Where can I rent a Tamron 24-70?

[connersz]

Does anyone know where I can rent a Tamron 24-70mm Nikon fit?

I have looked at all the usual lens rental sites and can't find one.

 

[dinorock]

unlikely not a regular lens used by pros so most rental companies won't hold stock hth mike maybe ask someone you know who has one for a lend

 

[connersz]

unlikely not a regular lens used by pros so most rental companies won't hold stock hth mike maybe ask someone you know who has one for a lend

I could probably say the same for lots of other lenses that are on the rental site. Both the Sigma and Nikon 24-70mm are available so I'm not sure why the Tamron is excluded.

 

[dinorock]

my wife has the 18-270 tamron and loves it, but try and rent one ........ we are talking about quality lenses when you rent and most hirers don't use tamron as far as i know i'm not knocking tamron its just a fact i would say sigma was the next choice after genuine hth mike.

 

[connersz]

It's interesting you say that, I have always thought of the sigma's being worse but that's possibly because of a 400mm I once had that was a bit ropey but then that's part of the reason I want to rent the Tamron so I can see how well it performs, I can't stretch to the Nikon as much as I would like to; not at that price.

 

[StewartR]

I can't tell you where you can find a Tamron 24-70 to hire, but I can tell you why you can't find one.

The first and most important reason is economics. Cheaper lenses are fundamentally less cost-effective to hire and are consequently less attractive.

Here's how it works. The Tamron 24-70 costs about £800 to buy and the Nikon 24-70 is about £1200, so the ratio is 2/3rds and you might expect the Tamron to cost about 2/3rds as much to hire. But you would be wrong. The hire price has to cover the cost of owning the lens, but also the costs of processing the hire booking - including communicating with the customer, packing, shipping, checking in, unpacking, cleaning, testing, etc. All these things are basically independent of the price of the lens, so they have a bigger proportionate effect on a cheap lens than on an expensive one.

As an example, at LensesForHire the Nikon 24-70 costs £55 for a long weekend (3 days) and £79 for a week. We don't stock the Tamron 24-70 but we do stock the Nikon 24-120 which costs about the same to buy as the Tamron. You might expect hiring it to cost 2/3rds of £55/£79, which would be £37/£53, but in fact - because of all those costs which affect all lenses equally - it's actually £43/£62. So hiring the Nikon 24-70 costs 27% more than the Tamron, whereas buying it costs £50% more. Advantage Nikon when you're hiring.

Plus we haven't considered postage. Most of our customers aren't local to Maidenhead so for them we need to factor in postage costs. That's about £20 for the round trip (or more if you need some sort of priority delivery), and again it affects both lenses equally. So for 3 days / 7 days the Tamron is £63/£82 including postage, and the Nikon is £75/£95. Therefore the Nikon costs 16-19% more to hire, but it's still a 50% more expensive lens and it's therefore much more attractive to hire.

The second reason is reliability. By and large, OEM lenses tend to be better built than those from the independent manufacturers; and the Canon/Nikon service departments are *much* quicker at fixing problems. So as the owner of the business I'm going to expect my Canon/Nikon lenses to be in service for a higher proportion of the year than the Tamron/Sigma lenses. Obviously that's hugely important.

None of this means we won't stock third-party lenses. We will if they occupy niches which the OEMs don't. For example we have the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 which has no OEM equivalent; and we have some of the new Tamron 150-600s on order. But where a third-party lens competes head-on with an OEM lens, we'll tend only to stock the OEM version for the reasons outlined above.

Hope that makes sense. Happy to discuss.

 

[Cobra]

Interesting facts and figures there Stewart

 

[connersz]

Thanks, it's good to hear it from the horses mouth but it still doesn't explain why some companies hire out the Sigma version which is even cheaper than the Tamron.

I also don't think you can base it soley on how attractive the hire price is in comparison to the purchase price because some customers may be looking for a one off hire just to try the lens before purchasing it. I know that's maybe not great for you because you have to buy then lens first, but that's where that cheaper price comes into play.

I know what you're saying about the costs involved with hiring but from my point of view I would rather pay the same hire charge for the Tamron as the Nikon to test the lens if it will potentially prevent me forking out £800 for a bad lens.

 

[Nod]

Best bet would be to find a local stockist and shoot a few test shots with the actual copy of the lens you're considering buying. OR, order "blind" over the web and return the lens under the DSRs if it's not up to scratch. (BTW, it's lens not lens)

Thanks to Stewart for his insight from a hirer's PoV.

 

[connersz]

Best bet would be to find a local stockist and shoot a few test shots with the actual copy of the lens you're considering buying. OR, order "blind" over the web and return the lens under the DSRs if it's not up to scratch. (BTW, it's lens not lens)

Thanks to Stewart for his insight from a hirer's PoV.

I think I may have to buy one and find out like you said.

 

[StewartR]

...but it still doesn't explain why some companies hire out the Sigma version which is even cheaper than the Tamron.

You'd have to ask them. I understand our pricing model and stockholding policy and the rationale behind them. I can't comment on what other companies do.

Here's one thought though. I try very hard to ensure that our pricing is "fair", in the sense that we aim to make the same profit margin on every hire. So we have absolutely no incentive to try to persuade you to hire "this" instead of "that", or to increase your hire duration, or whatever. The only factor which is relevant is what's right for the customer, because it makes no difference to us, and I think that's the right approach. However, if you think about it, that's what causes a "cheap" lens to be relatively poor value compared to an "expensive" lens. So if a different company didn't have the same approach to pricing, they might distort things to make a "cheap" lens look more affordable than it really "ought" to be.

...some customers may be looking for a one off hire just to try the lens before purchasing it.

Sure. That's an important segment of our market.

...from my point of view I would rather pay the same hire charge for the Tamron as the Nikon to test the lens if it will potentially prevent me forking out £800 for a bad lens.

Unfortunately most people wouldn't.

 

[StewartR]

OR, order "blind" over the web and return the lens under the DSRs if it's not up to scratch.

Good idea. But tread carefully: there's an awkward legal/ethical point here.

The Distance Selling Regulations give you the absolute right to return an item within (I think) 7 days if it does not meet your needs. The whole point of this aspect of the DSRs is to cater for the situation where you haven't been able to inspect the item before buying, as you would in a traditional shop; if you didn't have the right to return it, that would be a major dampener on internet commerce.

So if you buy a lens online - from a respectable UK-based retailer - you are 100% entitled to inspect it as you would in a shop; shoot some test shots and look at them for sharpness or whatever you look for; assess the weight and ergonomics of the lens; and so on. If you decide it's not right for you, you are 100% entitled to return it. Of course you should be very careful with the lens and the packaging so that the retailer can still sell it in an "as new" condition. But if you decide to (say) take the lens on holiday with you, or (say) shoot a wedding with it, and send it back afterwards, then that's an abuse of the DSRs. It's pretty much impossible for the retailer to prevent, but it hurts them because they now have to take back a "used" lens and can't sell it "new".

 

[connersz]

It's worth noting that you do have much cheaper lenses than the tamron on your site so presumably the price element is only valid when you have the same lens from another more expensive manufacturer

 

[Nod]

Good idea. But tread carefully: there's an awkward legal/ethical point here.

The Distance Selling Regulations give you the absolute right to return an item within (I think) 7 days if it does not meet your needs. The whole point of this aspect of the DSRs is to cater for the situation where you haven't been able to inspect the item before buying, as you would in a traditional shop; if you didn't have the right to return it, that would be a major dampener on internet commerce.

So if you buy a lens online - from a respectable UK-based retailer - you are 100% entitled to inspect it as you would in a shop; shoot some test shots and look at them for sharpness or whatever you look for; assess the weight and ergonomics of the lens; and so on. If you decide it's not right for you, you are 100% entitled to return it. Of course you should be very careful with the lens and the packaging so that the retailer can still sell it in an "as new" condition. But if you decide to (say) take the lens on holiday with you, or (say) shoot a wedding with it, and send it back afterwards, then that's an abuse of the DSRs. It's pretty much impossible for the retailer to prevent, but it hurts them because they now have to take back a "used" lens and can't sell it "new".

Very much so, any returned item under the DSRs should be in resaleable condition and a lens that's just been tested for handling and sharpness etc. should meet the requirement (and be ethically OK). The dodgy ground comes when someone "buys" a piece of kit, uses it in anger for a while (or even for a specific job) then returns it having never had any intention of keeping it (basically stealing a few days' hire of the kit). Jamie wants to buy the lens but wants to try it first - pretty much exactly what the DSRs are for, I think. (Bricks'n'mortar also suffer from the free renters - visit any M&S CS desk on a Monday or Tuesday!)

 

[pjm1]

It's worth noting that you do have much cheaper lenses than the tamron on your site so presumably the price element is only valid when you have the same lens from another more expensive manufacturer

As Stewart says - and I'm sure I don't need to answer on his behalf - it's about economics. Businesses need to make a profit and I expect the total annual profit % on an OEM lens is expected to be higher than the broadly equivalent non-OEM. That takes into account demand from customers (i.e. "void" periods when they're not hired). If there isn't an equivalent OEM lens than obviously might make sense to buy and stock a Sigma or whatever, even if quite cheap - assuming there's expected to be enough demand for it for the economics to work out. Equally, there might be very popular Sigma lenses (maybe the 18-35 or 8-16) which even though not massively expensive, are so in demand (perhaps by lens tryer-outers) that it's never going to be sitting in the stock room... so that makes sense to buy.

 

[dinorock]

It's interesting you say that, I have always thought of the sigma's being worse but that's possibly because of a 400mm I once had that was a bit ropey but then that's part of the reason I want to rent the Tamron so I can see how well it performs, I can't stretch to the Nikon as much as I would like to; not at that price.

so why not rent/buy the sigma equivalent which will be cheaper than the nikon hth mike