Cant understand this 2nd hand market...


Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 20, 2005
55
0
0
Singapore
#1
I can't quite understand the 2nd hand market mentality.

A new 17-40L costs about $1200 but people will pay $950 for a used one, even without warranty.

A new 24-70L or 24-105L costs around $2200. Again people are willing to pay as much as $1900.

The difference of $250 to $300 is so small when you are already paying $950, and even smaller when paying $1900. Why not pay a little bit for a brand new one with warranty? At least if the lens is a dud you can bring it back to Canon.

Am I missing something here?

Anyone can enlighten me?

:think: :think: :think: :think: :think:
 

Jun 27, 2002
3,802
0
0
here
www.9frames.com
#2
lens usually no problems one, so if you can save $200-$300 per lens, you buy 3 new can get one free if you buy used. This is singapore mentailty!

like the Shop and Save ad, 'SAVE SAVE SAVE'!

i have never encountered problems with lens less than 2 years old, after that problems may surface.
 

sinori

New Member
Nov 10, 2004
345
0
0
#3
tell me, if you are the one selling the lens will you want to sell it lower than the price you stated?
 

Canonised

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2003
2,998
4
0
#4
Everyone perception of value is diferent depending on one's experience and one's lifestyle. In the above example, $250 to $300. To some ppl it is meagre, but to some others, you can actually buy 2 more lens (for eg. 50mm) In term of percentage, the difference is 20% and that's a lot if one's perception of a lens is that there wont be any much difference in quality in a used/new lens.
Becoz of such situations, that's why you have the secondhand market, the karang guni market, parallel imports, etc... Do you know even if there is a $1 saving, ppl go to the extend of doing things that are not legal, etc...:think: that's life, man!
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
35
Melbourne, Australia
#7
Yes, it's definitely a good point. A buyer who has enough money to buy new, or can afford to wait and save up to get a fresh piece will have no issues with this. It will cost more than buying second-hand, but on the flipside, the risks of getting a lens with hidden flaws, fungus etc is reduced.

But to those who've had to save up for many years for their first lens, $300 is a lot of money. To put it in perspective, I could've almost bought a grey market 430ex from a seller in the consumers corner.

In the end, I still prefer to buy new. In life, I always play it safe...when you know luck isn't on your side, it's best not to fool around with it. :bsmilie: When we sell our lenses second-hand to someone else, we know it was well taken-care of, and can vouch for its quality. But can the buyer in turn put that trust in us? Maybe. Maybe not.
 

May 31, 2005
393
0
16
Earth
#10
i agree to pay additional to get a new one since the amount u are paying already so much.
 

user12343

Senior Member
May 15, 2005
1,032
2
38
#11
sometimes, saving a little from here and there makes a significant chunk of spare cash....if i can save $200 from buying a used lens, that means that the $200 can be better spent elsewhere, top up petrol, top up transitlink card, buy groceries and essentials....you name it, the possibilities are endless
 

jsbn

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2002
2,944
0
0
Planet Eropagnis
#12
incognito2 said:
I can't quite understand the 2nd hand market mentality.

A new 17-40L costs about $1200 but people will pay $950 for a used one, even without warranty.

A new 24-70L or 24-105L costs around $2200. Again people are willing to pay as much as $1900.

The difference of $250 to $300 is so small when you are already paying $950, and even smaller when paying $1900. Why not pay a little bit for a brand new one with warranty? At least if the lens is a dud you can bring it back to Canon.

Am I missing something here?

Anyone can enlighten me?
Becos everyone's perception of the value of money is different?

Maybe u can spend $20K getting that 1200mm lens instead of the 600mm lens cos the 'difference' is 'merely' like 50%?

What's $200 or $300 to u maybe a low amount but not to others. Not everyone here's born with a silver spoon in the mouth and living District 7 to overlook 'a couple of hundred bucks' my friend. Be more sensitive to others.
 

user12343

Senior Member
May 15, 2005
1,032
2
38
#13
anyway, i always believe that:

price != value, but

price = perceived value

so i tink no pt asking the threadstarter. :)
newmemberz said:
In your understanding how much do u think 2nd hand 17-40 and 24-70 should be priced at?
 

Splutter

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2003
2,909
0
0
35
Gim Boon Tai
www.splutterphotography.com
#14
Agree that lens normally have no prob. Especially for the L side, thats why they still hold their value well. If you are talking about lenses like 28-135mm instead, brand new selling at $880, 2nd hand is almost $500 only. The difference is rather significant!
 

solarii

New Member
Oct 20, 2005
1,354
0
0
Bt. Timah
#15
I think incognito missed another point...

2nd hand stuff often come with extra like filters, polarisers, hoods(for lenses that don't come with them), etc. Some of these add-ons are pretty costly on their own, like B+W filters.

Furthermore, some of the lenses, though old in terms of years are still in pretty good condition. Lets face it, in busy Singapore how much time do we have to shoot? Equipment spends most of its time a some dry box.

So in all there are pretty good deals to be had. When you count the cost of the extras you're saving more than just $200 odd. Just make sure you get a good lens and not a dud!
 

syke

New Member
Feb 23, 2006
468
3
0
Hong Kong
#16
Hi incognito2,

Where did you find the 24-70L at around $2200? Care to share? Have to been checking around and all are at least >$2300. I hope your $2200 one is not grey market.

incognito2 said:
I can't quite understand the 2nd hand market mentality.

A new 17-40L costs about $1200 but people will pay $950 for a used one, even without warranty.

A new 24-70L or 24-105L costs around $2200. Again people are willing to pay as much as $1900.

The difference of $250 to $300 is so small when you are already paying $950, and even smaller when paying $1900. Why not pay a little bit for a brand new one with warranty? At least if the lens is a dud you can bring it back to Canon.

Am I missing something here?

Anyone can enlighten me?

:think: :think: :think: :think: :think:
 

astroboy

Senior Member
Oct 14, 2005
545
1
18
Asia
#17
There r suckers born every minute. That's why someone managed to sell a 16-35 for almost the price of a new one. And his lens is "source unknown" meaning could be 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand... no one knows cos no receipt. For a savings of a hundred or two, I would not wanna risk 2K on a dud. A manufacturer warranty counts for something.
 

Stoned

Senior Member
May 7, 2004
4,378
0
0
30
Changi
www.photo.net
#18
Well it depends you see, lenses don't depreciate much. So if you buy a second hand you can actually sell it off at the same price that you bought it at. It's lossless equipment purchase. You have to resell and buy often(at least once every 2 years) though.
 

Dec 20, 2005
55
0
0
Singapore
#19
Haha... wow! What a load of different responses!

To those who think $200 is a lot... no offence. I never meant to belittle your hard earned money. Just feel that if you get a dud, then the $200 saved will seem a pittance compared to the amount risked.
 

Dec 20, 2005
55
0
0
Singapore
#20
jsbn said:
Becos everyone's perception of the value of money is different?

Maybe u can spend $20K getting that 1200mm lens instead of the 600mm lens cos the 'difference' is 'merely' like 50%?

What's $200 or $300 to u maybe a low amount but not to others. Not everyone here's born with a silver spoon in the mouth and living District 7 to overlook 'a couple of hundred bucks' my friend. Be more sensitive to others.
I dont live in District 7.. neither do i overlook a couple of hundred bucks. Where the heck is district 7 anyway?

But I will try to be more sensitive to sensitive people.... ;)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom