Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

A value of 50
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:38 pm    Post subject: A value of 50 Reply with quote
I came across a B&H price list from the early eighties and it struck me how differently normal lenses were valued back then. For convenience I put the data in a table. All lenses are 50mm with the exception of four marked with an asterisk - Olympus and Yashica are 55mm, and two Konicas are 40 and 57mm. Present value of that dollar is around $2.50.
I have drawn some conclusions of course, but I wonder what you guys will find most interesting.



PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm amazed how expensive the Nikons were!

Konica being cheaper than Canon is a big surprise too - just goes to show, quality was not necessarily related to price as the Konica 1.7/50 is far better than the Canon FD 1.8/50.

The Contax prices are surprisingly low, so for me, I'd have bought the Contax.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'm amazed how expensive the Nikons were!
(...)
The Contax prices are surprisingly low, so for me, I'd have bought the Contax.

The Nikon and the Contax were priced almost the same Smile I guess the above comment speaks about your perception of value.

I am, too, surprised by the prices of the Nikon vis a vis the competition.

Thanks for posting this table!


PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, but I was referring to the price vs quality. The Zeiss Contax lenses are priced low considering their quality.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Starting in the late 50s and early 60s, Nikon became "the" name in 35mm photography. Their lenses have always been optically excellent. Mechanically they were built to withstand heavy professional use. Only Canon could threaten Nikon in the professional field. Eventually, Canon with the EOS line surpassed Nikon, a position Canon still holds today.

Pentax, Minolta, Olympus manufactured cameras for advanced amateurs and enthusiasts. These manufacturers have tried but never managed to threaten Nikon in the professional market. Yashica was simply a brand of low status, below Pentax, Minolta and Olympus. Yashica's prestige was only a little above Miranda, Petri, Kowa,

In the 70s the Yashica tried to improve its image and launched the Contax RTS camera, which was basically a deluxe Yashica FRII. Contax lenses were named "Zeiss" but actually were just improved Cosina lenses. The "Zeiss" lenses were manufactured in Japan with some participation of Zeiss. The legend was that the machinery for manufacturing the lenses was imported from Germany and was the same used by Zeiss. In fact, since the 60s, the Japanese optical industry had already caught up with, and in many cases overtaken the German optical industry. The Japanese had become leaders in photographic optics and could make anything Zeiss, Schneider, Rodenstock were making.

Well-informed people knew that the "Zeiss" lenses for Contax were manufactured by Cosina in Japan, and that many of them were designed in Japan by Japanese designers. Most Zeiss-Cosina lenses were at an intermediate level between Nikon and Minolta, for example. Prices then reflected just that.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I wonder, if then, anyone had actually compared this lot. This is only a price comparison not a quality comparison.

Things were different then, look at the Konica, we know how good the lenses are (despite the hype) and yet they are one of the cheapest. Why? Because they were an also-ran on the market. Not big like Nikon & Canon, not as popular as Minolta, Pentax and Olympus, nor as niche as Contax. No, Yashica and Konica were the lower middle section of of the market - just above Petris, 'own brands', Prakticas and Zenits.

The price of an Industar 50 only was £8 and a Helios 44-* was £15 in 1979 when I was selling them.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Contax lenses were named "Zeiss" but actually were just improved Cosina lenses. The "Zeiss" lenses were manufactured in Japan with some participation of Zeiss.


Nonsense, they were Zeiss designs built to Zeiss standards, Cosina had zero to do with them. The Contax lenses were manufactured in Germany, later some of the models were produced in Japan by Tomioka to Zeiss standards, some models were always produced in Germany.

Gerald wrote:
Well-informed people knew that the "Zeiss" lenses for Contax were manufactured by Cosina in Japan, and that many of them were designed in Japan by Japanese designers. Most Zeiss-Cosina lenses were at an intermediate level between Nikon and Minolta, for example. Prices then reflected just that.


This is even worse nonsense, again, Cosina had nothing to do with the Zeiss Contax lenses.

If you really think Zeiss Contax lenses are below Nikon in quality then you can never have used any of them.

Seriously, you just wrote a lot of rubbish.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Minolta f/1.2 was the least expensive then and yet the most coveted today.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Gerald wrote:
Contax lenses were named "Zeiss" but actually were just improved Cosina lenses. The "Zeiss" lenses were manufactured in Japan with some participation of Zeiss.


Nonsense, they were Zeiss designs built to Zeiss standards, Cosina had zero to do with them. The Contax lenses were manufactured in Germany, later some of the models were produced in Japan by Tomioka to Zeiss standards, some models were always produced in Germany.

Gerald wrote:
Well-informed people knew that the "Zeiss" lenses for Contax were manufactured by Cosina in Japan, and that many of them were designed in Japan by Japanese designers. Most Zeiss-Cosina lenses were at an intermediate level between Nikon and Minolta, for example. Prices then reflected just that.


This is even worse nonsense, again, Cosina had nothing to do with the Zeiss Contax lenses.

If you really think Zeiss Contax lenses are below Nikon in quality then you can never have used any of them.

Seriously, you just wrote a lot of rubbish.


+1

Orio had several MM and AE Contax lenses German and Japan he didn't see any quality difference and me too either I have also mixed MM and AE lenses , after hundred or even thousands lenses they are still my most used most respected lenses.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is worthwhile to buy the top of the line. Absolutely no depreciation.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
At those prices, and at that time, would we have been able to afford to try out all the 50's like today?

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Seriously, you just wrote a lot of rubbish.

+1


PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
The Minolta f/1.2 was the least expensive then and yet the most coveted today.


This is what strikes me too!
Even the Yashica and Canon FD f/1.2 lenses (I suppose not "L" version) where more expensive!
I would have thought as well that Contax prices would have been higher - but this matches what the photography shop owner told me when I started photography: Buy a cheap Yashica starter stet. Later you could buy extreme good Zeiss lenses - for a bit more money, but not overly expensive for what you get.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZoneV wrote:
... the photography shop owner told me when I started photography: Buy a cheap Yashica starter stet. Later you could buy extreme good Zeiss lenses - for a bit more money, but not overly expensive for what you get.


But who did?

I was working in the retail trade when the CONTAX RTS was introduced. CONTAX and Yashica were hardly ever mentioned in the same breath by my colleagues, customers or sales rep. And usually only in context of the lens mount. We had two types of customer, those who could afford the CONTAX and those who could only afford the Yashica. And in my experience the twain never met.

Some of the lenses were indeed made by Tomioka, actually a division of Kyocera, as time went on Tomioka made more of the lenses as production gradually shifted to Japan.

I remember the impact this camera made on the market, a sexy beast designed by Porsche and lenses by Zeiss. Wet dream stuff.

In the shop I worked we has a professional division with a lot of Hasselblad users. A popular accessory was a Hasselblad lens to C/Y adapter. But many people were put off this system because it was fully electronic and was useless without batteries. A few RTS's were shipped with a simple card sleeve over the CONTAX box marked 'Top Secret'. I can't find a picture of one, I imagine they'd be worth a fortune combined with the original box.

Incidentally the German Contax name was written thus: Contax,
The Yashica/Kyocera version was written: CONTAX


PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
philslizzy wrote:
ZoneV wrote:
... the photography shop owner told me when I started photography: Buy a cheap Yashica starter stet. Later you could buy extreme good Zeiss lenses - for a bit more money, but not overly expensive for what you get.


But who did?

I was working in the retail trade when the CONTAX RTS was introduced. CONTAX and Yashica were hardly ever mentioned in the same breath by my colleagues, customers or sales rep. And usually only in context of the lens mount. We had two types of customer, those who could afford the CONTAX and those who could only afford the Yashica. And in my experience the twain never met.

Some of the lenses were indeed made by Tomioka, actually a division of Kyocera, as time went on Tomioka made more of the lenses as production gradually shifted to Japan.

I remember the impact this camera made on the market, a sexy beast designed by Porsche and lenses by Zeiss. Wet dream stuff.

In the shop I worked we has a professional division with a lot of Hasselblad users. A popular accessory was a Hasselblad lens to C/Y adapter. But many people were put off this system because it was fully electronic and was useless without batteries. A few RTS's were shipped with a simple card sleeve over the CONTAX box marked 'Top Secret'. I can't find a picture of one, I imagine they'd be worth a fortune combined with the original box.

Incidentally the German Contax name was written thus: Contax,
The Yashica/Kyocera version was written: CONTAX


Exactly.
Unfortunately, I was definitely living in Yashicaville.
And yet it is only with hindsight that I feel a little twinge.
I had my Yashica 635 and the world was my oyster.
Good times
OH


PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a mint RTS that needs a new home if anyone interested.?.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
This is even worse nonsense, again, Cosina had nothing to do with the Zeiss Contax lenses.

If you really think Zeiss Contax lenses are below Nikon in quality then you can never have used any of them.

Seriously, you just wrote a lot of rubbish.


Cosina did not "Zeiss" lenses; Cosina makes "Zeiss" lenses! Laughing

Cosina manufactures manual focus SLR lenses for Carl Zeiss with Leica (ZM),[2] Nikon (ZF), Pentax (ZK), Canon EOS (ZE), and M42 screw mounts (ZS).
Cosina also manufactures CSC lenses (Touit and Sonnar T* E for APS-C format such as Fujifilm X-mount and Sony E-mount.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosina

He's right on one point: the "Zeiss" Contax lenses were manufactured by Yashica, a failed camera maker which had acquired the half-failed maker of photographic optics, Tomioka. Today, Kyocera Optec, the former Tomioka, manufactures lenses for scanners, line sensors, and specialized optical parts for other industries. Apparently, Kyocera Optec does not manufacture photographic lenses anymore.

On the quality of Zeiss lenses for Contax, only those who live in a dream believe they were better than the Nikons. Some Zeiss Contax lenses were indeed truly exceptional, as the Distagon 21mm F2.8, but some were clearly below the Nikons. For example, the Nikon 180mm F2.8 ED was much better than the corresponding Zeiss. The Zeiss Planar 50mm F1.4 had nothing exceptional compared to a Nikon. The Planar distortion of 2%, for example, was greater than average!

There are people who do not know, but since the 50s the Nikon standard lenses were already better than the Zeiss. It all started when the Nikon designed an exceptional 50mm F1.4 lens for its Nikon S rangefinder camera. The Nikon 50mm F1.4 was faster and had better performance than the Zeiss Sonnar 50mm F1.5. My father in law had a Nikon S with a Nikkor 50mm F1.4. I borrowed his camera and I could use it for a long time. Fantastic camera and lens, but my heart was with SLR cameras...

The great American photographer David Douglas Duncan was one of the first to "discover" the high quality of Nikon lenses, while covering the Korean War:

President NAGAOKA, Masao guided DUNCAN and BRISTOL who visited the Ohi Plant to tour the factory by themselves. He explained "all lenses were very strictly inspected one by one, and each lens had about the same degree of accuracy." In the inspection room, they compared their Leitz and Zeiss lenses to that of Nikkor, with the projection inspection equipment.
They praised, "The Nikkor is better than German lenses," and bought Nikkor lenses for Leica.
When the Korean War broke out on the 25th of June, DUNCAN who was staying in Japan went to the front line with two "Leica IIIc's" equipped with a NIKKOR-S.C 5cm f/1.5 and a NIKKOR-Q.C 13.5cm f/4 respectively.

http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history_e/


From this point Nikon lenses took by storm the newsrooms of the major American newspapers and magazines as Life and New York Times. Laboratory tests in the USA showed that Nikon lenses were better than the Leica and Zeiss:

"Mitch Bogdanovitch of Eastern Optical Company, the lens expert, put the Nikkors through a series of rigid test and found that the average quality was much higher than that of the German lenses.
"The lenses are highly accurate and efficient," he reports "and by comparison with German lenses more uniform in quality."
He praised especially the 50mm f/1.4 and the 135mm f/3.5 for their resolving power and minimum aberrational faults.
Frank Scherschel, chief of Life's photographic laboratories, said 50mm f/1.4 was sharper than Sonnar f/1.5."

In the 70s, Nikon and Canon were engaged in a strenuous competition to see who would dominate the world of photography. The dispute was in zoom, fast and super telephoto, macro lenses, etc. Zeiss, Yashica-Contax were no longer competitors to be considered seriously.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just do the sensible thing and admit you were wrong before continuing to make more of a fool of yourself.

The Contax lenses we were discussing - from the early 80s had NOTHING to do with Cosina, therefore you are WRONG on that point.

Quote:
On the quality of Zeiss lenses for Contax, only those who live in a dream believe they were better than the Nikons.


LOL, after making a stupid statement like that, I doubt anyone will take you seriously anymore.

Quote:

Some Zeiss Contax lenses were indeed truly exceptional, as the Distagon 21mm F2.8, but some were clearly below the Nikons. For example, the Nikon 180mm F2.8 ED was much better than the corresponding Zeiss.


Nonsense.

Quote:
The Zeiss Planar 50mm F1.4 had nothing exceptional compared to a Nikon. The Planar distortion of 2%, for example, was greater than average!


More nonsense, if you're trying to claim the Nikkor 1.4/50 is better than the Planar T* 1.4/50 then you're just hopelessly wrong.

Quote:
There are people who do not know, but since the 50s the Nikon standard lenses were already better than the Zeiss. It all started when the Nikon designed an exceptional 50mm F1.4 lens for its Nikon S rangefinder camera. The Nikon 50mm F1.4 was faster and had better performance than


Oh dear, you really do talk nonsense.

What makes you think you can get away with talking rubbish on this forum where many people are experienced with both Nikkors and Zeiss T* lenses and know full well their respective qualities?


PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Seems like beyond the 1.2 lenses, the Zeiss 50 1.4 is the only lens that has appreciated using 2.5 to 1 rate of inflation Smile

As far as Nikons go, investment wise, I wish I had been around in the early 70s and instead of 50s, I'd saved my money for one of these. I could have bought a house where I live:

http://petapixel.com/2012/05/08/160000-nikkor-6mm-fisheye-in-action-on-a-nikon-d800/


PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh, My Gosh! It's amazing how some people keep talking about other people and not about lenses. Shocked

Perhaps this explains why such people purchase so many crappy lenses. Razz


PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kenetic....Holy crap Batman,gave me goose bumps, now if only I could sell all of the voluminous amount of cameras,lenses and other expensive add-ons.....maybe just maybe..takes off rose coloured specs,back to reality.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So here's what I think. I am pretty certain that Nikon was able to command huge premium based on the strength of their system. I do not believe, based on my experience, that Nikkors, as a whole, were superior optically to the offerings from Canon, Pentax, Minolta or Olympus. As an aside I strongly disagree with the notion that their build is better, if you think I am wrong, I have to two words for you: "dry focus". I also tend to think that the fuss about Zeiss Planars has more to do with name than superiority in IQ. And yes, I have a Planar, just as I have every other non-1.2 lens in this list. Well, may be not C/Y Yashicas - I'd need to check.

Price-wise I think that the good starting point is Nikkor 50/1.4 - $140 is pretty much what an excellent used copy costs today. Or $400 if you want a brand new one. From that point of view among the 1.4 only Olympus held it's value just as well, although Canon is getting there, and Pentax-A, although not featured will easily go over $100. Zeiss prices of course blew the lid, but a) I think they were artificially priced just below Nikkors, and b) they are riding a strong wave on brand-name recognition.
The next interesting point is 1.2. I am surprised no one has noticed or mentioned how little value was given to an extra ~1/3 stop provided by 1.2. We're used now to 1.2 costing from 3-4 to as much as 7-8 times more than corresponding 1.4's but back then they were sold at just 75% premium, or just 50% in the case of Rokkors. The difference is even more drastic if you consider prices for intro lenses. 50/1.8-2 were just 2-3 times cheaper than 1.2's. That's what - about 20x these days?
And that brings my final point - look how relatively expensive the entry into the system was - these prices are far above what basic legacy primes are worth now.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gardener wrote:
The next interesting point is 1.2. I am surprised no one has noticed or mentioned how little value was given to an extra ~1/3 stop provided by 1.2. We're used now to 1.2 costing from 3-4 to as much as 7-8 times more than corresponding 1.4's but back then they were sold at just 75% premium, or just 50% in the case of Rokkors. The difference is even more drastic if you consider prices for intro lenses. 50/1.8-2 were just 2-3 times cheaper than 1.2's. That's what - about 20x these days?


Most standard F1.2 lenses had 7 optical elements, the same number of an F1.4 lens. Thus, the manufacturing cost of an F1.2 lens was not too much greater than an F1.4 lens

Today, we are living in crazy times. The number of ignorant people in photographic technology has greatly increased. What I see today is an incredible number of worshipers of 'fast' lenses. Naturally, the manufacturers are taking advantage of that, and increasing excessively the prices of their fast lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Make no mistake, the "Zeiss" lenses for Yashica-Contax were made by men, not by God, with glass, metal, plastic and grease, as all other lenses of the time. Some of those Yashica- Zeiss lenses were very good, others not so much. See, for example, the performance of the Distagon 18mm F4, a lens which was sold for $1,100 when new.

Full image:


Edge:


http://slrlensreview.com/web/images/stories//galleries/cz-distagon-18mm-f4-cy/bryce3-cz-distagon-18mm-f4-iso100-f4-s640-18mm.jpg

Note how bad the edges are. Nonetheless, Zeiss said this about the Distagon 18mm F4: "Its special features are excellent image quality ..."
Excellent image quality? Where? Certainly not in the edges with wide open aperture! I think my Tamron SP 17mmm F3.5 has a better edge resolution.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Oh, My Gosh! It's amazing how some people keep talking about other people and not about lenses. Shocked

Perhaps this explains why such people purchase so many crappy lenses. Razz


I really wouldn't consider Zeiss Contax lenses crappy. I own lots of them and the Nikkors just aren't as good in my experience (except 24/2.8 which is better than the Distagon 25/2.8 IMO). If you are just looking at distortion then you might have a point for some of them, but for out and out resolution, resistance to flare and micro contrast your point simply doesn't stand I'm afraid. IMO Wink

Ian is correct BTW, Cosina weren't involved until much later, and all the technology/equipment needed to make the Contax lenses were lifted from Germany. Some of the later MM lenses, made in Japan, were much improved upon the original AE German made lenses.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Oh, My Gosh! It's amazing how some people keep talking about other people and not about lenses. Shocked

Perhaps this explains why such people purchase so many crappy lenses. Razz


Some of us need to learn more about optics (like me). For others, Gerald, who know a ton about optics as you obviously do, I think time may be better spent learning about people, and how to express your opinion in an online forum without bombastic language that makes you sound like a troll.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 1 of 7