1

I bought an expensive lens which I would like to aesthetically protect in order to keep its resale value high. This means that I want to minimize the chances of any scuffing, scraping, or scratching.

There are different parts of the lens which is usually exposed to the environment: the front glass, the lens body (usually made out of plastic or metal), and the zoom ring (usually made out of rubber).

To protect the front glass, I am using a good (B+W) UV filter. This prevents any scratches from appearing on the front, so that should be fine. I am mainly looking for suggestions to protect the body and the zoom rings.

For the body, I found some dbrand vinyl and was able to put some of it on the body. It worked really nicely, was easy to remove, and didn't leave any residue. However, it is relatively expensive compared to just buying some black 3M vinyl and sticking it on. I haven't been able to find what type of vinyl 3M uses, so what are some 3M materials that I could use which would be easy to remove and not leave any adhesive behind?

For the zoom and focus rings, I know that they whiten after some use, and I'd like to keep them looking new. I have found band.it which is a thicker zoom ring that you can put over your current zoom and focus rings. Is there anything less expensive, perhaps a DIY option, that I can use? (I don't think putting 3M vinyl on it would be a great idea)

  • 2
    "easy to remove, and didn't leave any residue" Try that again in 6 months or a year. Very very few 'sticker glues' are stable over time. The usual pattern is that first they soften towards a liquid state, when things start to move & slip, the glue layer becoming more attracted to your object than the original surface; then after even longer, they dry out completely, turning into a kind of hard plastic. By that point, its adhesion to the original vinyl is almost non-existent & to your object almost total. – Tetsujin Dec 26 '19 at 14:47
  • Hmm, that's interesting. I know that at least dbrand prides itself in not leaving any residue behind. I myself have removed these skins after extended periods of time (six months to a year) without seeing any residue, and have seen a plethora of comments from people online saying they've had the same experience with phones, cameras, etc. To be fair, however, I'm not sure how if the coating of the lens (24-70 L II) would fare differently. –  Dec 26 '19 at 14:53
  • If it's really that expensive, you may be paying for one of the 'very few' stable glues. – Tetsujin Dec 26 '19 at 14:56
  • 1
    I can't think of anything that could be used without risking a similar or more severe adulteration than normal use without the measure. Lenses are much tougher than we give them credit for...what types of environments will you be in that have you so worried? – OnBreak. Jan 23 '20 at 07:31
  • Lens value is determined by market forces, not just the quality that it is in. Lenses continue to get better and new releases are replacing old. Additionally, mirrorless is the hot new thing and it'd be crazy to attempt to predict DSLR lens prices in 10 years from now. By all means, try to keep your lens clean...but I wouldn't bank on selling it for what or near what you paid given a long enough length of time (10+years) – OnBreak. Jan 23 '20 at 07:45
  • @Hueco thank you for the comment :) honestly, I’m not looking to resell it for its original price unless I’m looking to sell it in a year or two if my interest in photography dies. Thanks for the useful insight though –  Jan 23 '20 at 16:19
  • 2
    @SkeletonBow I'm currently sitting on a 300mm f/4L that is failing to sell at $340. Lenses make good tools...they're hardly liquid assets. Keep that in mind if you do go to sell...Cheers, – OnBreak. Jan 23 '20 at 17:47

2 Answers2

6

Put the lens in a hermetically sealed, lead lined cask. Seal the cask in a pure nitrogen environment. Bury it at least 60 feet underground in a moisture controlled vault.

Or you can use the lens to actually take pictures.

And why spend a ton of money on excellent glass and then place a flat filter in front of it? It's probably not as much protection as you think it is, and in some situations can actually be a liability. Yes, if you're shooting in sand, sea spray, a windstorm in a desert, or an industrial environment with grinders and hot metal particles flying around and such, it makes sense to put a "protective filter' on it. Otherwise, you're just giving back that last 3-5% of performance that you spent a 5-10X premium on.

To filter or not to filter (for lens "protection"), that is the question.

Half the rest of that stuff you're talking about doing may extend the life of some parts. But they could also cause them to harden and crack prematurely, or change the cosmetic finish underneath them over time. If you're worried about the eventual resale value, buy an extra set of rubber zoom/focus rings and store them properly until you're ready to sell the lens.

"Protecting" your lens is what a good photo equipment insurance policy is for.

Michael C
  • 175,039
  • 10
  • 209
  • 561
  • 1
    I guess I forgot to mention that I’m a college student and didn’t want to spend, or lose too much more money than necessary, hence the desire to not buy anything extraneous. And I’m okay with the 1-2% image degradation with a UV filter (it’s a B+W filter) if it’ll protect the resale value of my lens. –  Dec 25 '19 at 11:25
  • Some weather sealed lenses actually require the UV filter to finalize the weather sealing. They are not weather sealed without the UV filter. – juhist Dec 25 '19 at 12:51
  • 1
    I agree with Michael. The resale value has already dropped because it's out of the box, no matter how pretty you keep it. The chances of damage which further affect that value are low, and when you offset that against the money (and time!) you're spending on protection, the return on investment is low. – mattdm Dec 25 '19 at 16:15
  • @SkeletonBow As the answer points to, some types of "protection" can be liabilities in certain circumstances. A thin, flat filter, for instance, will shatter (and likely scratch the front element) long before a thicker front element made of harder material and shaped like the end of an egg will. And you lose "only" that 1-2% under perfect laboratory conditions and ideal lighting. The first time you have a strong source of lighting inside an otherwise mostly dark frame, you'll discover what ghosting is. Or veiling flare when the light source is right at the edge of the image circle... – Michael C Dec 26 '19 at 10:01
  • @mattdm I already bought it out of the box (in excellent condition), so I have no reason to worry about the resale value dropping much further than how much I paid for it. Hence the question about lens protection. –  Dec 26 '19 at 14:07
  • @MichaelC I am using a UV filter to protect from scratches, not from shattering. I realize that a small scratch on the front element will hardly affect IQ, but it will also easily cause the lens to lose hundreds of dollars in resale value. Fine, 3-5%. I really don't care; my question was focused mainly on body protection. I was hoping no one would bring it up because that's not what the question is asking; maybe I should have clarified in the question that I'm not interested in the perpetual filter vs no filter debate. –  Dec 26 '19 at 14:15
  • 1
    Okay. I still encourage you to not worry so much. Use the lens hood and the chance of scratches is very low. And part of the reason these lenses are so expensive is that they're built to be durable. – mattdm Dec 26 '19 at 16:35
  • @SkeletonBow The point is, you can choose to either preserve the lens as pristinely as possible (which does not include gluing anything to it or allowing the lens to ever be "out in the wild") or you can choose to put the lens to the use for which it was created and for which it exists. If you are so concerned about the lens losing resale value, you should have never broken the seal on the box (figuratively speaking). – Michael C Dec 26 '19 at 17:22
  • @juhist There's not really any such thing as a "weather sealed" lens unless it can be immersed in water. As Roger Cicala often says, and as the founder of lensrentals.com he ought to know, what the term "weather sealed" means is that if water gets in it (and it sometimes does), the warranty is void. There are only lenses that are "weather resistant" to one degree or another. – Michael C Dec 26 '19 at 17:26
  • I respectfully disagree, and I believe that I can indeed take the lens out and use it moderately, and protect it reasonably (using stickers with high quality glue), and as a result (if the lens does not depreciate) retain the same value that I bought it for after I take the stickers off. If you are a professional you probably do not care about babying your equipment because you’ll make money off of it anyway; then this question will not resonate with you. Rather it is asked by a frugal college enthusiast who wants a fairly good lens but also wants to use it as safely as possible. –  Dec 26 '19 at 17:30
  • @SkeletonBow Do you use plastic covers on all of your living room furniture, too? – Michael C Dec 26 '19 at 17:33
  • @mattdm Thank you for your concern. I’m not inherently worrying about the lens itself because I know even if there are some scratches it doesn’t matter much in terms of image quality as I mentioned in another comment. I’m trying to do this for a personal reason which I’m not interested in having to defend (because this is Stack Exchange and it’s outside the scope of this question), but thank you anyway. –  Dec 26 '19 at 17:33
  • @MichaelC No, because I don’t own any furniture. When I get to the point where I have enough money to own furniture, I probably won’t be interested in wrapping my lenses either. –  Dec 26 '19 at 17:34
  • @MichaelC I'm thinking of selling my lens to go for the R6. I'm glad I protected my equipment because my resale value is a couple of hundred dollars higher. I'm sorry you're so arrogant and think that everyone around you has as much money as you do to buy stuff, but I like being strategic. I can think of getting an R6 because I was strategic. This answer is quite worthless and frankly asking some questions on this site is just a waste of time because of arrogant diehards like you. –  Jun 22 '20 at 01:17
  • @SkeletonBow With all due respect, I live in very humble circumstances so that I can afford the gear I use. I do not have the luxury of constantly buying and reselling gear and taking the loss that entails every time the wind blows a different direction. The gear that I buy stays with me until it is worn or broken beyond use. I'm sorry that you do not appreciate the effort several here took to help you with your problem, for which you showed little to no gratitude. Good luck in your future endeavors. – Michael C Jun 22 '20 at 02:14
  • "I'm sorry that you do not appreciate the effort several here took to help you with your problem"—I showed no gratitude because no one answered the question I asked. I asked on a Stack Exchange network asking what type of vinyl I could use, but got answers telling me not to. Maybe I wanted to do it because I liked sticker vinyl aesthetics? I was disappointed in how others were telling me how to use my gear. The bigger, unstated reason I asked was I just like the way black camo vinyl looks. Regardless, I hope you at least understand that. And same to you. –  Jun 22 '20 at 13:13
3

First, being 'careful' with your lense will prolong it's 'pretty' look for a long while. In College, a pro-shooter for a local paper was surprised to hear my Canon "L" was 5 years old- it didn't have a scratch on it.

Lenses get dirty and scuffed because they are used. You don't throw them around, but they do get banged in if you're switching cameras, and most photographers working in PJ (Photo Journalism) don't have the time to make sure everything is padded.

Onto your question: Buy Neoprene sleeve 'wraps' that go around the lense. Buy B+W filters (usually their most expensive) to protect the front elements. Ensure that the body is wiped down in dusty conditions, and that it is stored in a non-condensing humidity environment.

If you go in and out in the winter you may want to look into the needs for that.

Ultimately a lense is used. They're not investments and they lightly depreciate with time- good lenses hold some value. I resold a 13 year L lense for 75% of the purchase price- whereas the digital body was worth 1/20th the price.

J.Hirsch
  • 1,057
  • 4
  • 8
  • 2
    Yes, if you are a careful person they don't need extra protection (except maybe a UV filter, I use B+W also). All my lenses look like new, some are 10 years old. Keep your camera+lens in a bag when you aren't using it. Don't let your extra lenses touch each other when they are in the bag, that's why camera bags have dividers. – Mattman944 Dec 25 '19 at 13:34
  • 1
    Good advise, thank you. That’s right about the depreciation—this lens (the L series zoom) hasn’t gone down in price much, but the used 5D Mark IV has already lost a couple hundred in value over a few months… –  Dec 25 '19 at 13:49