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

Canon FL 58mm F/1.2
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:57 pm    Post subject: Removed. Reply with quote
Pardon me, but that doesn't look "mint" to me, and the price is exaggerated...

P.S.
It's strange, to me at least, seeing someone advertising a lens, and providing photos taken with a different copy.[/quote]

You are right. Just ignore my offer.

P.S. I always investigate a lenses possibilities by searching for photo results on this forum or even flickr for example. Sure each copy is different but it does give you an idea. Why else are we looking at results in this forum?

Last edited by JerryMK on Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:46 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have to agree. All this business about sample variation is 90% BS. It happens sometimes but relatively almost never. I have 2, 3 and 4 copies of some lenses (in my collection of 350 lenses) and they're all identical! I have 3 copies of this FL 58/1.2 and while the exterior conditions vary the images they produce are absolutely identical.

I agree that ebay copy isn't mint though. I used to coin-collect and the ratings go:
Mint
Uncirculated
Excellent
Very good
Good
Poor
Very poor.

Mint means never touched by human hands.
Uncirculated means maybe touched but only to place it in a jacket or something.
Excellent mean it's been touched but there are almost no signs of wear or dirt.
...and so on.

In reality there is no such thing as a lens in "mint" condition. They have all been tested and used even NIB (New In Box) ones. Lens ratings are something I distain somewhat. That ebay lens for example rates as "good" from the lost above IMO. One can clearly see the massive amounts of dirt in the ribbed knuckling of the focus ring as well as scratches and dirt in the filter threads.

The price is not too exaggerated IMO tho. A little bit maybe. They seem to go for $150 to $350. Where $150 is fully operable but in poor condition and $350 is all original parts (hood and caps), box, and all in excellent condition. When I sell mine I'll want about $250ea. for them and I'll get it too. I recently sold one actually - but it was returned - I got $290 with shipping for it. He returned it cuz he hates pre-set aperture systems and shortly after arrival it developed a spot of oil on the aperture blades. And also I'm cool that way... if the price is over about $150 I'll accept returns without question for about a month as long as they pay for the shipping. In the above case he gave me a really nice 12mm C-Mount lens (unasked!) to cover the shipping. I was happily surprised when I opened the box and found a new toy to play with!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
MODERATOR CHIMES IN:

Jerry, there is a place here for such ads, called MARKETPLACE.
Please place your ad there and remove this one here!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tesselator wrote:

Mint means never touched by human hands.
Uncirculated means maybe touched but only to place it in a jacket or something.
Excellent mean it's been touched but there are almost no signs of wear or dirt.
...and so on.

In reality there is no such thing as a lens in "mint" condition. They have all been tested and used even NIB (New In Box) ones. Lens ratings are something I distain somewhat. That ebay lens for example rates as "good" from the lost above IMO. One can clearly see the massive amounts of dirt in the ribbed knuckling of the focus ring as well as scratches and dirt in the filter threads.


Camera/lens grading is a subject that's been discussed ad nauseum since long before the Internet was around. It uses the same labels as coin condition ratings do, but definitely not the same grading system. And even that will vary between those doing the grading. I would expect any camera or lens with a "good" condition rating to actually be very ugly looking, with very heavy wear on the barrel and focusing collar and probably with prominent scratches in the lens elements. Do I agree with this sort of rating? Hell no, but that's the way it's most often done. Some dealers in used equipment, however, are very strict as to their grading systems. Take KEH for example. Their "Bargain" rating is the equivalent to most other dealers Exc/Exc+ rating, so their Exc rating is likely equivalent to others' Mint rating. And if KEH sells something as Mint, well it might have been handled by human hands before, but it will likely not show a cosmetic flaw or any sort of wear anywhere. Probably won't even have fingerprints. Cool


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
MODERATOR CHIMES IN:

Jerry, there is a place here for such ads, called MARKETPLACE.
Please place your ad there and remove this one here!


Done!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tesselator wrote:
I have to agree. All this business about sample variation is 90% BS. It happens sometimes but relatively almost never. I have 2, 3 and 4 copies of some lenses (in my collection of 350 lenses) and they're all identical! I have 3 copies of this FL 58/1.2 and while the exterior conditions vary the images they produce are absolutely identical.


Well in the earlier days (say, before about 1972), there was some variation due to factors beyond the control of the manufacturers. Variations in glass from batch to batch was a problem. Production methods were more primitive compared to today.

Some of this is discussed here:

http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/44/index.htm


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tesselator wrote:
My Friend Rests


Great shot of your feathered friend!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
great googly moogly. i think i love this.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Tesselator wrote:

Mint means never touched by human hands.
Uncirculated means maybe touched but only to place it in a jacket or something.
Excellent mean it's been touched but there are almost no signs of wear or dirt.
...and so on.

In reality there is no such thing as a lens in "mint" condition. They have all been tested and used even NIB (New In Box) ones. Lens ratings are something I distain somewhat. That ebay lens for example rates as "good" from the lost above IMO. One can clearly see the massive amounts of dirt in the ribbed knuckling of the focus ring as well as scratches and dirt in the filter threads.


Camera/lens grading is a subject that's been discussed ad nauseum since long before the Internet was around. It uses the same labels as coin condition ratings do, but definitely not the same grading system. And even that will vary between those doing the grading. I would expect any camera or lens with a "good" condition rating to actually be very ugly looking, with very heavy wear on the barrel and focusing collar and probably with prominent scratches in the lens elements. Do I agree with this sort of rating? Hell no, but that's the way it's most often done. Some dealers in used equipment, however, are very strict as to their grading systems. Take KEH for example. Their "Bargain" rating is the equivalent to most other dealers Exc/Exc+ rating, so their Exc rating is likely equivalent to others' Mint rating. And if KEH sells something as Mint, well it might have been handled by human hands before, but it will likely not show a cosmetic flaw or any sort of wear anywhere. Probably won't even have fingerprints. Cool


I agree. But I agree most with your "hell no" sentiment! Most of the dealers you're talking about who use Exc/Exc+ ratings for "good" or "bargain" quality pieces are only rip-offs. Cheaters and snakes should not rule the rating game; honest men should - and let the cheaters and snakes be called cheaters and snakes as it should be. Wink

I think it's very interesting that this kind of "cheating" is most common in the USA where cheating to get ahead is somewhat socially acceptable - the UK to some extent as well. But in other countries like Japan, Germany, Sweden, Finland, and so on where honesty is still prized above "success" by the majority of folks, the ratings go more as you and I seem to agree they should. Hmm, where is KEH located - I wonder.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:
Tesselator wrote:
I have to agree. All this business about sample variation is 90% BS. It happens sometimes but relatively almost never. I have 2, 3 and 4 copies of some lenses (in my collection of 350 lenses) and they're all identical! I have 3 copies of this FL 58/1.2 and while the exterior conditions vary the images they produce are absolutely identical.


Well in the earlier days (say, before about 1972), there was some variation due to factors beyond the control of the manufacturers. Variations in glass from batch to batch was a problem. Production methods were more primitive compared to today.

Some of this is discussed here:

http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/44/index.htm


Yep, all true. But when one considers both that the VAST majority of lenses in circulation today are post-1973 and, that even in pre-1973 times sample variation to a notable detriment was a considerable exception and not the rule, then my comment claiming "90% BS" falls into reasonable perspective. In my honest estimate anyway - whatever that's worth. Smile

My only qualifiers are that being retired I read a lot and that I test most all of the 450 lenses that I've handled so far in the past thirty or so months of doing it. [The 350 is the number I've kept so far - but all are for sale and all but a few will be sold this year.]


PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:
Tesselator wrote:
I have to agree. All this business about sample variation is 90% BS. It happens sometimes but relatively almost never. I have 2, 3 and 4 copies of some lenses (in my collection of 350 lenses) and they're all identical! I have 3 copies of this FL 58/1.2 and while the exterior conditions vary the images they produce are absolutely identical.


Well in the earlier days (say, before about 1972), there was some variation due to factors beyond the control of the manufacturers. Variations in glass from batch to batch was a problem. Production methods were more primitive compared to today.

Some of this is discussed here:

http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/44/index.htm


So is Canon still in the '70s with the lens production? - http://www.slrgear.com/articles/variation_canon50f14/canon50f14.htm
There are also numerous reports on Sony alpha Russian forums, people choosing from 5 "bad" copies a "least-bad" one... I'd provide links, though I doubt many people here speak or understand Russian. "Sample variation" is still a subject to be considered.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RTI wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
Tesselator wrote:
I have to agree. All this business about sample variation is 90% BS. It happens sometimes but relatively almost never. I have 2, 3 and 4 copies of some lenses (in my collection of 350 lenses) and they're all identical! I have 3 copies of this FL 58/1.2 and while the exterior conditions vary the images they produce are absolutely identical.


Well in the earlier days (say, before about 1972), there was some variation due to factors beyond the control of the manufacturers. Variations in glass from batch to batch was a problem. Production methods were more primitive compared to today.

Some of this is discussed here:

http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/44/index.htm


So is Canon still in the '70s with the lens production? - http://www.slrgear.com/articles/variation_canon50f14/canon50f14.htm
There are also numerous reports on Sony alpha Russian forums, people choosing from 5 "bad" copies a "least-bad" one... I'd provide links, though I doubt many people here speak or understand Russian. "Sample variation" is still a subject to be considered.


Well I'm not surprised at all. This is one of the problems with auto-focussing systems. It's one of the reasons I stay with my manual focus Leica equipment.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tesselator wrote:
Hmm, where is KEH located - I wonder.


Smyrna, Georgia, USA. Smyrna is a suburb of Atlanta, basically.

http://www.keh.com/


PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
very nice results from this lens -- or this copy anyway

i found this thread while researching on a copy with the major problem that the diaphragm is not working

im not sure if its worth what is asked

but a good copy might be nice to find, there are a few about it seems


PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
i found this thread while researching on a copy with the major problem that the diaphragm is not working . I'm not sure if its worth what is asked


Before you will decide to get it make sure that filter thread is in perfect condition as to service aperture you need to get to this lens from both sides (front and rear). Construction of the aperture is however bullet proof except maybe springs.

BTW. What is asking price?


PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
pavko wrote:
Quote:
i found this thread while researching on a copy with the major problem that the diaphragm is not working . I'm not sure if its worth what is asked


Before you will decide to get it make sure that filter thread is in perfect condition as to service aperture you need to get to this lens from both sides (front and rear). Construction of the aperture is however bullet proof except maybe springs.

BTW. What is asking price?


sorry, didnt see that you were asking the price, its about 100gbp Click here to see on Ebay
and totally not worth that much to me .. since i can see better copies for not much more
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3