Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

RED lenses...devalue worse than a new car!

Deliciouspizza said:
Begun, the RPP wars have.
Click to expand...

Welcome to RedUser!

I'm guessing your real name is not "Deliciouspizza", and this is a "real names" forum.

This is so when you are a jerk people know who to punch when they meet you in real life. Or something.

Anyway, post your actual name in the thread linked above, and your user name will be changed to reflect that.
 
Ironically, lens image rendering potential has little to do with their desirability. In normal circumstances lens choice is made by the DP and is supposed to enhance the story line by matching visuals. It's more an artistic choice than anything else. technically the old Baltars, panchros, super speeds, anamorphics are poor performers. Yet they are used all he time. probably more than RPPs. The familiar look of some lenses also makes the DP feel more secure about the results so they would rent S4s, UPs or MPs because they know exactly what to expect- it's something they are familiar with. nobody wants to experiment on set and risk their reputation. The only thing that could help is Red pushing the lenses much harder to (big)productions. At least as hard as they are pushing their cameras. And even then it would take a while. As opposed to cameras Red lenses , as good as they are do not offer any clear USP other than the price. If they were clearly smaller, faster, cheaper than competition-like the cameras, they would fly of the shelves like the cameras. The early zoom reputation is not helping either.
My take on the value: it's worth as much as you can get for it- no more- no less
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
So, in conclusion, if your business is NOT image making, but rather lens resale speculation, then I recommend you buy Angeniuex, Cooke or Zeiss lenses. Leica may be a good second tier.
Click to expand...

If your business is image making then you should know better. Leica is top tier. All by itself.
 
Anthony Gratl said:
If your business is image making then you should know better. Leica is top tier. All by itself.
Click to expand...

No, I'm afraid that top tier for cinema primes belongs to Zeiss and Cooke without question. For cinema zooms to Cooke and Angeniuex.

In cinema lenses Leica still has to earn its reputation.

The Summilux C Leica lenses seem magnificent, and I certainly covet them, but the name they've earned in still photography hasn't translated to motion imaging - yet.

I am sure it will given just a little time. Once the Summilux C's have been used on a few projects of note .

Of course, as Jacek just explained, its a big risk to use unknown equipment. I expect a lot of "name" DP's are testing the Leica's and maybe using them on small jobs. Once they've used them a good bit you'll see them show up on bigger sets. Only once they've been used on a successful big budget film - ideally one that also wins cinematography awards - will their reputation in motion imaging be secure.

Of course, this leaves aside issues of whether or not the Leica look is appropriate for a particular project.
 
Alexander, good to see you joining in the discussion rather just having a go at me and presuming to think you know anything at all about me or my circumstances for the thread, let alone the actual topic i raised...well, you couldn't resist one more dig but heh...some just like the last word...but you did recover for some actual meaningful input. In future, try keeping leaving your presumptions out and if you want to be involved in the discussion keep to the topic...or just scroll down to the next thread. The forum would be much better without it.
To note, i am selling my 300RPP which is why it bugged me about RED's huge markdown on their battletested ones. I have quite a number of PL glass and stills glass that i use regularly, i'm just not using it anywhere near as much as i was going to with how some things worked out so it's making room for something else. So no, as much as you envisioned you are correct with presumption...you are in fact wrong on most parts. I don't really care if it sells as it's a great lens, worth a lot more than $3500 which is what i'm selling it for and if it doesn't...oh well...it's there when i need it. But i will be honest that it does irk me as it shouldn't be this low, and it's RED that are setting that market and not the market per se. My point being that if they we're not listed i believe these lenses would go for substantially higher as people that have used them know of their quality. But heh, they are all about offering things at prices no-one else does and it's great. I like the battle tested section, may it live long and prosper.

Don't really care about B speeds...i don't like them, don't know any that do, was just an example...other old Zeiss glass yes, but not the B speeds.

The issue with reputation of RED glass is from their first two zooms which were not good and you got what you paid for with those. This has kept going after peoples bad experience and filtered over to their other lenses. Mind you, anyone that has rented or used their PRO range does quickly change tune, they are quality made lenses indeed. It's also the reputation of the R1 in the early days we're everyone wanted to use it, it was buggy and temperamental more than other cameras and quickly gathered a reputation. EPIC promises to be everything the R1 wasn't so fingers crossed it does change the general masses and the old incorrect rep from the early days.

Again, the thread is about how severe the RED lenses have been devalued...not by the market but by RED themselves and if this is a good thing or not. I think it's not and good glass lasts for decades, good glass holds its value substantially and this is a pretty normal situation to find in almost any PL glass. Bad lenses do not as no-one wants them and i think by putting such a discount on their used glass it sets a precedence for all their PRO lens range as having bad re-sale value, something that future buyers will have to take into account. As like me, the one lens i am not using while great, isnt worth what it should be. But at least i am happy enough if it doesn't sell.
 
Brigham Edgar said:
Alexander, good to see you joining in the discussion rather just having a go at me and presuming to think you know anything at all about me or my circumstances for the thread, let alone the actual topic i raised...well, you couldn't resist one more dig but heh...some just like the last word...but you did recover for some actual meaningful input. In future, try keeping leaving your presumptions out and if you want to be involved in the discussion keep to the topic...or just scroll down to the next thread. The forum would be much better without it.
Click to expand...

I didn't presume a thing.

You started this thread. It is about "Red lenses... devalue worse than a new car!" I've been addressing that.

We disagree. You seem to have an issue with that.

You take my arguments personally when they are not personal. Why should they be? I don't know you. I'm not "having a go." As far as I can see the only one who has said anything personal is you Brigham, and you've been quite insulting to me.

The only thing I can think that might have set you off is the suggestion that car washes are a better investment. Well, I meant that literally, they are better investments. They are the number one most successful entrepreneurial venture. That was completely not an attack - it was good business advice.

You do seem to agree with my assessment that you were stung by trying to sell glass you just bought. Sorry. Those are the breaks. I know a guy who bought a Macbook Pro right before the Thunderbolt MBP announcement. Oh well. Same deal. He doesn't really care, because the computer has already paid for itself and doubled his investment by helping him win jobs. He's selling it shortly, at a steep discount, and buying a new MBP Thunderbolt ... with the expectation that it will also pay for itself.

To me, buying glass is ALWAYS a losing fiscal proposition unless you work a lot and get a fair rate for your gear package. Even then, owner operator rates on gear tend towards break even not profit. The profit tends to come from your work as DP. Rental houses do better, but they are really putting their effort in on maintenance and such.

You also agree that Red has a reputation problem with their glass. The source of the issue is irrelevant. (I agree with you, just not relevant.) It exists- and it affects market value. I'm a believer in Red's lenses and Red itself, so I think in time the "reputation situation" will correct itself. Today however, a 40% decline for a used and manufacturer reconditioned Red lens is fair.

Did you read Jacek's comment? Reputation has far reaching effects besides resale value. Rental houses typically see very slow rental rates for Red lenses. Owner operators often have to "throw them in" at steep discounts compared to the normal rental rate of something with their retail price.

Again those are the breaks.

I'm picking up a 17-50RPZ, and I expect to "throw it in" for free with my day rate. I'm also hoping to get the original Zeiss CP 50 and 85mm lenses (t/1.5) second hand or B stock ... something. I expect either of those primes to rent for more than the RPZ - and to rent more regularly. Mostly because they say "Zeiss." Aside from speed & weight they are inferior to the RPP I think.

I expect all this "low end" PL glass to be close to worthless when I decide to sell it in 5+ years.

OH ... one last thing. Since you think I want the last word, I won't have it. This is my last post on this topic. Skewer away if you like.
 
I don't think that RED is setting the market price. I don't think they have endless supply of Battle Tested items and, when they run out, they run out. If the lens is offered there for $3,500, it means that there is not enough buyers for that lens at that price. Therefore the prices are entirely market driven rather than "set" by RED. Otherwise, they would be affecting their own new lens offering, don't you think?

I personally think it is a good gesture on behalf of RED.

BTW, I sold my 300mm RED lens too because I bought Leica Apo Telyt R (in PL by Van Diemen) that is sharper and higher contrast. I got $3,500 for the 300mm from a Red User. I used the 300mm on one shoot. I think I got a fair price and I don't lose sleep over it. I got some good shots with it and now upgraded to an even better and more expensive glass. I still think I got a pretty good vale from the RED 300mm, even if I used it on one shoot only.
 
Guys this thread is getting really boring!

Brigham. It was really cool talking to you on the phone today, but as I did say.. Don't get into shit like this on a forum as you will get more and more upset and it really isn't worth the headache.

And everyone else calm down!
 
Hey Brigham, I understand where you're coming from and you have my respect.

Pawel makes a good point about the BT units being limited and when they're gone they're gone. At that point the free market will determine the value.

But your point is absolutely sound - no one is going to pay $6k+ for a used 18-85mm or $3.5k+ for a 300mm as long as BT units are available.

I wouldn't. I would buy a BT in a second and I quietly laugh when I see people selling 18-85s second hand for $7,500 or more, even though that's a great used price.

Don't know why some are giving you a hard time over this point.
 
Guys, I guess I have had my vent about it all whether i am right or wrong, and was only meant to get others viewpoints on the scenario and see others perspective on the matter, debate/discuss it etc. Was never meant to go down the path it did. I love a good discussion and debate about things and hearing different views and there's always different ways to look at things but this went south pretty quickly off where I was hoping it would go. Time to move on, after all it doesn't matter...just thought it may be a good discussion point on lenses and resale value...definitly not worth this trouble...or especially time. Think I'll go back to just scrolling for posts from RED for a while. But thanks to those that offered their thoughts on the topic, there's still some good people and opinions in amongst the noise. Pawel, Jacek (I'm very much looking forward to the Nikon/F3 mount), Adam, Jim...Cheers.
 
Pawel Achtel said:
I don't think that RED is setting the market price. I don't think they have endless supply of Battle Tested items and, when they run out, they run out. If the lens is offered there for $3,500, it means that there is not enough buyers for that lens at that price.
Click to expand...

On the first point, unless you're privy to some inside information, I would question that: we have no idea where the BT lenses came from and what the supply is. Maybe they're coming in in a steady trickle, faster than they're selling, and stocks are increasing. Maybe it was one job lot and they're almost all gone and there will be no more. Who knows?

On the second point, I would agree. The price must be reasonable; if they were an insane bargain, they would all be gone already - they would have been snapped up. They're not, they're still in stock; supply is greater than demand at this point in time. So the price is the price and it is what it is. If I had $6,000 spare there would be one less in the store.

Mike
 
If the 300mm RPP is purchased as part of a set it sells new from red for $4000. Red is only discounting a 300mm RPP refurb $500 from the lowest price they sell it for. Believe me, I'd feel the sting if I paid $5950 and could only sell if for $3500 but many bought it for $4000 and will discount it to sell so Red has to do something to unload the refurbs.
 
Felt the same way about the RED Rocket card when I had to sell mine for 3k... but hey what can we do. It's a great opportunity for others and sucky for us that have to sell at such low price points. It all depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on.
 
No one has offered to sell me their RPP kit yet.... How about $13K
 
The Red BT lenses are some of the best deals on glass anywhere. Especially the RPP 18mm. Wish I could buy the other RPP lenses for $3k each. And the 18mm is normally more expensive than the rest in the set (besides the 300mm).
 
everything else on the planet loses value at least 20% of its value the first year , but cinema gear tends to stay expensive. it should be like everything else. it should be bought based on it doing the job not the resale value. frankly cine gear in general is way way over priced for what it does. the arri dovetail might be a precision milled piece but its still $1000 for a piece of shaped metal with a lever.

I would like to see good quality support gear come down in price too just like cameras have and just like red has brought down the price of lenses.
 
+1
I agree, I wish Red would raise the prices of their BT stuff. A sign of a good product is how much value it holds used (check out prices on used Carl Zeiss primes or Canon L series glass), Red is hurting themselves and their reputation by selling glass that cheap.

Thats right Red...Shawn Nelson is asking you to raise your price on something :-D (but just BT stuff!! lol)
 
And frankly I think Red glass is so damn well priced the first time around (retail) that, except for that first 18-50, everything else should hold at least 80% of value if well taken care of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top