[Thor Gunderson]

Ihave over a short time added some lenses to my precious little collection; Ihave to stop soon, but not yet...
I would like to know your opinionon the life time of these lenses.
I am asking because I havethe 'Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 HSM ii', and I now fell(for a good price) in love withthe 'Sigma 70-200 HSM ii macro' and it is hard to back up my investment of thislens, unless it under little use will last a lot of years (or has the opportunityto do so)
I have some m-lenses that’svery old, will a 'Sigma 70-200 HSM ii macro (from 2009)' last just as long?
Have a nice day

[Adam]

If you don't use the lens much, it can last for decades. I would expect the AF to be the first and only thing to break on a modern lens.

[HYS]

Lenses as an investment?

I think that's not so good idea. I mean, since now on. They are like cars or PC's.
Return your moneys if you can or just have your hobby.

[manntax]

Personally I think that the only lenses worth of having and investing in as future assets are old, manual classic and desirable ( read: rare ) lenses. At least 30+ years old, preferably in pristine condition ( especially optically ) - but that is not an essential factor. There are very few autofocus lenses that I would consider viable as an investment, and modern lenses are absolutely not on that list. They aren't made to last, prone to failures, easily knocked out of alignment etc..

So my advice is : use it or get rid of it and buy something that you actually use and enjoy

[kiwi_jono]

The other thing to consider is that if you are collecting (old or otherwise) lenses then they need to be stored carefully (dry and warm place) or they will develop a bad case of fungus. So many old lenses are lost (or at least damaged) to fungus.

[Thor Gunderson]

Thanks for the storage tips, at the moment, they are dry and warm, and I will try to keep them like this
My originaly question should maybe be more like 'is it meaningfull' insted of an 'good investment'?
I think i will go with the adwise from 'Manntax' use it or get rid of it and buy something that you actually use and enjoy
My likely conclution, get the '70-200mm 2.8' find out which fits my needs best(50-150 or 70-200) and sell the other one

[calsan]

Well, they're a better investment than betting on horses or propping up a bar.
The return you get on lenses is the photos and memories of your life and the places you've seen and people you met.

---------- Post added 10-07-14 at 02:09 ----------

FYI, my better half agrees with this reasoning. Within limits....

[bassek]

LBA is fueled by good meaningful investments.

I would get a profit out of my Sigma 180 EX, the Pentax K35/3.5 and the M85/2 if I ever would think of selling them.
And I would get a (minor) loss out of the F35-70 and the F35-105 but they are meaningful lenses to me.

The best lens I have sold was the kit lens.

Seb

[tim60]

Like most things, I would not regard buying new lenses as an investment in a collectors' item. If you buy the lens new use it, with care so you get the pleasure of it doing its prime task and hope it holds value well.


If you buy secondhand, for a good price, then someone else has taken the depreciation of it no longer being new and you might, if it is a much appreciated lens type hold the dollar value.


But remember the time value of money effect. Better off putting your money in a conventional investment. (That would be like a photographer, professional, buying the lens as a tool of trade - they earn money through using it.)


I have collected many of the old Super Takumar and SMC Takumar series. I got them recently, and consoled myself that they were an investment, because I patiently found buys that were well priced in relation to eBay closing prices, but after postage I would not get my money back unless I got near top of the market price. I got them at mean or lower price. For example, I got the 20/4.5 for a closing price of USD200 + postage. The reviews here say when it was new in the 60s it sold for USD265. The original buyer would have been better investing in almost anything else. My expenditure is only an effective investment if the market for them continues to rise through their desirability on current DSLR and smaller format cameras. And with inflation the old $265 is probably more like $1000 today - so I got the bargain. (Mine was complete with lens, both caps, hood, and cases for both the lens and hood.


While I get pleasure from having and using them, the expenditure is satisfying, but it is not really an investment. I am fairly confident I could now get my money back, but that is mainly because AUD has fallen against USD recently by about 15-20% from what it was while I was buying.

[Clavius]

A nice mechanical lens, manual focus, old or new, is a good investment. It will outlive camera system changes, mount changes, and format changes. It will not be subject to wear like with autofocus lenses. If cared for correctly, it will outlive its owner(s). I think the same even goes for autofocus screwdrive lenses. There's still not much to degrade in those. Think of the excellent limited lenses. Lenses with their own motors and their own stabilisation however, are as good a investment as the camera bodies themselves, imho.

[Kerrowdown]

Lenses as an investment?

Never, they are just part of a working toolkit, it's like collecting hammers as investment.

Get what you need to get the job done and use and enjoy them.

[spartan]

I have bought and sold many lenses....For some time I was able to make a profit but in the last 2 years I have had a hard time selling lenses, and I am talking about good lenses such as the FA*24. I would not buy lenses as an investment as it requires the system to be viable. look at the Pentax 67 lenses.. These are great glass dirt cheap since the system isreally not viable.

[goubejp]

My experience is that it can be an investment but you have to collect fine, premium, rare lenses. Out of production and produced in very limited quantities
Example, FA*300 f2.8, FA*600f4, FA*200 macro, FA*250-600, A*1200, A*200 macro...
I know that the FA*600 I own could be sold 5000 euros or more, and I have paid it less than that. In the meantime, I have enjoyed it a lot.

[Lowell Goudge]

While not an investment in the classic sense, I.e. They do not appreciate in value, good lenses last a very long time.

I bought a sigma APO 70-200/2.8 EX ( no DG means lens is before digital era) in 2003 and it is still one of my most used lenses.

Gentle use hell no . It gets all the lumps and bumps I can give it. It is on its 4th digital body.

The truth is, good lenses will outlast the camera bodies so in that respect it is better with limited funds to go over the top on lenses not cameras, but as a pure investment, no.

[VoiceOfReason]

Sometimes. I could make a profit on most of my lenses if I were to sell them for going rates.