Again, I come to my Hedgehog family for suggestions. My wife and I have been State Farm customers for almost fifty years with less than five claims during that time and all from either storms in our area or auto accidents. Since I became interested in photography a few years ago and have collected some very expensive bodies and lenses, I realized that I really should get insurance on this equipment. I go to State Farm with a list of my equipment with replacement prices and never had any issues with getting them insured. Now, I recently purchased a Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 lens which is a very expensive lens and State Farm is now saying that in order to insure this lens, I must provide an appraisal for the lens. I purchased this lens from KEH for a very good price but it was still over $3,500.00. The lens is in mint condition with the very expensive carrying case. The replacement cost of this lens is $5,500.00 new and that is what I was trying to insure it for. I have provided State Farm with prices from several reputable camera companies including Nikon to validate the cost of this lens to no avail. Anyone have any comments regarding this matter? I really would rather not change companies over a five thousand dollar lens but I am open to using another insurance provider for my camera equipment.

Thanks in advance for your help.

So I just received the used Canon R5 and RF 24-105L lens I ordered from B&H. The camera and lens appear to be in very good physical condition, per the ad, but I was a little taken aback that it didn't include the USB cable/ cable protector and the battery that was installed is the older style LP-E6N and not the LP-E6NH that should normally come with an R5. This of corse will affect performance of the Camera. Furthermore, the battery that is included is on its last legs with the recharge performance indicating only one red bar.

Had the advert indicated that the Camera didn't include the proper battery and was missing the cable and cable protector, at least I would have known that when I made my purchase decision. (at the time it was after hours and no way to contact anyone).

I've emailed their Used department to inquire if there might be a way for them to exchange the battery with a proper one, and also get the cable. It's not a huge deal, but I kinda feel when I'm spending over 4 grand that these minor factors should have been mention in the advert.

I actually did order a second LP-E6NH battery, which should arrive in a couple days, thinking I would have a spare, but it appears this will be my only battery unless they will see clear to exchange batteries with me.

Otherwise I'm very excited to try this baby out. I'm struck with how small and light it is compared to my 5D IV.

Until Don Petersen became CEO in the early 80's. The design committee had a nasty habit of "straightening out" the curves. On clay models, they would literally take large knives and remove the sweep of fenders and roof-lines to create boxier looking vehicles, which they believed would sell better against GM. I've seen some of the late 70's mock-ups, and the original designs of the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis were quite aerodynamic, but the design committee nixed the sleeker concept.

In model year 1983, the T-bird got "aeroed". From then on, all vehicles lost their edges and went aero, since that's what wind-tunnel testing was telling them anyway. The 1986 Taurus/Sable was designed and run through the wind tunnel from the get go.

A bit later on, Roger Smith, CEO of GM, commented on how the Taurus/Sable reminded him of a "turtle". Don Petersen retorted that "Roger Smith wishes he had some of those 'turtles' to sell." Taurus/Sable owned the class.