-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Lens Rental
- Thread starter nngrendel
- Start date
CP_alum08
Well-Known Member
I've rented once through lensrentals.com. No issues and it was cool to be able to try out a nice lens.
The only advice I can really give is that financially it doesn't make much sense to rent an inexpensive lens. I suppose it's different for you with no shipping charge, but if you're paying $80 (ish) to rent a $400-500 lens it's a worse deal than paying $120 to rent a $1500 lens. Just my opinion though.
The only advice I can really give is that financially it doesn't make much sense to rent an inexpensive lens. I suppose it's different for you with no shipping charge, but if you're paying $80 (ish) to rent a $400-500 lens it's a worse deal than paying $120 to rent a $1500 lens. Just my opinion though.
Here is the site I am looking at.
http://atlantalensrentals.com/
Pricing doesn't look that bad and I could get away with a 3 day rental to just try out a lens before purchase.
http://atlantalensrentals.com/
Pricing doesn't look that bad and I could get away with a 3 day rental to just try out a lens before purchase.
I have thought about that too!!
Someone at work wants to do business with the same company I mentioned above. I may wait and see the outcome of that. haha.
Only benefit of this place I can go in person and pick it up and check out the lens before I take it away. Just really unsure what lens is going to make me happy at this point and want to try a few wide lenses before I settle on investing.
thanks. I am checking on their site now.
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
they also ship their gear in pellican hard cases, so there is no way of them pulling scam on people claiming shipping damage.
Yeah I saw that. Very nice shipping cases. I really like the way the site has been set up too. They also do not charge a deposit.
I am just so unsure of a lens that I want at this point. I would hate to even spend 500 bucks on a lens that I am unhappy with or rarely use. I may give this site a try.
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
It definitely saved me money...
I recent started my own company, work is slow but picking up. It's certainly not my primary source of income, but that is my ten year plan.
I rented 70-200mm VRII f2.8 ... 2100 retail, UNREAL...super fast AF, sharp corner to corner. After renting, I knew this lens was worth every $.
Nikon 105mm f2.8 Micro... about 1000 bucks, crap... light, made in CHINA. It was sharp, but focus was all over the place. Great for some shots but overall not worth the investment. Without it, I would have thought this was a must have lens.
Next to rent: 85mm f1.4 CREAM MACHINE. 1800 bucks
I recent started my own company, work is slow but picking up. It's certainly not my primary source of income, but that is my ten year plan.
I rented 70-200mm VRII f2.8 ... 2100 retail, UNREAL...super fast AF, sharp corner to corner. After renting, I knew this lens was worth every $.
Nikon 105mm f2.8 Micro... about 1000 bucks, crap... light, made in CHINA. It was sharp, but focus was all over the place. Great for some shots but overall not worth the investment. Without it, I would have thought this was a must have lens.
Next to rent: 85mm f1.4 CREAM MACHINE. 1800 bucks
WDWFigment
Well-Known Member
^If you're a wedding photographer, rather than renting a bunch of lenses, some of which are essential for your profession, why wouldn't you read reviews and buy the lenses? I could tell you without renting the 70-200 2.8 that it's an essential lens for a wedding photographer.
Renting is not a cost-effective long term solution. You're better off buying a Tamron 70-200 2.8 if you can't afford the Nikkor version. You can get that Tamron for less than $600 on eBay. That's renting the Nikkor 6 times. For a wedding photographer, the performance between the Tamron and the Nikkor is pretty comparable.
Just seems foolish to me to rent something (basically) essential to your work.
Renting is not a cost-effective long term solution. You're better off buying a Tamron 70-200 2.8 if you can't afford the Nikkor version. You can get that Tamron for less than $600 on eBay. That's renting the Nikkor 6 times. For a wedding photographer, the performance between the Tamron and the Nikkor is pretty comparable.
Just seems foolish to me to rent something (basically) essential to your work.
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
1.) image to image... the tamron and the nikkor may compare. but in terms of build quality and the capacity for the lens to grab 4000 images every weekend, definitely not.
2.) renting is a short term option for me. I sank a lot of capital into acquiring essential items for business in terms of marketing and promotion.
3.) As a wedding photographer, realistically you need the Holy Triumphirate of Nikon lenses, plus a solid portrait lens. Now, this is the BEST set up possible. Do I have a longer telephoto, sure... a portrait lens, sure... but the set up that I rent is the Yankees line up of lenses. In fact, it's just over 10K for the 12-24, 24-70, 70-200 plus an 85 cream machine. So yes, in the short term its cost effective for me to rent because I am building capital to fund this investment.
WDWFigment
Well-Known Member
^The great thing about lenses is that they can be bought and sold with little to no loss in value.
Most people don't start out renting a car everyday to get to work because they can't afford the Porsche that they plan to own eventually. They buy a cheaper car, and trade up as money allows.
The same concept applies here. Buying cheaper lenses and selling them eventually is a smarter bet than renting. When you buy, you have an item that has residual value that can later be sold. What do you have when you buy.
I don't have an FX camera, nor do I own a single lens in the holy trinity, but I've sold photos to an array of travel books, magazines, and even Popular Photography. I've sold images taken with an entry level D40, a D7000, a D90, and even a Casio point and shoot. A good photographer makes good images. Great glass certainly helps, but there's nothing wrong with making due with what you can afford, and moving up when economically feasible.
Most people don't start out renting a car everyday to get to work because they can't afford the Porsche that they plan to own eventually. They buy a cheaper car, and trade up as money allows.
The same concept applies here. Buying cheaper lenses and selling them eventually is a smarter bet than renting. When you buy, you have an item that has residual value that can later be sold. What do you have when you buy.
I don't have an FX camera, nor do I own a single lens in the holy trinity, but I've sold photos to an array of travel books, magazines, and even Popular Photography. I've sold images taken with an entry level D40, a D7000, a D90, and even a Casio point and shoot. A good photographer makes good images. Great glass certainly helps, but there's nothing wrong with making due with what you can afford, and moving up when economically feasible.
Thanks for the debate. Each of you have very good points.
The main reason for me renting actually is to find the glass that makes me happy. I want to make sure when I invest in the $$ I like what I get. I have been reading reviews however some of them are mixed and its hard to find the slam dunk review that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy that your making the right decision.
Trading up sounds like a great plan!
The main reason for me renting actually is to find the glass that makes me happy. I want to make sure when I invest in the $$ I like what I get. I have been reading reviews however some of them are mixed and its hard to find the slam dunk review that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy that your making the right decision.
Trading up sounds like a great plan!
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
yeah, I'd agree with previous people it's only worth renting out PRO glass so you'll know its worth the cash. So basically:
12-24 2.8
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8
85mm 1.4
maybe a fisheye to see if you'd actually use it.