Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Would You Pay More Than 100 USD For Older Lens?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2020 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also recognized the "stock market" like fluctuations and am using my hobby as a sort of mini hedge*. If the money in the market goes away (lets face it most of the money in the market is only money because someone agrees its worth something, thats why market crashes lead to headlines like "Market loses 6 trillion dollars in 6 days") If it all comes crashing around our ears I will at least have 'something' to barter. At least that is ho I rationalize my obsession. I am trying to get a computer friend to help me develop a widget to scrape e-bay and etsy sites for current valuations (sold listings) of many lenses.





* I would guess my 800 or so lens collection is about 1/10th of 1 percent of my portfolio.


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2020 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know that having many lenses can be considered like that, but there is IMO a problem in a such scenario : if everything is down like in a major crisis, you will not be able to eat your lenses (unless you are Richard Kiel), nor selling them, because there will be no one to buy them. In a major disaster, even a hammer would be more valuable than a lens. Maybe a Zenit can replace the hammer Mr. Green


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2020 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alpa Kinoptik apochromat 100/2 and 150/2.8 in Alpa mount, in 1992.

Summilux M 75/1,4 in 1996


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2020 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CarbonR wrote:
I know that having many lenses can be considered like that, but there is IMO a problem in a such scenario : if everything is down like in a major crisis, you will not be able to eat your lenses (unless you are Richard Kiel), nor selling them, because there will be no one to buy them. In a major disaster, even a hammer would be more valuable than a lens. Maybe a Zenit can replace the hammer Mr. Green


Obviously, doesn't be the time to sell, only to buy for peanuts. Only like a bet.


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2020 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CarbonR wrote:
After some hours on Excel, I now have a more precise view on how much I spent on the 300+ lenses I have bought in many years (of course most of them are now sold). Vertical scale corresponds to the number of lenses, horizontal scale is the max price range (ex. 100 EUR corresponds to lenses I paid between 50 and 100 EUR)


I suspect my graph would look fairly similar, but with all the values halved.
I worked out my average lens cost several years back which was ~£30, but I've not received any more freebies since then so the average will have gone up.

Very few of my lenses have been sold after I've got my hands on them - probably only between 1&2%.
Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've tried to set $50 as my limit, though I have broken it in the past (for a Nikkor 180mm, 300mm and 400mm).

My problem is that the first box of Nikon gear I bought when I entered the digital age (late 2006) contained a Nikon F with Photomic and plain prisms, and Nikkor 35mm f2 AiS, 50mm f1.2 AiS, 55mm f2.8 AiS and 135mm f3.5 Ai, all in near-mint condition. The princely sum was $120 US. And I've been trying to find the same deal ever since!


PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2020 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll spend as much as it needs to get certain lenses but only within reason. My Contax for PC-Distagon is the most expensive I've bought at £600 which was a good deal and is a lens I use regularly and performs well on 50MP Canon 5Ds cameras.

I'd consider paying more than that for other 'good deals' too, if I am comfortable that I can afford it. Which is an issue as big shiny new toys can often be bought on interest free credit, spreading the pain, but vintage glass normally just needs to be paid for outright.


PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2020 5:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Would You Pay More Than 100 USD For Older Lens? Reply with quote

Laurence wrote:
We had a side discussion on another thread about willingness to pay more than $100 for a
used lens (keeping it narrowed to manual focus lenses only).

I understand that there are members who feel it is not worth it to spend over $100, and
others (like me) who would put out over $100.

I think it would be interesting and educational for our group
to get some opinions:

1. Would you NEVER pay more than $100 for a lens?
2. Would you pay over $100 for a lens you really want?
3. Which lens (name only 1-3 lenses if possible) would be worth paying more than $100 in your opinion?

Here are my answers:
1. No. I would pay more than $100 for lens.
2. Yes.
3. Sonnar 200/2.8
Sonnar 300/4
Flektogon 35/2.4

Having been self diagnosed with the terminal condition of Lens Buying Addiction and Gear Acquisition Syndrome...
I find this thread puzzling, I have over 100 "used" manual focus legacy lenses and over half are are easily $100+ and a few are in the $1000 range, and my collection is small compared to others I know online.
1. I have paid it in the past, I will pay it again in the future.
2. Why would I pay $100+ for a lens I don't want?
3. Topcor RE 85/1.8, Canon FD SSC 24/1.4 Aspherical, Canon FD SSC 35/2.8 Tilt/Shift, Canon FD SSC 85/1.2 Aspherical, Leica R 100/2.8 Macro APO. I'll stop at listing 5.

For what ever it's worth, all the best lenses are over the $100 price point, if you know of a lens under $100 that will outperform the 5 lenses I listed, PM me the details, do not post them to the thread. Thanks in advance.

patience and luck can get you a great lens for a good price, possibly even under the $100 price point, but those great deals are relatively rare and you have to be browsing the 1000's of auctions results for a generic search weekly or more often, you can bid on 10's of auctions at a time and only bid the minimum.


PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2020 7:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Would You Pay More Than 100 USD For Older Lens? Reply with quote

Laurence wrote:

...

1. Would you NEVER pay more than $100 for a lens?
2. Would you pay over $100 for a lens you really want?
3. Which lens (name only 1-3 lenses if possible) would be worth paying more than $100 in your opinion?


1. NO
2. YES
3. Minolta MC 1.2/58mm, MC 1.7/85mm, MD 2.8/85mm SoftFocus, Carl Zeiss 2.8/35mm Shift, Nikkor AiS 2/24mm, Ai 1.2/55mm, AiS 1.8/105mm, AiS 2/135mm, AiS 2.8/180mm ED, Canon nFD 2.8/400mm L, FD 2.8/300mm Fluorite, FL 5.6/300mm Fluorite, nFD 4/80-200mm L, nFD 2/135mm, nFD 20-35mm L, Pentax M* 4/300mm ED, FA* 4.5/300mm IF-ED ... and many more

S


PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2020 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Had a look at Minolta MD prices early 80s... a few were costing an arm and a leg... and only one was dirt cheap...compared to today's prices---
--------------1980s $--------Today's $........bought in last few years £
RF 250------ 79--------------237-------------------700£ (great investment for those who bought it, my 1st one got stolen)
16 mm fish--264--------------792-------------------170£
17 mm-------280--------------840-------------------250
20 mm-------229--------------687-------------------100
24 mm-------134--------------402------------------- 85
28mm f2-----219--------------657-------------------240
35 f1.8-------127--------------381-------------------180
50 mm1.4-- 96----------------288-------------------50
50 mm1.2----150--------------450-------------------200
85 mm 1.7---125--------------375-------------------170
85mm2,8vs--375-------------1125------------------200
100mm2.5--125----------------375-------------------60-
100mmf4mac 247--------------741-------------------60
135 2.8-------69----------------207-------------------45
200 4---------79----------------237-------------------25
200 2.8------265----------------795------------------185
300 4.5------215----------------645------------------65
500 rf-------255-----------------765------------------180
800 rf-------679-----------------2037-----------------200
35-70 III----89------------------267------------------45
24-50-------249-----------------747-------------------65
50-135-----129-----------------387-------------------50
70-210-----139-----------------417-------------------15
100-500 APO-995--------------2985------------------270 (the non apo cost 628$ meaning just a bit of UD glass cost a lot...but impact on CA is great)

Really 250 RF was the only sound investment... ignoring the benefit of the use.
A short majority were 100 or less. Only one lens costs more than 300£.
Very few cost more than 200£ (and I overpaid the 28mm f2)


PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2020 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With the current pandemic and resulting unemployment, I would rather spend money on a used lens and put all of the money in the seller's pocket than buy a new lens.

SO- in the last 8 weeks I spent more than $100 on:
Pre-War Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F2 Rigid mount, the uncommon type with a filter ring;
Pre-War Pre-War Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F2 collapsible mount with a full set of original filters;
Pre-War Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F2 collapsible- Was $100,
Minolta Chiyoko 3.5cm F3.5 Leica mount lens with original leather case and caps. The rear 39mm cap is clear plastic with the Chiyoko emblem on it. Let's just leave it at a Paid a lot more than $100.

I'm lucky to be working full-time, getting paid, and be safe at home. SO- money not spent on commuting, eating out, movies, etc- goes into someone else's pocket.

Most expensive lens, Nikon Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 in Leica mount. Also have the MIOJ 3.5cm F3.5, 5cm F2 Collapsible, 8.5cm F2, and 13.5cm F4. All from the 1940s.

Best dumb-luck ever, Nikon M with 1950 5cm F1.4 Nikkor-SC for $30. Leica III Black with Nickel Elmar, $15.


PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2020 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CarbonR wrote:
I know that having many lenses can be considered like that, but there is IMO a problem in a such scenario : if everything is down like in a major crisis, you will not be able to eat your lenses (unless you are Richard Kiel), nor selling them, because there will be no one to buy them. In a major disaster, even a hammer would be more valuable than a lens. Maybe a Zenit can replace the hammer Mr. Green


You cannot photograph a disaster with a Hammer. There have been many disasters recorded for posterity. I've been using pre-wars Sonnars.


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2020 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I meant that the robustness of the Zenit make it double-usable : photographic and utilitary purposes Wink


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2020 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiftyonepointsix wrote:
With the current pandemic and resulting unemployment, I would rather spend money on a used lens and put all of the money in the seller's pocket than buy a new lens.

SO- in the last 8 weeks I spent more than $100 on:
Pre-War Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F2 Rigid mount, the uncommon type with a filter ring;
Pre-War Pre-War Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F2 collapsible mount with a full set of original filters;
Pre-War Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F2 collapsible- Was $100,
Minolta Chiyoko 3.5cm F3.5 Leica mount lens with original leather case and caps. The rear 39mm cap is clear plastic with the Chiyoko emblem on it. Let's just leave it at a Paid a lot more than $100.

I'm lucky to be working full-time, getting paid, and be safe at home. SO- money not spent on commuting, eating out, movies, etc- goes into someone else's pocket.

Most expensive lens, Nikon Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 in Leica mount. Also have the MIOJ 3.5cm F3.5, 5cm F2 Collapsible, 8.5cm F2, and 13.5cm F4. All from the 1940s.

Best dumb-luck ever, Nikon M with 1950 5cm F1.4 Nikkor-SC for $30. Leica III Black with Nickel Elmar, $15.


Yes. Good thing that you do.
Like 1


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course I will, 100 is not a big amount, you can get it back when you resell the lens. Unlike new lens depreciation.
$100 is nothing if you compare to a rare Hugo Meyer which can cost you more than 50000 USD


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 6:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Would You Pay More Than 100 USD For Older Lens? Reply with quote

Laurence wrote:

1. Would you NEVER pay more than $100 for a lens?
2. Would you pay over $100 for a lens you really want?
3. Which lens (name only 1-3 lenses if possible) would be worth paying more than $100 in your opinion?



1. In 99% of the cases my limit is 70 USD.
2. In the 1% that might happen yes, but sofar it hasn't.
3. Zeiss Pancolar 55/1.4 but since it goes for 2000 USD I will not buy it, especially with the yellowing one has to fix.

Since prices on vintage gear is sky rocketing at the moment due to all bored people at home with to much time bidding like crazy on everything that pops up on the auction sites, I instead at the moment research which new made lenses are available that creates a vintage analog image rendering. There are such very cheap from low cost manufacturers, actually rivaling the prices of used vintage lenses, and up to more expensive ones from well known brands that make new lenses based on old optical designs. And some of these even has autofocus.