"David A. Mann" wrote:
>
> John Francis writes:
>
> > There's no point in insuring it for more than that - the
> > insurance company reckon that is what it costs to buy a replacement
> > lens immediately (without waiting around for years for a bargain).
>
> Is the replacement value in your pol
John Francis writes:
> There's no point in insuring it for more than that - the
> insurance company reckon that is what it costs to buy a replacement
> lens immediately (without waiting around for years for a bargain).
Is the replacement value in your policy set in concrete or will they account
I bought the A* 300/2.8 for 1200. Maybe too much but cheapest I could find.
-Original Message-
From: Creature's Comfort [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 6:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fast, Clean Glass* (200/2.8A*, 300/4A*, 300/2.8A
Hi,
How insurance people and reputable commercial sources value a lens
does not necessarily reflect real world purchasing prices. I know
several people on this list who have bought one or more of these
lenses, in superb condition, for substantially less than the prices
posted by Ritz. Some were
Probably not nuts, Paal. Your postings seem coherent. But, then.
I have personal article insurance on all my camera "stuff." All the reputable
commercial sources for a Pentax A300 F4 seem to show the lens at $650 and up. I have
the insurance level for that lens at $700.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECT
5 matches
Mail list logo
