice lens. Does the job well, but does get some criticism regarding softness towards the edges, etc etc. Then there's another Lens. This one costs 6x, but is the dog's wotsits with extra spunk! It's 2/3 stop faster and reviewer's are peeing themselves with excitement at the quality etc.

So... If the newbie has the money, should they buy the lens at a cost of 3x, or the Lens at a cost of 6x?

Suppose they don't use the lens much and want to sell it on after 6 months. From what I can see, the lens will now be worth 2x. Would the Lens be worth 5x, or would it have depreciated at the same rate and now be worth 4x? Do you see what I am getting at? If the Lens is worth 5x, then it's cost no extra and you know that you've at least been 'testing' the best and that if you don't get on with it, then it's not a fault of the Lens. Whereas, if you buy the lens and don't get on with it, you might always be thinking "well, maybe it's the lens. I should have got the Lens".

Thoughts?
Click to expand...


The biggest difference for me is having the additional light stops. Having 1.4 or 2.8 is fantastic, just being able to effortlessly shoot in low light, and not worry about ramping up ISO.

I want to drop my bigma due to its crappy F stops. Shopuld have kept my £750 and put it towards something a lot better.

Gary.
 
Agreed, get the best you can afford. Unless you really buy badly, chances are that lens will still be with you long after the current body has been relgated to second body, sold on, or simply become obscolete in your armoury. Good glass will last a long time if looked after. Also, lenses generally depreciate at a much slower rate than a body.
 
PsiFox said:
Sums it up really.
Click to expand...

No no... that's not my point.

My point is does 'L' glass retain value better than other lenses. Because if it does, then buying it is not the 'risk' that it might be otherwise, because at the end of the day if you dont like it you're only going to loose the same ammount as if you'd bought a cheaper lens and sold that.
 
My slant on it is:

How long will you be 'Newbie' (whatever that is)???? You might be an experienced-bie in a matter of months and do you then decide to buy better glass.

I'm from the "Why muck about" school of thought that says if you can push the boat out and get the better glass, it'll be far more future-proof for your expanding experience/aspirations than the cheaper "make-do" option. Think of it like a grow suit for a baby. You wouldn't buy a single size outfit for your 3 month old would you knowing you'll need a variety of different sizes within a matter of weeks/months thus rendering the original purchase useless or surplus to your needs, and leaving you with two problems not one......(selling your obsolete lens AND chosing the new one versus just chosing the new one).

It's not what others think anyway, it's what YOU think you'll need to have and then weighing up what you can afford versus what you'll be using it for. Only you know the answers to those issues.

What you can glean from asking the question is the views of people who've been there, done that and made the mistakes before, so that you don't have to.

Also re. values. Demand drives up values or keeps them where they are... If you buy the better lens, there's always someone behind you in the pecking order who's just moving on from their 'newbie' status and is looking for the better lens. The cheaper, inferior lenses get replaced or made obsolete and as such tend to not hold their value as much amplifying my point that you make your self two potential problems rather than one by "making do" from the outset
 
When I started (other than one new one that was given to me with the camera) I got the best I could afford and secondhand as I was not certain which ones would getthe most use. I have now done a reshuffle and when the Siggy sells I will be looking for a Canon Lens with IS to replace it, but again I will be buying secondhand.

If you know what you are doing at the start or have the money to spare then find go for the good lenses, otherwise get the best you can afford and see how things go.

One day when I win the lottery I will be getting a boxful of long primes - until then I will stick to the ones I have planned :lol:
 
My 2p worth...you do get what you pay for in lenses..depends on what your aspirations are...

If you really must get the shot in low light and want the absolute best in IQ, then you really have to pay the money..

Whether you're a newbie or not, it is quite easy to "learn" the lens, in getting the best out of it, so buy now and learn in time. Nowt wrong with that!

Lenses do depreciate once used, but as has been said above, "L" glass doesn't lose that much value at all.

As my camera bag part of my profile says, I have both the Canon 300mm f2.8L IS and 70-200 f2.8L IS. They are both crackers, cost a lot of money, but IQ is awesome; bokeh is simply stunning and as for colour rendition, I was speechless and still am - completely blown away. Colours are sooo rich and contrasty.

If I do sell them (and it's a huge if) then I'll recoup most of it.

Lens far outlast the camera body, so IMHO it's very wise opinions when people say invest in glass...
 
I can't imagine why you'd be considering a purchase on the basis of getting rid of it again

Your camera will be worth sod all in 3 years, and much less still if you use it lots

A lens that's great will still be great in 10 years time, so why would you want to consider swapping it before you've even bought it? Seems :nuts: to me, but then I rarely replace anything as it was all bought as 'the best' at the time, and because of this still doesn't need replacing

BMWs cost more than Fords of a similar size/type, and in 5 years they still command at least the same price differential - quality always acts like this, so yes a great lens will hold it's value well

I always see the 'Invest in Good Glass' comment as meaning for your photography, not for your bank balance

DD
 
IF the person can afford the Lens 2nd hand then I would suggest that it's worth paying the 4-5x on that rather than the 3x for a new lens. Should the decision then be to sell the Lens, the depreciation will have been (to a large part) borne by the original owner rather than the one who got it 2nd hand. Of course, if the lens can be found 2nd hand at the same sort of %age saving then it could be worth settling for that rather than spending more.

There does come a point where diminishing returns becomes a significant factor - a Lens isn't necessarily worth twice as much as a lens - some lenses are very good in their own right with practical differences between them and the Lens equivalents being all but negated once sensible apertures are being used.

In (sort of) conclusion, if a lens does the job TO THE BUYER'S SATISFACTION, the Lens could be overkill and life's too short to worry about the colour of the barrel and the ring on the end.
 
DiddyDave said:
I can't imagine why you'd be considering a purchase on the basis of getting rid of it again

Your camera will be worth sod all in 3 years, and much less still if you use it lots

A lens that's great will still be great in 10 years time, so why would you want to consider swapping it before you've even bought it? Seems :nuts: to me, but then I rarely replace anything as it was all bought as 'the best' at the time, and because of this still doesn't need replacing

BMWs cost more than Fords of a similar size/type, and in 5 years they still command at least the same price differential - quality always acts like this, so yes a great lens will hold it's value well

I always see the 'Invest in Good Glass' comment as meaning for your photography, not for your bank balance

DD
Click to expand...


BMW and QUALITY should NOT be used in the same sentance, except this one :D

Gary.
 
Yes L glass does retain it's value better than non L, Just look at the prices of second hand examples they often go for very little below the cost of the new lens. Not sure we really needed a thread to decide this and it may have been easier if you first post just said 'do L lenses retain value better than non L'
 
EdinburghGary said:
I want to drop my bigma due to its crappy F stops. Shopuld have kept my £750 and put it towards something a lot better.

Gary.
Click to expand...



Well, if we can take your £750 as the 3x in the OP, my 170-500 cost me x 2nd hand, leaving me 2x for other purposes. Yes, it's slow but for the number of times it's been used, it was a bargain (and I'm pretty sure I could flog it on for more than x!).
 
Think of a camera and lens like a stereo and speaker system:

Crap stereo + crap speakers = crap sounds (quality limited by both being crap)
Great stereo + crap speakers = slightly better than crap sound (Although the stereo is capable of producing a great output the speakers can't produce the same quality)
Crap stereo + great speakers = better sound (the speakers can produce the best sound the stereo can deliver)
Great stereo + great speakers = Angry neighbours! (Together you get the best quality output and makes you realise that the last setup you had was rubbish)!!

In conclusion; buy the best glass you can afford. Whilst your body will date quickly and will require replacement, your lens will last you a lot longer.
 
Value and worth are relative terms.

I started with a 400D, and a little while ago, got a refurb 40D from Canon via ebay, with a 17-85is lens.

My main interest in photography is military aviation, and via here, or avaition forums, I have seen some fantastic pics, used by people who treat it as an interest, sometimes as a passion or obsession.

I hired a lens in the summer, to go to an airshow, and ok, the airshow was cancelled, but I did get some shots on the friday, which I was really happy with, people who are more experienced or knowledgeable would find fault with, or ways to improve my pics, and I would be grateful for any comments that came, but ultimately, photography is MY hobby, and when I take a pic I really like, no matter how flawed, it gives me a buzz, it makes me happy, and thats where the value and worth comes into play, if buying an L series lens (100-400 as soon as I can afford one) means the IQ of my pics improve, if seeing results of others gives me something to aim for, and aspire to, then so be it, it is clear glass makes a difference, but ultimately, learning photography , regardless of the kit will see the biggest improvement.

But only you can decide on the value or worth of something that means something to you.
 
I'm not sure that L lenses hold their value any better, at the best only to a point. These days in classifieds sections everyone manages to link to the cheapest one they've seen so they'll rarely sell for any more than that. Is the depreciation less with L lenses though? Slightly. But again it depends where you buy it and if it's new or secondhand. You could still lose a bit of money selling a new one, but a lot less if you bought it secondhand.

I have to say I love L lenses. There are certain models that really do offer great value for money, like the 20-200 F/4. The colour and sharpness is always spot on, especially noticeable when cropping at full resolution. I also own an 85mm F/1.8 lens and consider it to be of L image quality, it's great. For me the greatest feature with L lenses is the colour

Edit: I got my L lenses when I had a 400D, and I was really impressed with the huge jump in image quality from the kit lens and 50mm F/1.8.There wasn't a great deal in IQ at all when I switched to a 40D
 
EdinburghGary said:
BMW and QUALITY should NOT be used in the same sentance, except this one :D

Gary.
Click to expand...


But at least FORDS have indicators that work. :lol:

In all seriousness though, the buyer should get what they can afford.

If they can afford a second hand L glass lens, then they won't make a loss on it when it comes to selling it on, or the loss will be negligible against the price of the initial outlay. It's when buying new that the drop in price is.

E.g a lens could cost £500 new, or £300 second hand. You'd expect to still be able to sell that second hand lens on a couple of years later (If it's quality glass) for the same £300. No loss there (ignoring inflation).
 
I'm not so sure the hit on an L lens is generally that high, from first to second hand. I guess it depends who you buy it from and who you sell it to.

Ie. you could buy from Ian (Kerso) and then sell to an outlet like LCE and virtually get back what you paid for it..

One thing's for sure, for me, it's L glass or nothing....
 
DiddyDave said:
I can't imagine why you'd be considering a purchase on the basis of getting rid of it again

DD
Click to expand...

I always consider the resale value of any major purchase!

House, car, camper, camera gear. It's a risk management strategy. The better the resale value, the less risk I take, the more comfortable I am with the major purchases. It's always stood me in good stead too :)
 
I would always buy L Glass, would not buy anything else now. I have seen the light.
 
It depends on whether you are of the view that you buy lenses to fit on your camera, or camera bodies to hang off the back of your lenses, but I suppose you only adopt that line of thinking once you have made a significant investment in a system....
 
IMHO you never appreciate top glass fully till you have owned it, you always think is it really 3x better than what i have now?, sure you need to justify the outlay but once you have there is no going back, it doesn't matter what you could recoup because you would never (want to) recoup it, barring financial disasters. I have invested in my premium Nikon glass and made sure it's full frame as i intend to upgrade my body but don't intend to replace the glass for a very long time, if ever.
 
Always buy what you can afford and be happy. Don't ever overstretch yourself for something that in 2 months time you have lost the 'lust' for.











:eek:Blimey what was in that last beer. Did i really say that?:eek:
 
if you can afford it then buy it or you will always ask the question what if , probly end up buying it in the long run and costing you even more, a good tip is watch out for second hand L glass as they hold there resale value well.
 
68lbs said:
Everyone tells us to "invest in quality glass".
Click to expand...

Think about it on a 10 year scale.

A 1DsIII will be an ancient, heavy relic.

An 85mm f1.2 L will still be a phoenominal piece of glass.

I have 4 L's but I still have regrets that I havn't bought the best. I wish I had all primes instead of zooms. If I were doing it again, I would have the 14mm L instead of the 16-35L and instead of the 100-400L, I would put the money towards a 200mm f2.0L

Andrew
 
68lbs said:
Everyone tells us to "invest in quality glass". But as a newbie, it's hard to justify spending say £1k on a Lens when your camera only cost a fraction of this and seems to do the job ok.
Click to expand...

There's some back to front thinking going on there, which is understandable and it's common to newcomers. The fact is that in capable hands you wont see diddly squat difference between the shots from a camera costing a few hundred quid and one costing several thousands. You get more features in the more expensive camera, but it will still do just the same basic job. For most people who really really don't need bullet proof build quality, weatherproofing and 10 frames per second, they'd see a far greater improvement in their images with quality lenses.

It isn't just about image sharpness, it's about the multi coatings on quality glass which have a huge effect on image colour and saturation. The camera is just the basis of a system, it's the lenses which really make the difference, and it's the lenses which will still hold their price when the body is virtually worthless, and thats getting quicker and quicker these days. ;)
 
I wonder why someone would get rid of a lens after 6 months when its meant to be the dogs wotsits? In my opinion its someone with no brain or to much money.
Some L lens maybe better than their competitors although i'm not alone in finding they have been caught up in image quality and on occasion surpassed with a greatly reduced outlay.
 
I`m not sure it`s worth spending 1000 pounds on a lens, but upgrading to a quality third-party suppliers lens, such as a standard lens from Sigma or Tamron (costing up to 300 pounds) will make a huge difference.

I own a 50D and I`d never buy a Canon lens unless I really needed IS as on the whole you get far better quality for a lower price from the third party suppliers.
 
My take on this is quite simple really.

Everything has at least two arguments but as for the question about devaluation I would say that the devaluation lies in the necessity of the sale rather than the value of the lens, L or otherwise.

A forced sale is never a good idea, no matter what you sell.
 
RichieRich said:
I`m not sure it`s worth spending 1000 pounds on a lens, but upgrading to a quality third-party suppliers lens, such as a standard lens from Sigma or Tamron (costing up to 300 pounds) will make a huge difference.

I own a 50D and I`d never buy a Canon lens unless I really needed IS as on the whole you get far better quality for a lower price from the third party suppliers.
Click to expand...

If you've never owned quality oem glass then you can't, in all honesty, make a valid statement that "you get far better quality for a lower price from the third party suppliers" as that is patently not the case. You may get "more bang for your buck" with third-party glass, but that doesn't make it better, just cheaper......
 
There are loads of decent Canon lenses for reasonable money, some that spring to mind are 70-200 F4L (£350), 85mm F1.8 (£200) and of course the 50mm F1.8 (£50).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top