Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
Showing 1 of 48 conversations about:
nelson
5275
Aug 12, 2016
bookmark_border
Compare to camera bodies, the life cycle for lens tend to be considerably longer. This is especially the case as you start to look into higher quality professional grade lenses. In fact, it is very common for manufacture to continue producing and selling same design of a lens for more than 10 years. Just to illustrate my point, the version of your Canon EF 85mm F/1.8 has been in continuous production since 1992, and it doesn't appear that a replacement is being planned any time soon.
Camera bodies, on the other hand, are refreshed, redesigned, and replaced much much more frequently. And as a result, camera bodies depreciate in value much more rapidly compare to lenses. In fact, once new camera announcements starting to make rounds for Photokina 2016 next month, we'll start to see a wave of downward pricing adjustments for second hand camera bodies.
And this is the reason why lens tend hold its value very well. If you are diligent and careful with how you buy and sell your lens, it's not impossible to not lose any money at all through this process. In which case, you basically get to use the lens for free.
This is why I am always in the state of pruning my lens line up. Whereas I definitely try to squeeze more mileage out of my camera bodies wherever I can.
Having said that, I am sure there'll be different amount of value you'll be able to derive from camera bodies vs. lenses. And that's a question only you know the answer to. But at least from the cost of ownership perspective, it's decidedly a much easier and more objective question to answer.
Aug 12, 2016
View Full Discussion
Related Posts
Trending Posts in More Community Picks