Denton Taylor wrote:
>
> >>Right now I can't take certain pictures because
> I don't want to throw good money after bad on the necessary
> lens. Regardless of one's feelings towards Nikon and their
> equipment, it is a fact that there is a healthy market in
> Nikon lenses. I suspect anyone paying the AUD $1220 for
> a new Zuiko 100mm f2.8 might take a bath if they ever had
> to exit the OM system. Whereas a 90mm Tamron *macro* lens
> in Nikon AF mount costs less new ($910 in Adaptall, probably
> the same in AF), can probably be found used anyway, and is
> readily saleable - not that Nikon are likely to abandon
> their mount.
> >>
>
> Wrong again.
>
> Why don't you compare new Zuiko lenses to new Nikon AIS lenses?
I didn't price those; my example came from an actual shopping
expedition. Note that the Tamron is an SP 1:1 *macro* lens.
>Yes, in
> both cases you will take a hit. That's called depreciation, and it exists
> for all products.
The point is that if I owned a Nikon, I would probably never sell lenses
and could amortize the purchase price over 20 years. If I bought
the Zuiko, and had to switch mounts for any reason I would *have* to
sell and the depreciation would only be amortized over a short time.
If I bought the Tamron Adaptall, I would be betting that manual
focus remains in wide use - unlikely, I think.
The most likely reason for having to exit a system is camera body
failure, which is why I currently own several bodies.
> Used Oly stuff has kept its value, and in many cases, increased in value.
Yes, I've made a killing on almost everything.
> There's an active market in it.
It's not what it used to be.
>If you look at both the AIS 24 2.8, and the Zuiko 24 2.8, both sell new at
>identical prices, $349.95.
> Both seem to sell used at dealers right around $300.
Hm, I've made a US $60 profit in a bit over a year on my Zuiko 24mm f/2.8.
> So they both hold their value equally well.
You overlook the much lower volume in the Olympus market. It
might take much longer to sell, and worse for me, longer to
buy an item. The real danger occurs if there is a market collapse,
e.g. if Olympus were to bring out an incompatible AF mount.
> And of course the Zuiko has that svelte package, and maybe a bit better
> optical quality as well!
The Nikkor has floating elements while the Zuiko
does not (the f/2.0 does), so on the face of it the Nikkor is better
value. BTW, I love the 24mm f/2.8 and don't mind the distortion
at all for the kind of pictures I take.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|