Lenses as an investment??

So I have herd all the talk about Glass first. I have the money and have found that used high end glass holds it's value good. So my question is how do you make the argument to someone not into photography that lenses are a good investment..


EE: I i will in the next week finally have enough to buy the trinity and at 31 have no reason to justify what I buy but as I live at home while I am in school (Studying ministry) My parents still care enough to voice there opinion about what I buy...

They hold their value if well looked after, but rarely are you going to get more than you paid new (some rare leica lenses maybe, if you bought them 20yrs ago)

Camera bodies depreciate at a silly rate - a 3yr old body is almost worthless, but a 3 yr old lens will sell for between 50% and 75% of its new price (depending on condition, my 3yr old lenses are pretty beaten)

Glass isnt superceded every year, which is where the "invest in good glass" comes from
If you bought a cheap body and good glass, then upgraded after 5 yrs you would be better off than someone who bought a good body and cheap glass, then upgraded the body at 2.5yrs and 5yrs
You have a great body and great glass, they have a great body and average glass

You should reframe your argument. Alone, lenses are not investments. Given enough time, while sitting on the shelf, they too will depreciate, albeit at a slower rate than cameras typically. Equipment--like your time--is an expense that with any luck results in a well-honed craft and a portfolio you can be proud of. As a practical matter, if you buy lenses used and sell them before they are replaced by successors, you might break even.

See that is some of my issue. I have good bodies and some good prime glass, but my zooms are all low to mid end so.. Yea I am going to upgrade.

ThomasDidymus wrote in post #18088588
See that is some of my issue. I have good bodies and some good prime glass, but my zooms are all low to mid end so.. Yea I am going to upgrade.

OK, today words often have little real meaning. But to me, an investment is something that will give you a profit when you sell it. It is fun to upgrade gear, but it is usually a very bad investment.

If you earn any amount of money with your photography, you could call anything you buy an investment, since it'll eventually pay for itself. Even in this case lenses are the better bang for your buck because bodies will come and go, but your collection will stay.
The 70-200 f/4 IS I bought way back in 2008 is an excellently sharp lens that would have no problem resolving the sensor of the latest 5DSR; and the 24-70 2.8 II is considered to be one of the flat-out sharpest normal zooms ever, which will stay relevant in its capabilities for many years to come.

Archibald wrote in post #18088590
OK, today words often have little real meaning. But to me, an investment is something that will give you a profit when you sell it. It is fun to upgrade gear, but it is usually a very bad investment.

My guess is that you are not an 'investor'. Selling something for more than you paid for it is not ROI. Buying something that produces income is an 'investment'.

Buy a lens in 2000 for $700. Take pictures of your cat for 15 years and sell it for $800. What is your net profit? $100? NO! At today's inflation rate you lost about $220. If the lens were titled/taxable property, you'd lose even more because you'd have to pay taxes on the $100.

Use that same lens to shoot 8 weddings a year for 15 years. You may consider THAT an investment because the lens produced some income.

Bassat wrote in post #18088641
My guess is that you are not an 'investor'. Selling something for more than you paid for it is not ROI. Buying something that produces income is an 'investment'.

Buy a lens in 2000 for $700. Take pictures of your cat for 15 years and sell it for $800. What is your net profit? $100? NO! At today's inflation rate you lost about $220. If the lens were titled/taxable property, you'd lose even more because you'd have to pay taxes on the $100.

Use that same lens to shoot 8 weddings a year for 15 years. You may consider THAT an investment because the lens produced some income.

Indeed. But the OP was interested in high end glass that holds it's [Sic] value good.

Bassat wrote in post #18088641
My guess is that you are not an 'investor'. Selling something for more than you paid for it is not ROI. Buying something that produces income is an 'investment'.

I have to disagree. The word "investment" is commonly used in both senses. The expected benefit from an investment may be income, profit, or (as with some rental real estate) both. I checked a dictionary to make sure. In any case, buying lenses in the hope of selling them at a profit is a bad idea, unless you're a lens dealer and you buy wholesale.

OhLook wrote in post #18088646
I have to disagree. The word "investment" is commonly used in both senses. The expected benefit from an investment may be income, profit, or (as with some rental real estate) both. I checked a dictionary to make sure. In any case, buying lenses in the hope of selling them at a profit is a bad idea, unless you're a lens dealer and you buy wholesale.

Consider this. In 1998, I paid $2500 an acre for farmland. Today it is worth about $11,000 and acre. If I sell it, I pay income taxes on $8500 per acre. In constant dollars that $8500 is only worth $3825 (55% inflation since 1998). Yet I have to pay taxes on the entire $8500. In my tax bracket, that is about $3230. Net effect? Looks like $8500 profit on $2500 over 18 years. In reality, it is $595 on $2500 over 18 years. I spend more than that for bottled water. The real 'investment' here (rental property, essentially) is the average of $200 per acre rent I get EVERY YEAR.

Profit from sale after 18 years: $595.
Profit from INCOME PRODUCED over 18 years: $3600 (minus taxes, of course).

Current rent is just under $300/yr/acre. I make way more by letting this land produce income than I could ever make selling it. Investing is about making money. You can sell for more than you paid, and still lose money. You can lose money on a sale, and still profit from the 'investment'. Sale price has very little to do with profits, long term.

EDIT:
$595 over 18 years = 1.3% per year - NOT COUNTING 18 years of INFLATION or TAXES. Actual return is less the 0.5% / yr. I can find that kind of change in my couch.

$285 (current rent) = 11.4% per year - NOT COUNTING TAXES and 1 year of inflation. Better than long term stock market. Next to no risk. Real income.

Glass in photography is seen as a good investment over bodies as a lens is updated much less often than camera bodies.

ThomasDidymus wrote in post #18088575
So my question is how do you make the argument to someone not into photography that lenses are a good investment..

Simple, assuming that photography is a hobby for yourself just find another hobby and compare the costs.

What your arguing is that quality glass while expensive holds its value well, which it does, which means you can buy the lens, use it and not lose a whole lot of the money you spent on the lens when you come to sell it later compared to other hobbies that you could spend your money on where your not going to get the same return of funds on your purchase when you sell or upgrade the equipment.

In terms of a real investment though, no your not going to make money on them or any other electronic or technological equipment that is routinely replaced with superior versions.

Buying a lens is not an investment on it's own - it's an expense. (Ignoring collectors items here...). It's only an investment in relation to something; e.g. a business where a specific lens might bring you more income.
The higher expense might be worth it for you personally - but in your case it is NOT an investment.

And to pester you with my personal opinion: If you are in school and investing into an education that has nothing to do with photography you might want to focus on your main objective and invest your resources into that. New glass won't improve your chances for your future and you still can take stunning pictures with cheap glass.

The only lenses which might hold thier values I'm aware of is few Leica made for m-mount. Not all Leica made M lenses , but some. The rest is nothing, but tools. I went through some L glass, not an investment for sure.

Bassat wrote in post #18088650
Consider this. In 1998, I paid $2500 an acre for farmland. . .

You put up your post as a reply to mine, but I was only making a point about the meaning of the word "investment." A purchase made for profit can be an investment, just as a purchase made for income can. Either kind may turn out to be a good investment or a poor one. Both are investments nonetheless.

OhLook wrote in post #18088903
You put up your post as a reply to mine, but I was only making a point about the meaning of the word "investment." A purchase made for profit can be an investment, just as a purchase made for income can. Either kind may turn out to be a good investment or a poor one. Both are investments nonetheless.

Total agreement.