Is keeping unused lenses a financial loss waiting to happen?

A few years ago (aka almost a decade! I feel old) when I first joined this forum, this question would have never crossed my mind. But technology does progress quite quickly and so does time. One huge advantage about the glass we use on our digital SLRs over other electronics and their accessories/components has been how well lenses hold their resale value. This was never an issue, even as recently as 3 years back when it was Canon vs Nikon vs Sony SLRs, Olympus PENs and everybody else.

But as of late, we have all these newfangled (GET OFF MY LAWN! ) things like small interchangeable lens systems (EOS M, Nikon 1, PEN, NEX, etc) which have taken off and will probably eclipse 'main' SLR system in both sales and marketshare in the coming years. Then there are things like super high-resolution sensors (that 50MP Canon EOS we've talked about for years is finally here!), movie mode on DSLRs, etc which have the potential to bring another "lens system migration/extinction" like we saw with Canon moving from FD to EOS in the 80s.

Compact system cameras probably pose less of a threat to the full-sized (eco)system, much like how we still have high-end desktops in a world of high-powered smartphones and tablets. But what if [Canon/Nikon/your camera brand] announced they were going to make 50MP+ sensors exclusively from here on out (remember smartphones and pocket cameras already have 20 megapixels) and none of the current lenses can resolve such high resolutions. Or if they brought out new "photo+movie lenses" (that may or may not use a different mount) that can autofocus instantly, silently, while movies are being recorded, while you can simultaneously capture stills, 30% smaller using DO technology, while being just $800 etc that makes your $2000 70-200 IS II drop 80% in value overnight.

My 7D is still happily chugging along (it still feels new), the 5 year gap has brought little change this round, the jump from 7D>7D2 is much less significant compared to the 30D>7D and has given me little incentive to upgrade. And my primary shooter is still my 24-70 while my 70-200 hasn't been practically used for almost 18 months (though stored well and maintained). And my biggest worry is another FD to EOS like change that will render an entire lens mount obsolete - there's been enough change in technology/focus/marke​t and I fear a mount change is around the corner.

I think the answer is a resounding yes.

If you have a lens that you don't intend to use anymore, why keep it? Unless it's something like a mint 50mm f/1.0L or 1200mm f/5.6L, there'd be no financial reason or hopes of its ever becoming a collectible to justify keeping it.

-alex

EOS Man wrote in post #17440127
And my biggest worry is another FD to EOS like change that will render an entire lens mount obsolete - there's been enough change in technology/focus/marke​t and I fear a mount change is around the corner.

The FD to EF mount change was because of the physical limitations of the mount. It was a fully mechanical system,and wasn't suitable for handling all the electronics that were coming with AF, IS, electronic aperture control, ultrasonic motors etc. They did try a primitive AF system with the T80 and 3 dedicated AF lenses (FD AC mount) that would still fit on FD bodies but with MF only, but these would only work properly on bodies where you could set the aperture on the body, as they had no aperture ring on the lens.

This already meant that many old bodies couldn't use them, so it was sensible that they went the whole hog with an all-new electronic mount, rather than a cobbled together conversion of the mechanical system. Now that they have done that, they should be able to make any necessary adaptations for new tech without changing the mount for the forseeable future.

As with anything that isn't considered "art" or "collectible", your lenses will slowly decrease in value over time. In that regard it makes little sense to maintain a lens just for the sake of keeping it. If you expect to use it in the future, then it's most likely cheapest to keep the lens.

If you'd invested in lenses before the recession you could make a nice profit after. Even when some MII versions came out hte second hand prices on out of production high end lenses were fantastic.

That said anything you have will likely devalue in todays world. Most consumer goods are mass produced so they are only going to go up if they are rare, niche etc.... Now sure in 500 years time they might be worth a fortune again if kept in good condition.

That said stuff you own and use (evn if not every day) is an investment; but its reward is not typically financial. If you're in it for the fun then the reward is your enjoyment; if you're running a business then yes chances are reviewing what you do and don't use and dropping things you've really no honest need for is a valid approach.

If your photography is a business then you are already factoring in depreciation in the valuation of your lenses and camera bodies and other accessories.

If your photography is a hobby then it is all up to you as to when to sell versus keep a lens.

For me, if I already have something then it is cheaper to keep it, unless it no longer satisfies me then I will sell or donate it for whatever I can get for it.

And with that said, if you've got a $2,000 lens that you only use four times a year, and if you can sell it for $2,000 and can rent the same lens for some marginal amount then maybe it is worth it to sell your $2,000 lens while you can still get $2,000 for it. Version 1 100-400L's I'm seeing go for $850 or so now that the version 2 is out. Likewise I'm seeing EF-S 10-22's sell for $350. For those, I might still get one if I can afford it when I find a deal because I'd use them enough that renting would cost me more in the long run.

You pays your money, you takes your chances, and you do whatever works for you. It is only a "loss" if you regret your choices made.