Considering that the lenses often cost significantly more than the body, why does it cost more to rent a body than the lens?

For instance, a local rental place in Toronto has the Nikon D7000 body for rent for $105/day, and the body costs just over $1000.

The same place rents the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8G VRII lens for only $40/day, but the lens costs well over $2000.

I think renting the lens has value, but renting a body seems expensive.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I noticed the same thing at a place here in Boston. (Well, Cambridge.) \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Oct 27, 2011 at 2:25

2 Answers 2


All speculation:

Bodies go out of date more quickly, so the store will be renting it out for a shorter time period. In order to get an equal return on investment they charge more per rental.

Lenses are more reliable (less likely to break) assuming that the renter handles each with care.

And perhaps there is more demand for renting lenses.

  • \$\begingroup\$ pretty much my thoughts. I'm sure they also require more of a checkout and reset when returned than lens do. \$\endgroup\$
    – Zeb
    Oct 27, 2011 at 4:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'll buy the first two reasons, and I agree that there is probably more demand for renting lenses than bodies, but shouldn't higher demand lead to higher prices, not lower? \$\endgroup\$
    – seanmc
    Nov 2, 2011 at 2:26

It's the same here in Montreal too. I have no inside knowledge yet but my guess has to do with risk.

A body is more fragile and expensive to repair than a lens. Bodies have more maintenance between each rental, reseting the camera, checking for sensor dust, cleaning dust, etc.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.