Topic: Lens Rental vs Purchase (Read 11268 times)

edorm · « **on:** February 20, 2008, 02:24:08 pm »

I have been looking into the purchase of the Canon 500 f/4 lens but am wondering if renting the lens first would make more sense. I have exchanged emails with Paul at LensProToGo and that appears to be a good option. However, I spend a lot of time shooting migratory waterfowl and eagles. They are not on a specific schedule and reserving a lens 30 - 60 days in advance is a little bit of a crap shoot.

So I wonder if putting the money that I would have spent on rental into a purchase might make more sense. And the big concern is that my wife said to go ahead and buy. She might not be in such a generous mood in the future when I conquer my purchase jitters.

Any suggestions?

framah · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2008, 03:57:47 pm »

Your wife said to go ahead and buy???!!!

My god, man!!! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR??

When a wife says you can go buy a new toy, you better just go and buy that toy asap in case she changes her mind!!

Now... get out there and SPEND!!

Tho on a more realistic point here... renting it for a week or so would be good to let you know how it feels and whether you actually do want it or not.

Did she say you can have the new Mercedes you want??

pete_truman · « **Reply #2 on:** February 20, 2008, 04:18:44 pm »

Quote

Tho on a more realistic point here... renting it for a week or so would be good to let you know how it feels and whether you actually do want it or not.

...and you should be able to easily persuade the store to discount the lens by the rental should you decide you want to buy a lens.

Chris_Brown · « **Reply #3 on:** February 20, 2008, 04:44:56 pm »

Calculate the return on investment (ROI) to answer your question. Estimate the realistic number of days you would spend using the lens over a 2-year period (a standard time frame for most photographic investments). Calculate the rental costs for this time period. Divide the cost by the number of days. This is your rental expense.

Now calculate the total cost of ownership (lens + case + additional insurance + cost to travel with lens) and divide this by the number of days you calculated earlier.

Which one is lower?

The variables in these equations are:

Would you spend more days & weeks in the wild if you didn't have to return the lens?
Would your income increase with ownership due to longer periods of shooting?

There's probably more variables, but these are the questions I ask myself.

edorm · « **Reply #4 on:** February 20, 2008, 07:15:25 pm »

Other than a trip to Yellowstone/Tetons in June and an Alaska trip in 2009, most of my photo trips are within 30 miles of my home. These are in three national wildlife refuges, one state refuge, two national parks, and several other spots I go for waterfowl and wildlife. It's a great place to live. I don't know if I would make more photo trips if I owned the 500 lens but I certainly would take it with me much more often then if I rented a lens. Currently I use my Canon 100-400 most often. I've tried using my 1.4 II extender with this lens but I don't like the results. I understand the extender works very well with the 500.

Thanks for the replys.

edorm · « **Reply #5 on:** February 20, 2008, 07:17:34 pm »

I didn't ask for the Mercedes but I got a definite no to the BMW suggestion.

Quote

Your wife said to go ahead and buy???!!!

My god, man!!! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR??

When a wife says you can go buy a new toy, you better just go and buy that toy asap in case she changes her mind!!

Now... get out there and SPEND!!

Tho on a more realistic point here... renting it for a week or so would be good to let you know how it feels and whether you actually do want it or not.

Did she say you can have the new Mercedes you want??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176250\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ken Bennett · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2008, 05:51:22 pm »

I borrowed the 500/4 from Canon Professional Services when I had a situation which required that lens. I don't have many such situations -- but man, I wish I did. That is one sweet, sweet piece of glass. Focus is very quick, tracking is excellent, the viewfinder images is bright, and it's not really all that heavy compared to a 400/2.8 or a 600/4.

I am not a wildlife shooter, so I have no idea how well it would work for birds, etc., but for news photography, it is one nice lens.

When my spouse told me to buy the tripod I always wanted, I did hesitate -- for about 5 minutes.

Good luck.

akclimber · « **Reply #7 on:** February 21, 2008, 06:20:51 pm »

If you can find one used, you can buy it, try it out and probably sell it for your purchase price if you decide not to keep it. Kinda like a free trial period. Heck, even if you buy new, you'll only be out a few hundred if you decide to later sell it.

I own one. Use it on a 5D for wildlife/birds. Love it. Bought it used. Can't wait to try it out on a used 1D2n I just bought.

Oh, and IMO it's much, much sweeter than a 100-400...

Don't forget to budget for a good tripod and gimbal head too tho.

Cheers!

edorm · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2008, 07:03:28 pm »

I've budgeted for the Gitzo-1340, Wimberley Tripod Head II & P40 plate, and the Monostat RS16 monopod. I find myself using a monopod more than a tripod and wanted something stouter than what I own now. I could go to the import 500/4 and save a couple of hundred dollars. B&H has their own warranty program which makes the import tempting. Have I made any serious mistakes here?

Thanks

Quote

If you can find one used, you can buy it, try it out and probably sell it for your purchase price if you decide not to keep it. Kinda like a free trial period. Heck, even if you buy new, you'll only be out a few hundred if you decide to later sell it.

I own one. Use it on a 5D for wildlife/birds. Love it. Bought it used. Can't wait to try it out on a used 1D2n I just bought.

Oh, and IMO it's much, much sweeter than a 100-400...

Don't forget to budget for a good tripod and gimbal head too tho.

Cheers!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176499\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

akclimber · « **Reply #9 on:** February 21, 2008, 07:27:36 pm »

Quote

I've budgeted for the Gitzo-1340, Wimberley Tripod Head II & P40 plate, and the Monostat RS16 monopod. I find myself using a monopod more than a tripod and wanted something stouter than what I own now. I could go to the import 500/4 and save a couple of hundred dollars. B&H has their own warranty program which makes the import tempting. Have I made any serious mistakes here?

Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176511\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't see any mistakes (I use a Sidekick on a BH-55 ballhead just for the flexibility since, during the same outting, I'm often shooting landscapes, still lifes and other things that strike my fancy as well as critters but if I was primarily out for critters with the 500, I'd buy and use a full Wimberley in a heart beat!). I also find a good flash, flash bracket and Better Beamer pretty indespensible for critters.

Go for it before your wife changes her mind!

Cheers!

reillynevada · « **Reply #10 on:** February 23, 2008, 12:18:51 am »

It is a great piece of glass. I rented it for a trip to Alaska last year because I couldn't justify the cost versus amount of use. I simply don't shoot wildlife very often. Got mine from LensRentals.com, which was great. Here are some samples -- the polar bear, spruce grouse, musk ox, arctic fox, and ermine were all shot with the 500.

http://community.dcmag.co.uk/photos/spamal...gory188972.aspx

If you're going to use it with any regularity, go ahead and make the purchase -- no regrets!

Good luck.

edorm · « **Reply #11 on:** February 23, 2008, 10:54:09 am »

Your photos make me want to go to Alaska this summer instead of next. I have a nephew in Alaska who is a hunting guide and he is going to take me on a shoot prior to hunting season. I couldn't work it in this year but we're planning it for 2009.

Any comments from anyone on an import lens vs. USA?

Thanks

Quote

It is a great piece of glass. I rented it for a trip to Alaska last year because I couldn't justify the cost versus amount of use. I simply don't shoot wildlife very often. Got mine from LensRentals.com, which was great. Here are some samples -- the polar bear, spruce grouse, musk ox, arctic fox, and ermine were all shot with the 500.

http://community.dcmag.co.uk/photos/spamal...gory188972.aspx

If you're going to use it with any regularity, go ahead and make the purchase -- no regrets!

Good luck.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176818\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

framah · « **Reply #12 on:** February 23, 2008, 11:13:00 am »

Reillynevada...
I checked out the link to your site and you have one titled: Peeping Ptarmigan.

It's not a Ptarmigan. This is:

What you have is a head shot of a seagull.

Two23 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 23, 2008, 12:40:54 pm »

I personally would have no qualms about buying an import from B&H. I'd be more likely to just buy a used one though. Prices tend to be cheapest in February and then start going higher in April, on eBay.

Kent in SD

reillynevada · « **Reply #14 on:** February 23, 2008, 01:59:45 pm »

Quote

Reillynevada...
I checked out the link to your site and you have one titled: Peeping Ptarmigan.

It's not a Ptarmigan. This is:

What you have is a head shot of a seagull.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good catch. Thanks. I found that picture about three months after I got back and assumed it was a Ptarmigan.

As for the "import" lenses, I think there may be some issues with Canon regarding warranties if they need to get serviced here in the U.S. Don't quote me on it, though. I have already been wrong once today! As a result, you may want to check that out. Generally, the "USA" lens is only a few dollars more on B&H, so I have always bought the USA lenses.

Eldor · « **Reply #15 on:** February 23, 2008, 03:02:02 pm »

This is one of the (many) Canon lenses that maintains an incredibly high resale value. It might be worth seeing if you can pick up a good used one, as chances are excellent that you'd be able to sell it later for pretty much what you buy it for.

I bought mine new, and I love it. And have no plans on parting with it. I use it by itself and with 1.4 II and 2x II Canon converters with wonderful results.

I'll tell ya, after using that for awhile, you feel a 300mm f2.8L IS is TINY by comparison!

Go ahead and get one, new or used, and you won't regret it.

Cheers!

edorm · « **Reply #16 on:** February 23, 2008, 11:05:11 pm »

Thanks for all of the sound advice. I've decided to go ahead and buy rather than rent. Probably USA but I'll check around the used market first. Thanks again.

edorm · « **Reply #17 on:** February 23, 2008, 11:30:44 pm »

I did a quick check of ebay and found a used one in Japan. It was advertised as a 400mm f/4.5 but no IS; $3400.

A new one in Hong Kong for $1000 more than B&H and one in UK for $2000 more than B&H.

These were all buy now prices.

Just thought I would share.

Colorado David · « **Reply #18 on:** February 24, 2008, 12:04:57 am »

Contact Hunt's Camera in Boston and ask for Gary Farber. See what kind of price you can get from him.

Eldor · « **Reply #19 on:** February 24, 2008, 08:05:55 am »

Quote

I did a quick check of ebay and found a used one in Japan. It was advertised as a 400mm f/4.5 but no IS; $3400.

A new one in Hong Kong for $1000 more than B&H and one in UK for $2000 more than B&H.

These were all buy now prices.

Just thought I would share.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=177001\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I thought you were looking for a 500mm f4L IS... The 400 f4.5 is not in the same league at all.

For what it's worth, I live in Canada but have been buying lenses from Allan of Allan's Camera in the States for many years now. Great prices (better than B&H), and OUTSTANDING service. 888-547-2841

Good luck...

Eldor

Author Topic: Lens Rental vs Purchase (Read 11268 times)

reillynevada

reillynevada