Purchase or Lease photo equipment

[MatBin]

Talking to a work colleague today and he mentioned some of his friends who are pro photographers now lease their lenses rather than buy them, is this the reason why Canon have dropped support for "older" lenses? So in their case if the lens becomes unserviceable they just give it back and start a new lease with a newer model for not much more monthly costs, meanwhile those who either bought new a few years back or maybe second hand are left with an expensive door stop.

 

[f/1.2]

Talking to a work colleague today and he mentioned some of his friends who are pro photographers now lease their lenses rather than buy them, is this the reason why Canon have dropped support for "older" lenses? So in their case if the lens becomes unserviceable they just give it back and start a new lease with a newer model for not much more monthly costs, meanwhile those who either bought new a few years back or maybe second hand are left with an expensive door stop.

Sorry but that's pretty much nonsense. Most lease agreements especially with camera equipment require you to hand the equipment back in very good condition, even cosmetic damage can result in the leasing company billing you for the relevant repair that is required. They are generally a 36 or 48 month lease agreement.

Some pro's lease camera equipment because depending on how their business is structured there can be tax advantages for leasing versus purchase. In most cases though an outright purchase is better.

Obviously a lot of pro's short term lease equipment because there is no point equipment that is only needed for one job.

Lenses in particular would be an odd item to lease long term as they tend to hold purchase value well, they last a long time and generally new versions only appear every 6-10 years. It would make no sense to lease in this case. As an example a £1000 lens with a well known leasing company costs £42 inc vat in leasing costs 42 x even only 48 works out at £2016. With the lease the lens would have to be handed back after the 4 year period in good condition with no faults and with no cosmetic damage. The leasing company will generally offer an option for additional warranty that will cover the duration of the lease but this is at additional cost.

So one guy leases a lens and over 4 years it costs him £2016 and at the end of the 4 years he has to give it back.

Another guy buys the lens for £1000 keeps it 4 years and then sells it for for £650. The lens has costs this guy only £350 over the 4 years.

 

[MatBin]

Surely if you have taken good care of a lens and it becomes unserviceable because parts are no longer available it's not your fault it's unusable. Anyway I'm just repeating the fact my colleagues friends ARE leasing both bodies and lenses, perhaps they have cut a deal that is better than the one you have seen.
Short term lease for a specific job sounds more like rental than lease and of course that would be expensive relatively speaking.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

leasing has immediate tax advantages.
Especially when leases of equipment can be tied to match a particular contract of work.
The full costs are then known and can be linked to that contract.

A friend used to use that method when taking on time limited Printing contracts.
He leased new Printing machinery for each new contract, and terminated it at the end. He also hired printing staff on the same basis, though they were usually taken on again to cover new contracts. It was a quite a large concern and operated that way for many years. it had the advantage of fixed costs and known profit margins before a single sheet was printed.
However it was very involved in terms of logging management and admin time. He even logged all his own time in 10 minute bites.

He even knew the profitability of all his individual staff.

 

[f/1.2]

Surely if you have taken good care of a lens and it becomes unserviceable because parts are no longer available it's not your fault it's unusable. Anyway I'm just repeating the fact my colleagues friends ARE leasing both bodies and lenses, perhaps they have cut a deal that is better than the one you have seen.
Short term lease for a specific job sounds more like rental than lease and of course that would be expensive relatively speaking.

What are you on about? Parts are available for lenses for donkeys years certainly anything made by Canon or Nikon is. Your point just makes no sense at all. There are reasons why someone would choose leasing over purchasing, tax deductions, no budget to buy etc. but parts not being available isn't one of them.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In addition to leases there is also lease purchase. Where for an additional pre agreed sum, the item can be purchased at the end of the lease. This can be the best of both worlds in some situations. tax wise you can have the advantages of a lease, and a separate purchase at the end also tax saving. For items that maintain a useful life beyond their amortisation period, this allows them to be re-capitalised for a further period.

 

[f/1.2]

In addition to leases there is also lease purchase. Where for an additional pre agreed sum, the item can be purchased at the end of the lease. This can be the best of both worlds in some situations. tax wise you can have the advantages of a lease, and a separate purchase at the end also tax saving. For items that maintain a useful life beyond their amortisation period, this allows them to be re-capitalised for a further period.

Usually with lease agreements the option to buy is based on the current market value of the item at the end the lease rather than a pre agreed value. Hire purchase is where you have a pre agreed purchase price at the start of the lease however those types of finance agreements aren’t as tax efficient as a straight up leasing agreement and don’t have the same advantages.

 

[MatBin]

What are you on about? Parts are available for lenses for donkeys years certainly anything made by Canon or Nikon is. Your point just makes no sense at all. There are reasons why someone would choose leasing over purchasing, tax deductions, no budget to buy etc. but parts not being available isn't one of them.

Have a word with Kipax regarding his Canon lens and lack of parts or even that Canon won't look at it despite it being quite a recent purchase, perhaps check your facts before slamming into me?
His lens was superseded in 2011, hardly donkey's years for a 400 2.8 that cost a fortune by most people's standards.
And my point about spare parts was in relation to the lenses condition on return not about it being a reason to lease.

 

[Raymond Lin]

When you say “recent purchase” I take it you mean recently bought secondhand one that is no longer in production and likely replaced with a new mk2 as opposed to recently released Canon lens that is still in production.

I would be shocked if the parts are unavailable for a 35L mk2 but I don’t expect I can easily get my 16-35L mk1 repaired anymore.

 

[MatBin]

When you say “recent purchase” I take it you mean recently bought secondhand one that is no longer in production and likely replaced with a new mk2 as opposed to recently released Canon lens that is still in production.

I would be shocked if the parts are unavailable for a 35L mk2 but I don’t expect I can easily get my 16-35L mk1 repaired anymore.

Tony bought it new I believe and it recently failed, it was superseded by a MK2 in 2011 but is now not supported by Canon, so in effect if he had bought it just before the MK2 came out he would have only had 7 years of use before it became a door stop, not something you would expect from an expensive L lens, I believe it cost about £7k new.
Isn't the 16-35 now at version 3, so maybe it's reasonable to expect a lens superseded twice might not be supported.And we are talking about a £1500 lens.