Renting equipment

Of course owning your own equipment is far more satisfying, but don't discount the possibility of equipment rental as a waste of money. Rental is a very clever way of not tying up finances on kit that won't be used day-to-day. I'll illustrate this point.

Let's assume I cover three sporting events a year, and for those I need a fast telephoto lens, say a 300mm f/2.8. A rounded UK cost of a Nikkor version of this lens is £3000 (US $5800). So for each time I use the lens it will cost £1000 (US $1960). This is a heavy price to pay for an occasional use lens, so instead of tying up capital that could be used for other things, rental becomes an option. Renting the 300mm f/2.8 is approximately £50 per day (US $98) and £200 per week (US $392).

Therefore rental of this lens for 3 days of sporting events will be £150 (US $294). This is far less than the £3000 (US $5800) that would have been paid if the lens had been bought.

Other than the lower price there are also other factors to consider. A 300mm f/2.8 isn't cheap to insure - rented equipment will be covered for most incidents under your rental. The lenses will also be regularly serviced to make sure they are in top condition.

A further point would be on travels - on location you might not be able to carry such a large lens onto aircraft, or it would be logistically impractical. Rental once you're at location is an easy way to ensure no equipment gets damaged in transit, and that you won't need to pay extra to carry overweight handluggage (lenses and other camera equipment should never be checked in so keep it with you).

However it isn't all that rosy - it is common that a substantial deposit is left or for credit card details to be retained so that the rental company has a guarantee that the lens gets returned, and there are usually fines for late returns.

And there we have it. That's a brief overview on some reasons why professionals consider renting equipment.

EDIT - please see the amendment dated 11 June 2008.