Clown said:
1) i said it's most likely to be an old lens. (fact)
2) "which MAY have alignment problems or a worn out mount.. blah blah" dude i used the word MAY- meaning possibility. and the older and longer a lens is, the higher the possibility.
OK dude, my bad, It was late and I didn't read your post carefully before replying.
Clown said:
when or where did anyone or anywhere state that i cannot state facts?
Did I challenge your ability to do so?? If I did I'm sorry.
Clown said:
over here now we're comparing the 2 lenses and i'm stating the facts. the 1-touch creeps like mad. the 2-touch lenses, tokina or nikon or whatever, creeps less. i supposed that's why all newer lenses are 2-touch.
OK so the one touch zoom creeps. what has that got to do with our argument? :dunno:
Clown said:
same concept right? the need to add censors means an offensive word. now u're saying my mind is or was in the gutter. i strongly believe that these statements can be safely left out of this debate without much damage to the facts stated herein.
You may read the statement anyway you like but I didn't think it was offensive. My apologies if I offended your sensitivities.
Clown said:
ok. here you did not state which lens is being bought. so i shall do a scenario analysis.
IF:
many new tokinas are bought - and not many are out in the market now, which means it's a good lens and there's no need to change whatsoever
Alternate scenerio/s:
1.Not many were bought because Nikkors were the preferred choice hence, the agent thought it wise not to keep too many in stock.
2.Those who bought them know that they can't shift them close to the price that they bought them for, so they rather keep them than loose more $$.
Clown said:
many new 1-touch were bought (in the past) - for a lens said to have the sharpest 80-200 optics then, i wouldnt be surprised if many bought it. but you should ask - why the abundance of them now?
Like I said before. I wasn't the one who said that the one touch Nikkor had better optics than the Tokina, it was Swimcraze.
I just wrote that the Nikkor would hold it's value better over the Tokina. And this isn't bec the Nikkor is optically better. It has to do with the fact that people prefer buying OEM lenses over 3rd party ones.
The abundance is probably due to people selling them off to get the new two touch lens. Also also due to the publishing houses selling off their equipment pool to move over to Canon.
Also an abundance would indicate that was a very popular lens and that many were sold new. People just wanted the newer and "better" two touch.
Ask CP the number of Tokina 80-200 they have sold vs the number of Nikkors.
Clown said:
aside from your grammar and typos,
Oh, please do point out to me what my mistakes were? I would really like to improve on my English and proof reading.
Clown said:
here your statements suggests that the reason nikon lenses can hold their value is not because of quality but because of brand?
Yes, that is my argument.
Clown said:
i never linked scarcity to the value of the lens, rather, scarcity is linked to the keeping rate of the lens.
I don't get you here, if the lens is of no value, then why would it not affect the 'keeping rate'?
I would think that people would be glad to get rid of the lens if they didn't think it was of any value. (unless they were forced to because they know they can't shift them easily and at a good price)
Scarcity may be due to the fact that not many were bought in the first place because the agent didn't perceive that there was a great demand for them (hence they didn't want to take the chance by stocking up on the item).
Clown said:
let's not get specific with shops here. let's say ANY shop dumps a load of any particular lens. of course, the immediate situation will be that the everyone grabs the lens at the stock clearing price. BUT it'll have to be a good lens for people to flock to buy it right? money is money and i wont waste money on a crappy lens even if it sells for 1000bux new and 500bux stock clearing..
Like I stated previously, I didn't say that the Tokina was a crappy lens!
Clown said:
anyway, yes, they dump stock and ppl come and buy. then what? the stock will run out (assuming that it's a good lens). then what? there'll be no more of that lens in the open market. then? then the value will rise again, albeit not to the original level but it'll not be very much lower too.
Not for Tokinas, unfortunately. Wish as you may that they would.
Clown said:
we'll stop here for this scenario. stock dumping for a new product's launch is not common anyway.
Tell that to CP. The agent for Tokina in Sg.
Clown said:
now linking back my derived assumption of your standing that the brand is the factor that holds the value of the lens, what if nikon decides to dump the 80-200 AFS cheap in favour of the new 70-200 AFS VR? i doubt any lens of that range will be able to hold its value, regardless of brand..
That would be probably happen. But I wasn't referring to Nikon dumping stock, I was referring to the agent for Tokina. In this case, CP is the agent for Tokina in Sg. And they do from time to time, dump their stock of Tokina lenses at very low prices. This affects (-vely) the resale value of Tokina equipment locally.
Clown said:
my guess: the 2nd hand camera shops will die. and then there'll be lawsuits shooting back to the dumper....
Won't happen dude and it hasn't yet. Stores like CP will and have dump/ed stock at or below cost if they feel that they need to.
Clown said:
and so it all goes back economics.
so....
it wont happen. the price will stabilise itself.
See above. It (i.e. dumping stock) is also about economics.
Clown said:
but before you begin to write again, pls note that this dear gentleman here is trying to buy a 2nd hand lens at a stabilised 2nd hand price.
That is just it, with the 3rd party brands like Tokina, it isn't stable, because no matter how good the Tokina 80-200 is optically, people will always prefer to buy OEM even if the 3rd party lens is better and CP dumping stock on a regular basis doesn't help either.