Lenses to Invest In

[forofilms]

I understand some lenses out there actually appreciate in value over time. 

Wanted to get your guys' feedback on which modern lenses you think might be more valuable down the road than they are today. 

[BrorSvensson]

I doubt many new electronic lenses will keep the value in the future but im sure manual lenses like the zeiss and leica lenses with always have their value.

[Andrew Reid]

I am sure if a system dies, adapters somewhere down the line will reverse engineer the electronics and make the lenses usable on newer systems.

The Samsung 16-50mm F2.0-2.8 is pretty special and the Panasonic Leica 42.5mm F1.2 I can both seeing being future rarities sought after for their looks!

[Raafi Rivero]

I don't know that any lens appreciates in value, but many will retain their value better over time due to build-quality and brand name, which props up the resale value. I'm really interested in the Veydra lenses, but unfortunately not a micro 4/3 shooter. Ditto the SLR Magic lenses. Lenses, being mechanical objects, generally retain their value better than cameras because the technology is simpler and doesn't go out of date as quickly.

I'm a big supporter of the Leica R vintage manual lenses, and own 5 of them. Mine are older, but the more recent (and more expensive) ones will maintain their value well, and kick out some amazing images. Here's a collection of pieces on vimeo where that were shot on Leica R.

[richg101]

Leica R - f2 or faster..  native e-,ount and m4/3 lenses will depreciate in value since they'll always be less adaptable than slr lenses.  personally I feel if a lens requires electronic contacts to allow it to be used, it's almost certainly gonna devalue rather than increase.

[Geoff CB]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

I am sure if a system dies, adapters somewhere down the line will reverse engineer the electronics and make the lenses usable on newer systems.

The Samsung 16-50mm F2.0-2.8 is pretty special and the Panasonic Leica 42.5mm F1.2 I can both seeing being future rarities sought after for their looks!

I think manual only lenses are the only good long term bet. I own the 16-50 and the 50-150, the fact that no one has made an electronic E-mount adapter yet for them is not a great indicator for their long term value. They are priceless on my NX1 though so I will probably use them until they are broken.

[jax_rox]

It's also almost impossible to predict if a lens is going to appreciate in value. Certainly small flange depth lenses won't hold their value as much as they're significantly harder to adapt.

Older lenses like Super Baltars and Zeiss Super/Standard Speeds, Cooke Panchros, Lomos etc. have seen their values increase hugely, thanks in part to the lust and want for 'older' glass for a specific look, now that we're trying to take the 'edge' off digital. In addition, the rarity of a lens adds significant value. Super Baltars haven't been made since the 70s. Zeiss Supers and Panchros since the 80s. One imagines that an older set of lenses that can cover and resolve 8k/full frame+, and are rather fast, will continue to appreciate in value as other sets break, deteriorate etc. 

Think back to the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s... how could anyone have predicted that old school 'soft' lenses would come back into fashion?

EF glass is unlikely to appreciate simply based on the fact that there's so many of them.

There's really no secret recipe. If everyone thought they knew what would appreciate in value, everyone would buy those lenses - which would stop them from appreciating as they'd be so common.

Think of the expensive Canon 50mm f0.95. Sure, they made around 20,000 units, but it's still a pretty rare lens - and that's why it's expensive. Compare it to the Helios 44-2, one of the most mass-produced lenses ever. Production on both cameras stopped a long while ago, and yet one can be had for $40 - the other $4,000.

[Nikkor]

I would invest in medium format glass  Carl zeiss jena is the cheapest way to get a good medium format vintage look. But they aren't rare, so I dunno if they will get up in price once the affordable beasts come out.

[kidzrevil]

new lenses resale value sucks. Idc how dope the lens is if its new they are harder to flip. These vintage lenses get sold the minute you put it up on an ebay auction especially . I bought a canon fd 50mm 1.2L for $250 nearly a year ago now I check ebay and they are going for like $600+. Old Zeiss and Leica (especially Leica) only appreciate in value. The contax zeiss 35mm f1.4 goes for the same price as the newer ze version. Those prices are only gonna go up as more people invest in mirror less cameras that can mount old, beautiful glass.

I don't see the same thing happening to any modern lens right now especially when you factor in we have a greater ability to mass produce these things than we did in the 70s...our current modern lenses will probably gain value wayyyy after our lifetime

[AaronChicago]

20 hours ago, Nikkor said:

I would invest in medium format glass  Carl zeiss jena is the cheapest way to get a good medium format vintage look. But they aren't rare, so I dunno if they will get up in price once the affordable beasts come out.

I agree. Alot of the RED Weapon users are buying them up. The prices for vintage medium format lenses are going up, right now.

[Nikkor]

3 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

I agree. Alot of the RED Weapon users are buying them up. The prices for vintage medium format lenses are going up, right now.

But Red Weapon users are very few in number and the market for medium format is very large in comparison (much larger than leica R). The prices will go up when there is the 5D equivalent of medium format (When the D3 came out, many lenses sky rocket, the 28 1.4 for example, because nikon had a poor new fullframe lens lineup).

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

The answer is:

1- Rare lenses. 

Just like any collecting philosophy. You buy rare items (for a high price now) and it still will increase in value as it gets rarer. 

2- Only used. 

New items will be sold for less in the future. But a used lens can definitely be sold for higher than what you originally paid for. 

 

[Policar]

7 hours ago, Nikkor said:

But Red Weapon users are very few in number and the market for medium format is very large in comparison (much larger than leica R). The prices will go up when there is the 5D equivalent of medium format (When the D3 came out, many lenses sky rocket, the 28 1.4 for example, because nikon had a poor new fullframe lens lineup).

I agree. Larger formats are getting more and more popular and the larger the format the more "character" lenses actually look better than contemporary ones. First it was all the Nikkors, superspeeds, panchros, next anamorphic, etc. An affordable 645 let alone 6x7 sensor is a ways away but I think when it's available V mount lenses will be a hot commodity.

Medium format speed boosters are dumb IMO but that will contribute as well.

[IronFilm]

On 5/19/2016 at 7:48 AM, forofilms said:

I understand some lenses out there actually appreciate in value over time. 

Wanted to get your guys' feedback on which modern lenses you think might be more valuable down the road than they are today. 

While it is a good rule of thumb that lenses hold their value better than other film gear, I wouldn't do so far as betting on certain lenses to noticeably appreciate in value.....   

If either Canon or Nikon went bankrupt, then overnight many of their lenses would tank in value (exception: you might see a very short term blip up as the die hard fans rush to buy the last few of certain desirable lenses).

Same with any other manufacturer. Could take many many years for them to regain their value, or they might never do so!

Plus it is hard to predict what future technological innovations might come along in the future.....  new materials or designs such as multi lens arrays, rendering all other past forms almost obsolete! 

So put a greater part of gear budget to lenses knowing they won't tank like a camera body will in five years, but also don't count on them making you rich either!

 

[jax_rox]

The more expensive the lens, the more likely it is to hold its value... at least to an extent. You gotta have pretty sh*t hot lenses to begin with. For example, the value dropped right out of Sony CineAlta Primes, and even Red Pro Primes have seen their value diminish since they stopped making them.

High-end anamorphics, expensive vintage lenses, Angie zooms, Cooke lenses, Fujis, Aluras, Ultra Primes etc. are going to hold their value significantly moreso than a Canon or Nikon electronically controlled 24-105 or 24-70.

[Laurier]

I don t think any modern lenses will be more worthy in the future than they are now. 

Even vintage ones cost at best what there where new when you consider the inflation.

 

The market for pro video equipement is growing and price are getting lower .

If you want something that will keep a lot of value buy a 32mm and a 70mm modern cooke panchro or anamorphic if you can afford it .

Or, as said, go for leica R and  maybe also Zeiss otus.

 

Also modern lenses are more fragile and subject to failure than vintage full metal construction.

 

 

 

[Andrew Reid]

If you have that kind of money for an OTUS or Cooke, you may as well also get insurance, rent them out and start a shop.

I'm considering sending my Cookes off to a rental shop to use and we share the income.

It doesn't make sense to buy them to use occasionally and as an investment which sits on the shelf and increases in value... unless you're extremely lucky as I was to find them so cheap used!

A lot of people use the term 'investing' in lenses, because they last a long time for shooting... new cameras come and go for ages but some lenses can last decades. I still use my Contax Zeiss, Canon FD, etc.

It's not an investment in terms of a return on your money but an investment in images.

[Nikkor]

It can be seen as a commodity, like policar said. An easy to store and durable one. Unless something revolutionizes lenses/cameras, vintage lenses hold their value better than money sitting on the bank, and they can increase their value if they become relevant.

[kidzrevil]

Contax zeiss 35mm f1.4 going for the same price as a brand new nikon or canon mount zeiss 35mm. It really is an investment in images cause the better your aesthetic the better your clients. If your not doing paid work the vintage lenses make even more sense as you can get some really cheap ones like the helios that renders a beautiful image. I wish I had a plug with some rental or production companies when I had my milvus glass. Renting out equipment is the true long term investment.

2 hours ago, Nikkor said:

It can be seen as a commodity, like policar said. An easy to store and durable one. Unless something revolutionizes lenses/cameras, vintage lenses hold their value better than money sitting on the bank, and they can increase their value if they become relevant.

Yup the prices of canon fd lenses are skyrocketting . That is the perfect example