So Much For L Lens Values

I bought my L glass because in my view it's the best for my needs, and the glass I have I needed, never consider re-sale value or it as an investment, it's a cost for the equipment I need.

Man, $200 for couple of years of usage, that is very cheap rental IMHO. Should have picked up some superteles some yrs back if you wanted to make some money on glass. Enjoy what you have and dont worry too much.

I'm not certain how folks are chalking this up as Canon is some kind of victim.

Competition is good for Canon as well as its competitors. Canon can't sit back on its laurel's and rake in the cache. It must continue to develop innovative, high quality products at a competitive price to survive.

May Tamron, Sigma etc continue to develop good glass to help keep prices down.

davidc502 wrote in post #16587026
I'm not certain how folks are chalking this up as Canon is some kind of victim.

Competition is good for Canon as well as its competitors. Canon can't sit back on its laurel's and rake in the cache. It must continue to develop innovative, high quality products at a competitive price to survive.

May Tamron, Sigma etc continue to develop good glass to help keep prices down.

Ok, and just how is this good for Canon?

Not really bothered by the resale value of lenses. Like others have posted, I buy lenses to use with my camera. Of course, I've sold a few lenses and I have "lost" some money...but the photos I was able to take with them will remain...and that's not really something that can be quantified.

I agree that lenses should be used and not bought as an investment. However, when I have paid used prices in the past that were very close to retail and was told that's the way it is, these things hold thier value etc. only to see those prices plummet in a short amount of time, it kind of ticks you off. The Canon 35L has been around a long time with the used price the same for years, then suddenly, it drops $300 + almost overnight. That's $300 out of my pocket. There's no one that can say they would be happy about that. Same with the 24-105. I know it's a kit lens, but it was always a kit lens and still went for $900 on the used market. I just saw one on our local Kijijji, which is notorious for over priced lenses going for $650 and it's only a couple of months old!

I know Sigma has just released thier own 24-105 but it has just come out and I don't think its garnering the same stellar reviews as the Sigma 35 ART. So what explains the drop in the Canon 24-105 prices?

Steve Campbell wrote in post #16587671
I know Sigma has just released thier own 24-105 but it has just come out and I don't think its garnering the same stellar reviews as the Sigma 35 ART. So what explains the drop in the Canon 24-105 prices?

Supply and demand

Steve Campbell wrote in post #16587671
So what explains the drop in the Canon 24-105 prices?

The 5DIII and 6D kits. Many people buying the 6D as their first FF as a kit and selling off the lens for a bit of extra money, same with people upgrading to the 5DIII who may already have the 24-105 if they are coming from another FF body.

Sirrith wrote in post #16587735
The 5DIII and 6D kits. Many people buying the 6D as their first FF as a kit and selling off the lens for a bit of extra money, same with people upgrading to the 5DIII who may already have the 24-105 if they are coming from another FF body.

I guess so eh? However, when bought in a 5DIII or 6D kit, what is the price of the lens compared to buying the body only? I know the lens is a good deal when bought as a kit, but do you get one for $650? You have to pay tax also on a kit which you don't get back when you sell used. For $650 and the hassle of selling it, I'd sooner keep the 24-105, as it's not a bad lens and even the Sigma sells for more new.

Steve Campbell wrote in post #16587756
I guess so eh? However, when bought in a 5DIII or 6D kit, what is the price of the lens compared to buying the body only? I know the lens is a good deal when bought as a kit, but do you get one for $650? You have to pay tax also on a kit which you don't get back when you sell used. For $650 and the hassle of selling it, I'd sooner keep the 24-105, as it's not a bad lens and even the Sigma sells for more new.

You can get it for around $600. You sell it for $750ish and make $150.

Steve Campbell wrote in post #16587671
...However, when I have paid used prices in the past that were very close to retail and was told that's the way it is, these things hold thier value etc. only to see those prices plummet in a short amount of time, it kind of ticks you off...

Sellers always say this lens hold its high value

I think current AF lenses will generaly loose value over the years.
There are probably some exeptions, in case there are no real (price and quality) successor lenses.
I could imaging that the Sony STF 135 and Nikon DC 105 and 135 probably will have rising prices as soon as production is stopped ( in case no successor is available or announced).

It is quite interessting to see the manual focus lenses as comparison:
There is the Voigtlaender 125 Apo macro lens - some say it is the best longer macro lens. It seels today for more money (~1600 Euro) as it cost new (998 Euro) - back then in the year 2000 - even after inflation-adjustment.

Or see the old Meyer Trioplan 100 made since ~1960. Its price was down till probably 2009, but now it is higher than the inflation corrected price for the new lens back then.

A cheap standard Zeiss Contax 50mm f/1.7 seems to hold its used price - I got mine 20 years ago for the same price they are sold today on Ebay (completed auctions).

most L glass holds value well.

the 35L is a pretty old lens, and it held value for a long time, but now the s35 is out, and it lost a little.

24-105 got hit hard as it is always offered in deals with a camera body for cheaper than just the body only (once the lens is sold) this has driven down the value of the lens really hard.

most other L glass holds consistent value, not sure why you are mad.

It's really no different than any new vs used market. Prices of used fluctuate. Sometimes you buy low and retain value, other times the price drops out. And on rare occasions, you buy something and the price goes up. It is what it is. If you want to improve your chances of better value retention, you have to wait and be patient.

People have brought up the 24-105L. It's a lens I had been considering for almost a year. I prefer to buy used, but I also set a price I'm willing to pay for something. Many times, my buy price isn't realistic, so I either wait longer, or I may have to up my number (takes a long time for me to do that). As an example, I had set 2 prices for a 24-105; $500 for a used, or $600 for a new kit lens someone was off-loading. Six months later, I was about 20 minutes too late for one at $520. The next day, found one that was bought in a kit in December (26th) for $600. I am now an owner.
Will the price go down more, probably. Do I care? No. I got what I want, and at a price I'm happy with. I plan to keep it and use it long enough to get my money's worth even if I have to sell it for half.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, think of it as a rental cost. $300 for x number of years usage. Pretty cheap when you think of it that way.

If you only want to only buy things that go up in value, don't buy anything other than real estate or gold bullion.

Steve Campbell wrote in post #16587671
I agree that lenses should be used and not bought as an investment. However, when I have paid used prices in the past that were very close to retail and was told that's the way it is, these things hold thier value etc. only to see those prices plummet in a short amount of time, it kind of ticks you off. The Canon 35L has been around a long time with the used price the same for years, then suddenly, it drops $300 + almost overnight. That's $300 out of my pocket. There's no one that can say they would be happy about that. Same with the 24-105. I know it's a kit lens, but it was always a kit lens and still went for $900 on the used market. I just saw one on our local Kijijji, which is notorious for over priced lenses going for $650 and it's only a couple of months old!

I know Sigma has just released thier own 24-105 but it has just come out and I don't think its garnering the same stellar reviews as the Sigma 35 ART. So what explains the drop in the Canon 24-105 prices?

Still $300 for how many years? Try renting one for a month and see how much it costs.

Look at your 300mm f2.8 IS. How much you paid for it and how you can sell it for right now. I bet almost same if not more than what you paid.

drive_75 wrote in post #16586528
It's not a trend. Every lens have it's place. Like you, I bought my 35L used two years ago. I watched the used market for a long time and the price was always around $1150-$1250. The price like you said is now around $850-$950. Yes the Sigma 35mm was the reason for the price drop. I don't see the same thing for any other "L" lens. The 24-105mm f/4L is a different story. The market is flooded with that lens and hence the price drop. I don't really buy lens as an investment. I buy them to use and so what if the price drop, it doesn't really matter to me. The only time it matter is when I either sell or buy lens.

Yup. There really isn't any 3rd party equivalent to the 24-105; it's just that there are a ton of them out there from when people got them with their FF kits, and just don't use them that much.

Edit: I didn't know Sigma now has a 24-105 out.