Third-party goods and hire for lenses?

[marty jh]

I have seen goods reports about this company on another site in regards to hiring Canon lenses.

Lenses For Hire Ltd.


Martin

[RichBrew]

There are time restrictions in hiring lenses from these people: the original poster wants the lens for 6 weeks. Also, I don't like the look of the consequences incurred by the hirer should the lens get damaged or get lost/stolen. I'd sooner pay extra for a more comprehensive protection package than risk extra expenses. After all, he would be taking the lens to Africa and using it it demanding conditions. It does seem that he's going to bite the bullet, and buy one outright, though, which to me is the more sensible solution considering the potential costs of just renting one. At least he'll still have it when he returns home.

Welcome to the forums, by the way.

RichBrew

[mhc-art]

I actually 'bit the bullet'' last night!... well nearly... I put in a fw bids for the 100-400 on ebay for around the £700 mark, don't really know if I should, but i did and I was beaten to it both times... will probably try again tonight...

Thanks for the hire link, I'll have a look

[eeyore]

as regards hiring lenses - it is rarely worth it for long trips as the lens hire for six weeks will almost certainly exceed the cost of just buying it. This is particularly true of cheaper lenses such as the 100-400. Hire may be worth it if you want something more expensive such as a 400mm f2.8 , tho even here the hire will be corespondinly more two.

imo there are only four good reasons to hire kit

a) to try before you buy

b) if your shoot is to be very hazardous to kit (for example photographing diving gannets from a rhib off grassholm - i killed a hired 100-400 that way) tho it is essential to make sure that the hire includes damage insurance

c) If you need a specific expensive item for a short assignment (for example a freind of mine occasionally hires Hasselblad H2D kit for fashion shoots)

d) If you are a pro or semi pro and will be able to set the cost of the hire against tax - tho even here you need to work out if it would make more sense to buy and set the depreciation against tax instead.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by RichBrew

, I don't like the look of the consequences incurred by the hirer should the lens get damaged or get lost/stolen. I'd sooner pay extra for a more comprehensive protection package than risk extra expenses.

yep i definitely agree rich - it looks from their T&Cs that if the lense was irreparably damaged the customer could end up liable for the whole cost of the item plus the hire fee not the best imo

I usually hire from calumet who i have found to be very good in this respect - their lenses come fully insured for normal use (so long as you take reasonable care of them) and you can opt to specify other uses to be insured (such as shooting from a boat in salt spray)

on the occasion that i completely killed one of their 100-400s (through getting hit by a rather large wave ) their were no repercussions for me and they are still happy to hire to me without loading the premium.

[mhc-art]

I've had a quote from the hire place, £180 for six weeks which includes insurance, that's sounds pretty good.

The other option is of course to buy one and I'm guessing the sell-on price for a 100-400 would be much the same if I need the funds after coming back from Africa...

...decisions, decisions...

[RichBrew]

£180 for six weeks? That sounds ridiculously cheap, and works out at £4:28 a day. If that is the true cost then it's a bargain for such a lens, but I'd make absolutely sure that this price covers all eventualities.

RichBrew

[glsammy]

I've had a look at the hire web site, the lens I'm about to buy I can rent for a week for £88.0, including insurance. This is way less than I've seen elsewhere and very tempting.
I might well have a go at that, a chance to try before investing a large sum.
Just got to wade through their terms and conditions to see where the catch is!

[mhc-art]

Originally Posted by RichBrew

£180 for six weeks? That sounds ridiculously cheap, and works out at £4:28 a day. If that is the true cost then it's a bargain for such a lens, but I'd make absolutely sure that this price covers all eventualities.

RichBrew

I received the email below from them, obviously I'll have to check out the terms and conditions to be absolutely sure....

'If we needed to spend money on a lens in order to return it to a condition fit for hiring - repairs or cleaning - that would be "damage" and covered by the insurance. I don't know how much professional cleaning would cost, but to be honest I suspect that it might not be a lot more than the £150 excess.

I appreciate that the need for cleaning might be a bit more subjective than the need for repair, and if we found ourselves in that situation we would certainly attempt to find a solution we're all happy with.

As long as you return the lens, even in pieces, the insurance will cover you if we can identify it as ours. But please note that our insurance *doesn't* cover you for loss or theft, for reasons which I hope are obvious.'

[eeyore]

and therein lies a problem - you need to be covered for loss or theft - particularly if this lens is going in your hold luggage - imagine what would happen if the airline lost your bag for example.

also i would be suspicious of thier glib assurance that the insurance will cover all repairs - their terms and conditions specifically say that the hirer is responsible for the cost of any breakages which doesnt really square with what they are telling you.

remember the adage that if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.