Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

6BQ5 · 10-13-2014, 12:16 PM

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

I'm going to go with a different line here. Our camera equipment is not so much an investment as it is a piece of consumable capital equipment. We buy lenses for a certain dollar value to mount on our cameras which cost another dollar value to produce images, photos, prints, etc. The output has value to us whether it is financial (professionals) or otherwise (hobbyists). As a hobbyist, I look at a lens and ask if the dollar value of it is worth the enjoyment I would get out of it. It's very subjective. Some lenses are worth it to me like my FA 50mm f/1.4 that I obsess over. Prices for used copies hover at around $200. IQ is great. It's FF. Other lenses are either too expensive for my budget and lifestyle or just don't interest me. Professionals will look at a system costing X dollars and see if they can produce something worth 10 * X! That's their answer to the investment question.

Lenses are mechanical devices. They spin, twist, open, and close. Over time they will wear out. It may be a very long time but that time will come. They are consumable but still durable. Lenses have a dynamic supply. More can be made. Compare all of that with gold. Gold by itself will not wear out and there's a fixed supply in the world - whether recovered or not.

cyberjunkie · 10-13-2014, 12:17 PM

There are good investments out there... for australians!

Due to super expensive shipping rates, see what happens:
Takumar 500mm f4.5 for next to nothing!

The guy who won the auction made a nice investment. Definitely.
Pristine, caps, case... for about 200 euros!

---------- Post added 13-10-14 at 09:46 PM ----------

Originally posted by cxdoo

..... neither of those (camera, lenses) can really be considered an asset (unless you're a pro earning money using them), they are not really a good thing to invest* in. This was, I believe, the OP question.

* - invest in purely financial sense. Investing your time & money in a nice hobby, which photography is, for your own pleasure is perfectly fine.

That's not absolutely and invariably true.
It is true for the average people, with average knowledge and competence, not for the few who can "sniff" how the market will develop.
It is like art. With photographic tools is the same, not much difference.
A friend of mine bought paints/drawings made by Basquiat and Herring, when the authors were alive and well, and prices very low. Now the market value probably is 50x the original investment.
Just imagine going back in time, not too long ago, just a little more than a decade, and buy soft focus large format lenses at the end of the nineties, or high-quality 16mm cine primes (TTH, Zeiss, Angenieux, Dallmeyer, etc) at ridiculously low prices, just before the advent of the NEX and the m4/3 cameras.

So the right answer is: Unlikely? YES. Possible? YES gain.

cheers

P

**Lowell Goudge** · 10-13-2014, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by cxdoo

I don't think that point is missed. It's just a matter of terminology. As neither of those (camera, lenses) can really be considered an asset (unless you're a pro earning money using them), they are not really a good thing to invest* in. This was, I believe, the OP question.

* - invest in purely financial sense. Investing your time & money in a nice hobby, which photography is, for your own pleasure is perfectly fine.

No

He asked whether considering the life time of the lens, if it was a worthwhile investment. My example shows lenses are much more worthwhile investments than cameras. I think I pretty well hit the nail on the head. Lenses outlast camera bodies in term so useful life

cxdoo · 10-13-2014, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

No

He asked whether considering the life time of the lens, if it was a worthwhile investment. My example shows lenses are much more worthwhile investments than cameras. I think I pretty well hit the nail on the head. Lenses outlast camera bodies in term so useful life

Yup, I went now to read it. I guess I chimed in once the discussion of investment value started. Or I misread it completely.

10-13-2014, 12:17 PM	#47
cyberjunkie Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Chiang Mai, Bologna, Amsterdam Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,198	There are good investments out there... for australians! Due to super expensive shipping rates, see what happens: Takumar 500mm f4.5 for next to nothing! The guy who won the auction made a nice investment. Definitely. Pristine, caps, case... for about 200 euros! ---------- Post added 13-10-14 at 09:46 PM ---------- Originally posted by cxdoo ..... neither of those (camera, lenses) can really be considered an asset (unless you're a pro earning money using them), they are not really a good thing to invest* in. This was, I believe, the OP question. * - invest in purely financial sense. Investing your time & money in a nice hobby, which photography is, for your own pleasure is perfectly fine. That's not absolutely and invariably true. It is true for the average people, with average knowledge and competence, not for the few who can "sniff" how the market will develop. It is like art. With photographic tools is the same, not much difference. A friend of mine bought paints/drawings made by Basquiat and Herring, when the authors were alive and well, and prices very low. Now the market value probably is 50x the original investment. Just imagine going back in time, not too long ago, just a little more than a decade, and buy soft focus large format lenses at the end of the nineties, or high-quality 16mm cine primes (TTH, Zeiss, Angenieux, Dallmeyer, etc) at ridiculously low prices, just before the advent of the NEX and the m4/3 cameras. So the right answer is: Unlikely? YES. Possible? YES gain. cheers P Last edited by cyberjunkie; 10-13-2014 at 08:24 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
An incredible as on CL.	Dewman	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	9	07-30-2014 10:16 PM
Error Can't upload an image as an attachment	MSL	Site Suggestions and Help	4	05-04-2012 10:32 AM
Need Help Deciding On An Investment	Xarcell	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	8	08-05-2011 02:14 PM
Why is a kit lens not as sharp as an expensive lens?	justtakingpics	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	05-22-2011 01:59 PM
Is Pentax Lenses Good For Investment?	Pentaxie	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	26	04-21-2010 09:42 PM

10-13-2014, 12:16 PM	#46
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here. I'm going to go with a different line here. Our camera equipment is not so much an investment as it is a piece of consumable capital equipment. We buy lenses for a certain dollar value to mount on our cameras which cost another dollar value to produce images, photos, prints, etc. The output has value to us whether it is financial (professionals) or otherwise (hobbyists). As a hobbyist, I look at a lens and ask if the dollar value of it is worth the enjoyment I would get out of it. It's very subjective. Some lenses are worth it to me like my FA 50mm f/1.4 that I obsess over. Prices for used copies hover at around $200. IQ is great. It's FF. Other lenses are either too expensive for my budget and lifestyle or just don't interest me. Professionals will look at a system costing X dollars and see if they can produce something worth 10 * X! That's their answer to the investment question. Lenses are mechanical devices. They spin, twist, open, and close. Over time they will wear out. It may be a very long time but that time will come. They are consumable but still durable. Lenses have a dynamic supply. More can be made. Compare all of that with gold. Gold by itself will not wear out and there's a fixed supply in the world - whether recovered or not.

10-13-2014, 07:19 PM	#48
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,892	Originally posted by cxdoo I don't think that point is missed. It's just a matter of terminology. As neither of those (camera, lenses) can really be considered an asset (unless you're a pro earning money using them), they are not really a good thing to invest* in. This was, I believe, the OP question. * - invest in purely financial sense. Investing your time & money in a nice hobby, which photography is, for your own pleasure is perfectly fine. No He asked whether considering the life time of the lens, if it was a worthwhile investment. My example shows lenses are much more worthwhile investments than cameras. I think I pretty well hit the nail on the head. Lenses outlast camera bodies in term so useful life

10-13-2014, 11:23 PM	#49
cxdoo Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Limassol, Cyprus Posts: 1,150	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge No He asked whether considering the life time of the lens, if it was a worthwhile investment. My example shows lenses are much more worthwhile investments than cameras. I think I pretty well hit the nail on the head. Lenses outlast camera bodies in term so useful life Yup, I went now to read it. I guess I chimed in once the discussion of investment value started. Or I misread it completely.

Lenses as an investment?

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!