A mount s/h lens prices have "bombed"

[bfitzgerald]

I dig about the odd time on Ebay and shocked to see just how much prices have dropped
When you see a mint as new Zeiss Distagon T* 24mm f/2 ZA SSM selling for £450 or the 16-80mm CZ barely getting above £200 for a mint example things are really getting bargain land.

Sony's lack of action on A mount is no doubt to blame, they might try to get top prices on bodies and lenses new -the s/h market is dictating prices and they are dropping like a stone. On the upside there has probably never been a better time to get a lens
Some of the older Minolta lenses are even cheaper now I bagged a 100-200mm F4.5 from Japan with hood for £25

[ValeryD]

This price for used A mount was for years on eBay.
I can see only highest prices on new A mount lenses and very expensive E mount.

[bfitzgerald]

I've not seen prices this low for some time for s/h lenses. Bodies is similar across brands ie they tank once they reach a certain age even if the cameras are in great condition. You can barely give a used A200 away nowadays or A700 as they are so old in terms of tech, some of the older Canikon FF bodies are silly cheap and crop even more bargain based.
What I see is entire system selling on the lenses I've noted there they are offloading their gear. Thus a good time to nab a few deals

[mikeriach]

As you can see from my for sale post, quite a few of my lenses were secondhand. All were reasonably priced at the time but yes I can see recently they are worth less than I would otherwise expect. A great time to experiment then
In my A mount era, I bought the following (Minolta, KM or Sony) secondhand: 11-18, 17-35 (from DK), 28-105, 28-75 f2.8, 35-70 f4, 70-300 SSM, 70-200 f2.8 SSM. All have been well used and none were lemons.
I have tried a few secondhand Nikon lenses. The 18-300 was not brilliant and I sold on, I think my Tamron 16-300 on the A77 is better. The 70-300 I kept as it was cheap but reasonable (not as good as the Sony SSM). All other items have been new. I haven't yet found a good source of Nikon lens data like Dyxum yet.

[bfitzgerald]

Some of the Nikon lenses I tried were good (35/50/85mm are all solid less experience with zooms), you just have to dig around a bit to get more information (ie the older D stuff can be pretty good and fairly cheap)
Looking at the latest releases on the ILC models super fast, crazy expensive primes. Even normal lenses are very high prices on E and Fuji X also going "up market". Looks like they are trying to claw back dwindling profits by releasing high end lenses. Can't imagine that many are buying them. Those F1.4 G masters are pricey beyond any reasonable.

Most of my lenses are s/h, not all I did pick up a new old stock 24-105mm and it was brand new. Same for the 35-70mm untouched I just dug about over a long time and picked very carefully mainly minty lenses, but I've no problem with well used if it's working. I suppose I saved a fortune

I've seen 70-300mm G's for sale at fairly good prices, wasn't sure if the lens lives up to the name. I've learnt the hard way you can't always rely on online tests/reviews they often don't match real world shooting. Then every time I see one I think maybe it's time to Minolta 80-200m F2.8 HS and forget about the 100mm difference!

[mikeriach]

I used the 70-300G and it was decent but not great. It was better to handle than the 70-400 but the IQ wasn't as good.
The 80-200 always got good reports.

[bfitzgerald]

I was never sure about the 70-300mm G for that asking price it would want to be "very good" wide open at 300mm, and I wasn't sure it was worth it for a lens of that type. The 70-400mm always looks much more interesting, but something for down the road if I ever need a longer focal length.
I've learnt the hard way with lenses - you cannot entirely rely on online reviews/focus test charts. In almost every case real world shooting is a different story.

[mikeriach]

I heard a few negative comments (more bitching perhaps) re the 70-400G Mk1 but mine was superb. I pre-ordered it just after it was launched and got one of the first in the UK. Never regretted it for a second. My copy was excellent. It was a fair improvement in IQ over the 70-300G. It was heavy, built like a tank but the build quality was excellent and the images extremely good on both A99 and A77. The issues for me were "slow" zoom (needed a fair twist to adjust), the focus could have been a touch faster and the lens hood fell off rather a lot. Biggest issue was the SSS on the A77 just not being up to the task at longer lengths, I had far to many shots with shake, maybe my expectations were unrealistic. The Nikon 200-500/D7200 combo by comparison is far superior, shake free hand held shots at 1/125 and 500mm on a crop sensor.
I'm sure DK compared the Sigma 70-300 APO to the 70-300G and found the Sigma to have better IQ in particular at the centre. The Sigma was also more compact with a smaller lens hood (good travel lens).
I went to Japan in 2014 and shot 11,000 frames, around 70% of which were on the 70-400G. A great workhorse and when I sold it last year I got 45% of the original purchase price back, certainly got my monies worth there.