Advice: new camera or new lens?

[Puenteancho]

I'm not sure where to post, in cameras or lenses, because I have a mixed question. 

I currently have a T3i and two Canon lenses: EFS 17-85 1:4-5.6 IS USM and EF 70-300 1:4-5.6 L IS USM. I mostly shoot outdoors and take a lot of pictures of rugby. Now, I would like to start shooting high school basketball (indoor, bad lighting, but court side, so close range). Today, my G16 takes better photos in this situation than the T3i and lenses I have.

My question is: is my money better invested in a new lens (thinking 50mm 1.4, which seems like a good investment anyway) or upgrading my camera (which I will do anyway in the next couple of years)? I realize neither of my lenses is a good indoor lens, but my camera also doesn't do well at higher ISO. Unfortunately, buying both is not an option right now. I look forward to any suggestions you have. Thanks!

[TCampbell]

---

@JonKline wrote:

Another piece of the puzzle no one mentioned yet... in 10 years your new camera will be a paperweight, but your new lens could sell for more than you paid for it.

I buy new lenses whenever I can and new cameras only when I have to.

---

Very few lenses go up in value, but some do.  To go up in value the lens needs to be very good condition.  I have an EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM (original... I bought it before Canon introduced the "II") and that lens is currently going for more on the used market than I paid for it when it was new.  But this is only because (a) it's an L series lens and (b) the replaced model was introduced at a significantly higher price point than the original was selling for after it had been out for many years.  The "II" is currently about $6600 new.  The original is selling for about $4500 if it's in "very good" condition.  But I think I paid closer to $4k when I bought mine new.

The L series lenses tend to hold their value extremely well... many can be sold on the used market for about 85% of whatever they sold for as "new" -- as long as they are in very good condition.

All of this assumes a person actually wants to "sell" their lenses.  But since the lenses continue to work and perform on every new camera body I might buy... why sell them?  It's an investment that will last for years and years.  If you think of all the things you buy as a consumer which have to be replaced every handful of years (e.g. computers, phones, cars, etc.) your lenses will out-last all of those.  A quality lens is a solid investment.  To that end, I prefer to save for an exceptional lens that will last, rather than a cheaper lens that I will probably want to upgrade in the future (because that results in buying the same thing twice to satisfy just one need.)

[ScottyP]

Yes but You get what Jon is saying. He isn't claiming you should purchase cases of lenses as investments. He merely says they are current models for decades hold value whereas bodies are updated every 1 - 3 years and they lose value.

If you buy gently used lenses from individuals (Craigslist, etc) you actually could shoot them for a few years and sell them for more than you paid if you make good deals. You take a depreciation hit if you buy new but if you buy used, someone else took that hit for you. But the point is the free use of the lens, not the few bucks profit. This would be true for many lenses, not just the "L" ones. I just wish I lived in a bigger volume Craigslist area so there would be a bigger selection of lenses on offer near me!

[Skirball]

---

@ScottyP wrote:
Yes but You get what Jon is saying. He isn't claiming you should purchase cases of lenses as investments. He merely says they are current models for decades hold value whereas bodies are updated every 1 - 3 years and they lose value.

---

Sure, and I think we all agree with the basic premise - though I think the use of the word 'investment' is an overstatement.  But if you look through all of our posts we're all saying the same thing:  buy lenses, not camera bodies.  We just didn't elaborate on why.