View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
jamaeolus
Joined: 19 Mar 2014 Posts: 2913 Location: Eugene
Expire: 2015-08-20
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2020 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jamaeolus wrote:
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. _________________ photos are moments frozen in time |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CarbonR
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 Posts: 1969 Location: Clermont-Ferrand, France
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2020 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 _________________ Cameras : Canon 5D, Pentax K100D, Pentax 6x7, Spotmatic
Lenses : 15mm to 1000mm (24x36)
My websites : [FR & ENG]Takumar - the eyes of the Spotmatic : info about all Takumar lenses // Kogaku - My photo site
I am selling : Takumar lenses and rare Pentax bodies, pm me if you're interested in something [MFLenses feed-back]
Information on Takumar lenses with samples :
Wide angle : Takumar 15/3.5 15mm, Takumar 17/4 17mm, Takumar 18/11 18mm, Takumar 20/4.5 20mm, Takumar 24/3.5 24mm, Takumar 28/3.5 V1 28mm, Takumar 28/3.5 V2 28mm, Takumar 35/2 V1 35mm, Takumar 35/2 V2 35mm, Takumar 35/2.3 35mm, Takumar 35/3.5 35mm, Takumar 35/4 35mm
Standard : Takumar 50/1.4 V1 50mm, Takumar 50/1.4 V2 50mm, Takumar 50/3.5 50mm, Takumar 50/4 50mm, Takumar 55/2 55/1.8 55mm, Takumar 55/2.2 V1 55mm, Takumar 55/2.2 V2 55mm, Takumar 58/2 58mm, Takumar 58/2.4 58mm
Short tele : Takumar 83/1.9 83mm, Takumar 85/1.8 85/1.9 85mm, Takumar 85/1.8 85mm, Takumar 100/2 100mm, Takumar 100/3.5 100mm, Takumar 100/4 100mm, Takumar 105/2.8 V1 105mm, Takumar 105/2.8 V2 105mm, Takumar 120/2.8 120mm
Telephoto : Takumar 135/2.5 V1 135mm, Takumar 135/2.5 V2 135mm, Takumar 135/3.5 V1 135mm, Takumar 135/3.5 V2 135mm, Takumar 150/4 V1 150mm, Takumar 150/4 V2 150mm
Long tele : Takumar 200/3.5 200mm, Takumar 200/4 200mm, Takumar 200/5.6 200mm, Takumar 300/4 V1 300mm, Takumar 300/4 V2 300mm, Takumar 300/4 V3 300mm, Takumar 300/6.3 300mm, Takumar 400/5.6 400mm, Takumar 500/4.5 500mm, Takumar 500/5 500mm, Takumar 1000/8 V1 1000mm, Takumar 1000/8 V2 1000mm
Zoom : Zoom-Takumar 45~125/4 , Zoom-Takumar 70~150/4.5 , Zoom-Takumar 85~210/4.5 , Zoom-Takumar 135~600/6.7
Achromatic : Ultra-Achromatic-Takumar 85/4.5 , Ultra-Achromatic-Takumar 300/5.6 300mm |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2020 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Alpa Kinoptik apochromat 100/2 and 150/2.8 in Alpa mount, in 1992.
Summilux M 75/1,4 in 1996 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2020 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
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 |
Obviously, doesn't be the time to sell, only to buy for peanuts. Only like a bet. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DConvert
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 901 Location: Essex UK
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2020 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DConvert wrote:
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%.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
gaeger
Joined: 16 Jan 2010 Posts: 705 Location: Brier, Wash.
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Sun May 03, 2020 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gaeger wrote:
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! _________________ "Here's to the wonder" -- Alan Boyle
Nikkor/Nikon 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 55, 85, 105, 135, 180, 200, 300, 400, 10-20, 18-35, 18-55, 25-50, 28-50, 28-70, 28-80, 24-85, 35-200, 50-300, 75-150, 80-200, 70-210, 70-300
Minolta Rokkor 24, 28, 35, 45, 50, 58, 100, 135, 300
My most interesting images | Full photostream
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
barryreid
Joined: 27 Aug 2013 Posts: 285 Location: London
Expire: 2015-11-04
|
Posted: Mon May 04, 2020 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
barryreid wrote:
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. _________________ Canon + Contax + Minolta + Nikon + Olympus + Pentax + Yashica = Adaptall-2 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2020 5:55 pm Post subject: Re: Would You Pay More Than 100 USD For Older Lens? |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
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. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3751 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2020 7:24 pm Post subject: Re: Would You Pay More Than 100 USD For Older Lens? |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
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 _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Antoine
Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London
|
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Antoine wrote:
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) _________________ Antoine
Sony A6000 APS-C and Sony A7 Rii
Minolta Fisheye MD Rokkor 7.5 mm f4, Fisheye MD 16 f2.8 MD R 17mm f4, MD R 20mm f2.8, MC VFC & MDIII 24mm f2.8, MD 28mm f2.0 &3.5, MD II 35mm 1.8, MD 45mm f2.0, MD 50mm f 1.2 & MD I f1.4, MC PG 58mm 1.2, MD 85mm f2.0, MD R 85mm f2.8 Varisoft, MC 85mm f1.7 MD R 100mm f2.5, MD R 100mm f4.0 macro, MD III 135mm f2.8, MD R 200mm f2.8 & 4.0, RF 250mm f5.6, MD 300mm f4.5, MD APO 400 mm f5.6, RF 500mm f8.0, RF 800mm f8.0 *2 300-s and 300-l
100 mm f4 macro bellows (5/4)
Vivitar 17mm f3.5, Elicar 300mm mirror f5.6, Zhongi turbo ii
Sigma 16mm f 2.8 fish eye
Zooms:24-50 mm f4, 35-70 mm f3.5 macro, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, 50-135 f 3.5, 70-210 f4 and MD APO 100-500 mm f8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fiftyonepointsix
Joined: 30 Apr 2017 Posts: 292
|
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fiftyonepointsix
Joined: 30 Apr 2017 Posts: 292
|
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fiftyonepointsix wrote:
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 |
You cannot photograph a disaster with a Hammer. There have been many disasters recorded for posterity. I've been using pre-wars Sonnars. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CarbonR
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 Posts: 1969 Location: Clermont-Ferrand, France
|
Posted: Tue May 12, 2020 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
CarbonR wrote:
I meant that the robustness of the Zenit make it double-usable : photographic and utilitary purposes _________________ Cameras : Canon 5D, Pentax K100D, Pentax 6x7, Spotmatic
Lenses : 15mm to 1000mm (24x36)
My websites : [FR & ENG]Takumar - the eyes of the Spotmatic : info about all Takumar lenses // Kogaku - My photo site
I am selling : Takumar lenses and rare Pentax bodies, pm me if you're interested in something [MFLenses feed-back]
Information on Takumar lenses with samples :
Wide angle : Takumar 15/3.5 15mm, Takumar 17/4 17mm, Takumar 18/11 18mm, Takumar 20/4.5 20mm, Takumar 24/3.5 24mm, Takumar 28/3.5 V1 28mm, Takumar 28/3.5 V2 28mm, Takumar 35/2 V1 35mm, Takumar 35/2 V2 35mm, Takumar 35/2.3 35mm, Takumar 35/3.5 35mm, Takumar 35/4 35mm
Standard : Takumar 50/1.4 V1 50mm, Takumar 50/1.4 V2 50mm, Takumar 50/3.5 50mm, Takumar 50/4 50mm, Takumar 55/2 55/1.8 55mm, Takumar 55/2.2 V1 55mm, Takumar 55/2.2 V2 55mm, Takumar 58/2 58mm, Takumar 58/2.4 58mm
Short tele : Takumar 83/1.9 83mm, Takumar 85/1.8 85/1.9 85mm, Takumar 85/1.8 85mm, Takumar 100/2 100mm, Takumar 100/3.5 100mm, Takumar 100/4 100mm, Takumar 105/2.8 V1 105mm, Takumar 105/2.8 V2 105mm, Takumar 120/2.8 120mm
Telephoto : Takumar 135/2.5 V1 135mm, Takumar 135/2.5 V2 135mm, Takumar 135/3.5 V1 135mm, Takumar 135/3.5 V2 135mm, Takumar 150/4 V1 150mm, Takumar 150/4 V2 150mm
Long tele : Takumar 200/3.5 200mm, Takumar 200/4 200mm, Takumar 200/5.6 200mm, Takumar 300/4 V1 300mm, Takumar 300/4 V2 300mm, Takumar 300/4 V3 300mm, Takumar 300/6.3 300mm, Takumar 400/5.6 400mm, Takumar 500/4.5 500mm, Takumar 500/5 500mm, Takumar 1000/8 V1 1000mm, Takumar 1000/8 V2 1000mm
Zoom : Zoom-Takumar 45~125/4 , Zoom-Takumar 70~150/4.5 , Zoom-Takumar 85~210/4.5 , Zoom-Takumar 135~600/6.7
Achromatic : Ultra-Achromatic-Takumar 85/4.5 , Ultra-Achromatic-Takumar 300/5.6 300mm |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6006 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Tue May 12, 2020 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
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.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Teddyyeung
Joined: 18 Apr 2020 Posts: 15 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Teddyyeung wrote:
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lattesweden
Joined: 05 Sep 2017 Posts: 14
|
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: Would You Pay More Than 100 USD For Older Lens? |
|
|
lattesweden wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|