Nikon Lens No Value???

[alant]

Basically I have a Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX AF-S G lens that I bought some time back. Doing a quick check, I realised the resale value is now below $1K in the forum here. Nikon website put price the around $2.5K. Thought Nikon lenses usually hold value pretty well. If I were to sell it, looks like I'm going to be prepared to lose big time. Any idea why? Or only certain lenses hold value? Thought this is a very good lens.

 

[Lawrence Quek]

Basically I have a Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX AF-S G lens that I bought some time back. Doing a quick check, I realised the resale value is now below $1K in the forum here. Nikon website put price the around $2.5K. Thought Nikon lenses usually hold value pretty well. If I were to sell it, looks like I'm going to be prepared to lose big time. Any idea why? Or only certain lenses hold value? Thought this is a very good lens.

well, some users sell low in order to attract buyer hence it become the price "norm".

It is also a demand and supply thing.

My opinion is usually people will go for lens that work for FX bodies when they upgrade, such as 24-70mm f2.8g.

 

[Lawrence Quek]

just to add on, resale value also depends on
1) conditions
2) whether the content is still intact

 

[undergrd]

Also partly ppl have more alternatives from sigma and tamron.

Just like nikon 35mm f1.4, 24mm f1.4, now w sigma alternatives which are cheaper, the nikon demand has dropped.

 

[catchlights]

It is about supply and demand, people are going for FX lenses whether do they really need it or not. So less people will want to get DX lenses, even it is selling cheaply.
Cameras and lenses are meant to be used. If you want something that holds value, buy gold and silver.

 

[Nikonzen]

If D400 ever gets made price for that lens will go back up.

 

[swifty]

Too many good alternatives that are very well priced.
Nikon also aren't sending strong messages about pro DX cameras. Hence a pro DX lens feel abandoned, whether real or perceived.
The lens design is over 10 years old and the bar has moved.

 

[L-coholic]

On top of the demand and supply thing, more and more people are using FF now due to the cheaper price compare with the past, so DX lens will have expect to have lesser demand. In fact, most of my friends are using FF now. Just my 2 cents.

 

[alfie]

I wouldn't trust the price on nikon's page. Check with local shop for the prices, i suspect its a lot lower. Technogadgets/lazada (I know there's no nikon warranty) sells at $16xx. So the price difference isn't that much.

As many have said, the lens is 10 years old, and price has steadily dropped over the years. With no d400 in sight, the market for the pro DX lens isn't as huge.

 

[catchlights]

I wouldn't trust the price on nikon's page. Check with local shop for the prices, i suspect its a lot lower. Technogadgets/lazada (I know there's no nikon warranty) sells at $16xx. So the price difference isn't that much.

As many have said, the lens is 10 years old, and price has steadily dropped over the years. With no d400 in sight, the market for the pro DX lens isn't as huge.

that is Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price or Recommended Retail Price, all manufactures are doing the same, not just Nikon.

dealers are free to price belong this price to promote their sales, hence it call street price.

and those export set are call gray set which come without any local Nikon warranty, is price much lower than street price.

 

[pinholecam]

Some guys area already selling a 4th-5th hand lens, so every turn it drops $100-$150, so every now and then there will be sellers that sell very low.

Condition of the lens is another factor.

I'm also under the impression that there are also 'fake' sellers who try to manipulate the prices by posting low ones.

There are real rich guys or those who don't bother too much and just want to sell off their stuff.

The list of reasons go on...

So there are plenty of reasons why a lens is selling used much cheaper.



To me, its all not important.
New lenses does not make old one turn to junk.
What matters is your own utility and appreciation of what you have.
Don't let a perceived market dictate what you like, shoot with.
As you can see, the market is just made up of so many types of people/intentions that to simply be led by it is folly.

 

[Dfive]

Basically I have a Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX AF-S G lens that I bought some time back. Doing a quick check, I realised the resale value is now below $1K in the forum here. Nikon website put price the around $2.5K. Thought Nikon lenses usually hold value pretty well. If I were to sell it, looks like I'm going to be prepared to lose big time. Any idea why? Or only certain lenses hold value? Thought this is a very good lens.

DX Lenses will alway loose so much value... thats why buy FX Lenses like the 16-40mm instead of the now old D1 ERA Lenses like 17-55mm.

 

[Dfive]

On top of the demand and supply thing, more and more people are using FF now due to the cheaper price compare with the past, so DX lens will have expect to have lesser demand. In fact, most of my friends are using FF now. Just my 2 cents.

Agree buying DX Lenses after 2013 is a false economy IMO - buy Tamron, Tokina or Sigma if you have to.

 

[sammy888]

I will not go back to DX lens now that I am all for FX bodies and lens. But there are also those of us who feel and partly why I went FX after D300 is because as I see more and more brands are going full frame and some are thinning their line in favor of FX more then ever, you know the DXs are heading out. To be caught with DX lens can be a concern.

We have not quite reach the sunset age of DX yet but it is getting close.

As for Nikon lens losing their value? Value is relative. Totally silly to me and only a newbie amateur 'photo-snapper' concern. No offense.

I buy a lens to use not a damn investment item. If you want to buy something that does not lose value fast, keep the cash in your wallet where it has the highest chance of keeping its value for years and years. You want something that does not lost value, you buy a really rare item, put that in a vault and not use it and maybe in a few years, it's value goes up.

But in the mean time, you bought a mass produced item use time and time again till parts wears down and you expect it to still keep as much of it's value? Where's the logic in that a part from the fact one gets bitter because they could not get a better price selling something they bought or something even at second hand was still out of their pocket's reach? LOL

If you are so worry about that, do what I do. I use my equipment till they breakdown, I use all my Nikon gears for years and years. I upgrade only if the technology goes so far ahead by a few notch would i then start to think I need something better. I concentrate on the experience of using my gear as the value I am getting from the cost of paying for it. Thus when I have to sell it, I don't feel anything wrong with parting it.

 

[kcuf2]

Think of it this way:
- DX lens can only be used on DX bodies with full functionality.
- FX lens can use on both DX and FX.

So, it makes perfect sense to buy just FX lenses.

Since day 1 when I get a DSLR, I only go for the full frame lenses instead of the crop ones. I don't understand the rationale to buy crop lenses.

 

[tofu master]

Think of it this way:
- DX lens can only be used on DX bodies with full functionality.
- FX lens can use on both DX and FX.

So, it makes perfect sense to buy just FX lenses.

Since day 1 when I get a DSLR, I only go for the full frame lenses instead of the crop ones. I don't understand the rationale to buy crop lenses.

IIRC, originally the promise was that with crop sensor, the lenses would be smaller & lighter (perhaps also cheaper). In reality it's not always that much difference.

 

[sykestang]

I've many a times I've been telling many ppl that DX lenses is not keeper's lens. But was turned a deaf ear. The price of the 17-55dx is just mere $100-$200 cheaper than the 17-35. Today, the 17-35 is still holding a 2nd hand price of $17xx for a 8/10 cond. Good and nicer ones is going for $18xx-$19xx. On the other hand, 17-55DX lens, you'd be happy if you can fetch $1k.

 

[Dfive]

I've many a times I've been telling many ppl that DX lenses is not keeper's lens. But was turned a deaf ear. The price of the 17-55dx is just mere $100-$200 cheaper than the 17-35. Today, the 17-35 is still holding a 2nd hand price of $17xx for a 8/10 cond. Good and nicer ones is going for $18xx-$19xx. On the other hand, 17-55DX lens, you'd be happy if you can fetch $1k.

17-35 is more like 1500 even if mint... sadly.

 

[swifty]

I dare say that if Nikon had given a more positive message about DX, DX lenses in general would hold their value better.
As Tofumaster states, the promise was smaller, lighter and cheaper lenses at least at the shorter focal lengths. If Nikon fleshed out their DX line with a set of lenses similar to the current Fuji X line then ppl would be more confident buying DX. But then again, the 17-55 would most likely have been updated already in that scenario so either way, unfortunately it seems the 17-55's used price is bound to have fallen considerably by now.

 

[elisya]

I remember during the dx era, the excellent MIJ Nikon 12-24mm f4 was the most sought after lens for wide angle fanatics.