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

funny lens prices on ebay ?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:28 pm    Post subject: funny lens prices on ebay ? Reply with quote

I wonder what happend to lens prices over the last years.
People seem to go wild on ebay?

I have seen auction with Flektogon 35 mm lenses for over 300 $ ??

Isnt that overrated ?

I have a few of them and wonder why people are so mad about them ?

The Flektogon was made in east Germany and the later ones have bad quality fluctuations.

When you look at a catalog from the time they were new the prices were:

20 mm 2,8 was 450 DMark which was about 210 $
29 mm 2,9 was 179 DMark which was about 80 $
35 mm 2,4 was 190 DMark which was about 85 $

So these lenses wherent even expensive when they were new.

Is it internet madness?


PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

..........but the lenses that are not popular are still going cheap, any competent photographer can still take excellent shots with these.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The CZJ 2.4/35 has been overrated for quite a while now.
It's an internet hype, really.

Definitely a good lens, but not worth as much as a Leica Summicron 2/35!


PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
The CZJ 2.4/35 has been overrated for quite a while now.
It's an internet hype, really.

Definitely a good lens, but not worth as much as a Leica Summicron 2/35!


To say that CZJ 35/2.4 is overrated and internet hype because it might not match a lens ten times more expensive is ridicilous.

It is an excellent lens with close focusing ability gives it extra value.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ten times the price would be the latest ASPH Summicron. The original R Summicron 2/35 often goes for about 330€, one of them currently hangs around on ebay for 500€ BIN.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
The CZJ 2.4/35 has been overrated for quite a while now.
It's an internet hype, really.

Definitely a good lens, but not worth as much as a Leica Summicron 2/35!


I think I may miss-missunderstand you on this one. Wink
The average Flek 2.4/35 goes for EUR100 Cron 2/35 for EUR300.

They are priced according to performance as far as I can tell.
The Flek can perform 95% of the Crons ability if and it's a big IF, you get a good one.

The Flek that Spiro got $300 for was a special case. The condition was new. You don't find that and so the high price.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

F16SUNSHINE wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
The CZJ 2.4/35 has been overrated for quite a while now.
It's an internet hype, really.

Definitely a good lens, but not worth as much as a Leica Summicron 2/35!


I think I may miss-missunderstand you on this one. Wink
The average Flek 2.4/35 goes for EUR100 Cron 2/35 for EUR300.

They are priced according to performance as far as I can tell.
The Flek can perform 95% of the Crons ability if and it's a big IF, you get a good one.

The Flek that Spiro got $300 for was a special case. The condition was new. You don't find that and so the high price.


And exacty the "If's" are the problem..
You have mostly to buy 3 or 4 pieces to find one, which meet the specifications or you have to include a general mechanical overhaul of the lens.
So the price for a good copy of the lens would exceed the 100 Euro margin as sooner as you could look.

I did test a version of the 2.4/35mm Flek, which comes out of a service..
and was "as new".. sorry, but it cant fullfill my needs in compairison to an simply 2.8/35mm Leicaflex Elmarit. The newer Elmarit 2.8/35mm outperforms this lens by classes.

I also own a Summicron 2/35mm and this Cron is a lot better then what i did see from the Flek.

Cheers
Henry


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's pretty simple how it gets that way. Word gets out that the Flek 35/2.4 is a great manual lens, wide, great colors, good bokeh for the FL, awesome close-focus ability so you can use it almost as a macro, and, most importantly, it's "affordable".


This was back when they would go for less than $80US.

Then, it becomes the "manual lens to get", and you have droves of people recently getting into the manufal focus thing with little knowledge except that "I need to get the Flek 35/2.4". These drones all go on Ebay and will bid high, and are willing to go slightly higher than the next bidder, if only to secure the purchase.


Have these people around for 1 year, and before you know it, they're going for 2x, 3x the price.


The problem, of course, is that there are plenty of others that are as good as, or even better than the Flek at the current rates, but they're just not known. Maybe one day, word will get around that the Flek isn't the "affordable" go-to manual lens any more, and we'll start to see the Mir-1 go up in price Very Happy


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A little something to remember about some Ebayers is that they get a bit obsessed with winning the auction as opposed to getting a bargain. A while back I was after a mobile phone and was in fits of laughter when folk were bidding above BIN prices for some phones. The same thing happens with lenses and many other items. I took ages to get my hands on a Meyer Optik Orestor as they were going for prices I felt were way too high, finally snaffled one for what I considered a fair price. That silly competitiveness is what pumps the prices making it a win for the sellers with good reputations.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think close focusing distance is the feature with the Flektogon, and it's not really bad at anything (except perhaps C/A, but there are worse lenses). It would be hard for me to justify replacing the Flektogon with a more expensive lens that can't do all the Flektogon can (i.e. focus close), even if it would improve on some things—the Flektogon is still good enough.

(I know the difference in close focusing distance doesn't sound like much on paper, but put the Flek on a camera and focus it at the closest distance available with *other lens*, then focus closer and see the difference… I wouldn't want to give that up easily, because it really adds to the versatility of this lens.)


That said, the prices some people ask for this lens these days are indeed absurd. But with a lens this popular, it's always possible to find good deals if you're patient enough. It took me over a year of looking before I got one for a price I was willing to pay, the cheapskate that I am.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arkku wrote:
I think close focusing distance is the feature with the Flektogon, and it's not really bad at anything (except perhaps C/A, but there are worse lenses). It would be hard for me to justify replacing the Flektogon with a more expensive lens that can't do all the Flektogon can (i.e. focus close), even if it would improve on some things—the Flektogon is still good enough.

(I know the difference in close focusing distance doesn't sound like much on paper, but put the Flek on a camera and focus it at the closest distance available with *other lens*, then focus closer and see the difference… I wouldn't want to give that up easily, because it really adds to the versatility of this lens.)


That said, the prices some people ask for this lens these days are indeed absurd. But with a lens this popular, it's always possible to find good deals if you're patient enough. It took me over a year of looking before I got one for a price I was willing to pay, the cheapskate that I am.



Wow, 1 year of waiting. Admire your patient!
I just started using MF lens and also looking for this lens. But due to the high price, I might end up with some other cheap but good performance lens to start with first. Smile


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I, too, wanted an affordable Flek. However, I failed to find one at a reasonable price, so I went for a like-new Nikkor 35/2.0 which is very, very sharp, has great colors and contrast, and focuses down to 0.3m. Its bokeh is debatable, but not bad at all. I think I paid around $170 for a like new Ai-S sample.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lwsy711 wrote:
Wow, 1 year of waiting. Admire your patient!

I just started using MF lens and also looking for this lens. But due to the high price, I might end up with some other cheap but good performance lens to start with first. :)


It helps to be interested in several lenses instead of being hell-bent on getting one particular one. This way you will be making general searches, e.g. “camera and lens”, and will be able to find good deals, i.e. the ones no-one else finds. Only these deals will be for various different lenses, so it takes time to find a particular one… =)

So, it's not a bad idea to get some other lens to start with. It's not like the prices will go down.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting opinions.

Like hinnerker wrote" The Ifs are the problem".

Theses lenses have nice design, but the quality fluctuation is the problem.
People forget, that these lenses where made in east Germany.
They had problems getting raw materials and machines for production as they were baned at that time.
Especially the late lenses, that are funnily priced the highest now are the worst as east Germany was already falling apart.

You cant compare these lenses with the Zeiss West Contax lenses.
Or with Leica Lenses.

But still people "believe" in those lenses.

Among the 35 mm are a lot bad ones and with the 20 mm you really have to look to find a good one.
Alwas keep in mind the 2,4 35mm was 85$ when it was new. So no super exeptional lens to expect.

Funny that people pay 300 $ for a lens that was new 85$.
And pay 300 $ for a Leica Lens that was perhaps new 1 000 $.

I guess the its a mixup between collectors and users.

[/quote]


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:22 am    Post subject: Re: funny lens prices on ebay ? Reply with quote

lensfan1 wrote:

When you look at a catalog from the time they were new the prices were:

20 mm 2,8 was 450 DMark which was about 210 $
29 mm 2,9 was 179 DMark which was about 80 $
35 mm 2,4 was 190 DMark which was about 85 $

So these lenses wherent even expensive when they were new.

I think this needs a bit of qualification. The Flektogon is at least thirty years old. The average price factor since, say, 1977 to the present day is about 5.3, and since 1971 is about 12. If the figures you are quoting are current when catalogue published, then you'd have to apply a scaling factor to get present values. What is the catalogue date?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lensfan1 wrote:
Interesting opinions.

Like hinnerker wrote" The Ifs are the problem".


...

lensfan1 wrote:

But still people "believe" in those lenses.


For me it is not a matter of faith, but a matter of results and experiences. I may have been lucky, or I just pick the right salespersons off the ebay - I think I've bought all my lenses from western europe (UK,Germany,Greece) - the US sallers make me paranoid + I don't like the postage/customs. The eastern europeans also tend to make me a bit scared.

Anyhow, I've bought the following m42 (180 was P6) CZJ lenses from eBay during the last 6 months or so, in approximate chronological order:


    35/2.4 Flektogon - about 120 euros I think - flawless
    135/3.5 Sonnar - about 80 euros - almost mint in every way
    300/4 Sonnar - about 100 euros - IQ good (one lens inside had some weird coating "look", only affected bokeh quality), stuck aperture
    135/3.5 Sonnar - I accidently bought this as I mistook it to be another lens, cost me 120 euros (!). Luckily a super good copy, though stuck aperture.
    35/2.4 Flektogon - 40€ - scratched back lens
    180/2.8 Sonnar - 90 euros - perfect with sticky aperture.
    200/2.8 Sonnar - 190 euros - perfect
    20/2.8 Flektogon - 150 euros - minty, perfect after little fixing
    50/2.8 Tessar - 20+ euros with a 2x extender - as solid as a Tessar can be.

That is 9 lenses, 7 perfect (some with little fixing), 1 is currently without aperture mechanism (and was cheap) and one very cheap was optically compromissed - sold it later with profit (and was very honest about the scrathes too). I have no problems with this track record - maybe I've been lucky or maybe I've avoided the ever-circulating rotten copies that are sold and resold again and again.

Only the 300 has problematic aperture to fix - I have no idea how to get it back to it's place, but then again, I don't want to carry 2kg lens to shoot it any other way that wide open...Smile

I have been very happy with the lenses I've got off eBay, excellent bang for buck in my opinion. Sure, some have had stuck apertures or other little issues, but other than that 300/4 (and the very cheap 35) they've been very easy to fix and that fixing is IMHO a small price to pay for excellent optics and usability.

And yes, someday I hope to be able to buy one Leica lens, just for kicks, but they are too expensive for me, especially right now. And performancewise I have basicly zero complaints with the current CZJ lineup.

Oh, and one thing I really like about CZJ lenses is the construction. While it may not be of Takumar-level, or CZ/Leica class, it is still solid compared to today's plastic lenses and the lenses are in general built in very logical way, easy to disassemble, fix and reassemble - they are clearly made for manual assembly.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alex wrote:
I think this needs a bit of qualification. The Flektogon is at least thirty years old. The average price factor since, say, 1977 to the present day is about 5.3, and since 1971 is about 12. If the figures you are quoting are current when catalogue published, then you'd have to apply a scaling factor to get present values. What is the catalogue date?"

Good point. The catalog is from 1988.
But I think this would only make sence if you look at it as an investment. And that would be very sad as every stockmarket would have outperformed you by thousends.
And what would be if you bought cameras at that time lets say the fitting Praktica for maybe 200 $ ? They are sold for 5 Euros now.
I am just saying that these lenses wherent that expensive and that good.

Same with schneider Lenses for instance the Curtagon-c 35 mm.
Tiny little lens with nice mechanics but opticaly its rather averege.
Still people go mad for it now.


Anu wrote:
"For me it is not a matter of faith, but a matter of results and experiences."

Nice collection you have there. Give it a try and compare them to other lenses. I was rather dissapointed when I compared my Flektogons with other lenses.
I am not saying that they are bad, but the prices now payed are strange.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:11 am    Post subject: Re: funny lens prices on ebay ? Reply with quote

alex wrote:

I think this needs a bit of qualification. The Flektogon is at least thirty years old. The average price factor since, say, 1977 to the present day is about 5.3, and since 1971 is about 12. If the figures you are quoting are current when catalogue published, then you'd have to apply a scaling factor to get present values. What is the catalogue date?


Alex makes a good point - and the relative value of money has changed differently across the various countries making sensible international comparisons somewhat problematical. But there are some other factors to consider as well.

In the UK, the CZ Flektogon 35/2.4 and Sonnar 125/3.5 were considered as being "subsidised" by the DDR when it came to pricing - something which the importer's sales force was keen to stress. The implication was that folks were getting a £50 lens for £30 and - for even better measure - it was made by "the greatest name in optics".

Well, that legend may have impressed the photo-magazine editors who enjoyed free trips to the DDR and long lunches, and the same factors might have swayed the head-office buyers at the chain-groups, but it never cut any ice with the people in shops who had to placate irate customers when the damn things didn't work properly. Aperture rings that free-wheeled, blades that wouldn't close or didn't re-open, wobbly aperture plungers, auto/manual selector switches that either wouldn't move or didn't do anything, rough focusing mounts or jammed focusing mounts ... sorry, folks - but for my money they weren't even worth selling.

Relative to their original prices, today the CZ lenses are cheaper than they were when new. A typical eBay UK price for a 35/2.4 seems to be around £75 ($100 or €85) which when corrected for inflation is about £20 - about what used ones sold for back in the early 1980s. But even on that reckoning, I don't think I'd bother gambling on getting a good one.

None of that disputes that the optical design was first class, but the best optics in the world are no use if the mounting is junk. But who's going to tell the innocent new buyers of today?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lensfan1 wrote:

Anu wrote:
"For me it is not a matter of faith, but a matter of results and experiences."

Nice collection you have there. Give it a try and compare them to other lenses. I was rather dissapointed when I compared my Flektogons with other lenses.

Oh, I have shot with other lenses too, though mostly with modern AF-lenses. So far the results have been such, that the old CZJ-lenses (and the lone SMC Takumar 50/1.4 of mine) have provided superior results to the modern AF-lenses. Maybe one of the things that affect is that when one focuses a MF-lens, often the whole optical system is moved, and when AF-lens focuses, a lot less glass is being moved.
lensfan1 wrote:

I am not saying that they are bad, but the prices now payed are strange.


No, I don't think there's anything strange about the prices of older lenses.

    Bang for buck the old optics are superior to modern lenses.
    More SLR-photographers equal to more demand (and since the production of for example CZJ-lenses is zero...).
    Most CZJ-lenses are of excellent performance level - maybe not Leica-level, but easily good enough for the most of us.
    Prices are still low - CZJ 35/2.4 Flektogon costs typically under 150 euros in eBay.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I already added some thoughts to the poll but this is more suitable here:

Older (manual focus) lenses give more for bang for the buck only to advanced users. Standard DSLR entry photographer who needs/wants image stabilization, zoom factors, lens motor AF and a Swiss Army knife -type of lens, there is no bang at all.

For this type of photographer (ie. the DSLR growth market today), an eBayed CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35 has no bang when compared with 18-55/3.5-4.5 AF-S VR 199 EUR new. Another typical user: manual focus Nikkor 55/3.5 Ai for EUR 39 has no bang for a teenage girl who wants an AF macro to do self portrait fashion shoots using remote. DSLR is growing globally, and newcomers have different requirements than we do.

There are also differences between systems, mostly due to adaptability and register distance differences. Many Nikon users don't see bang for the buck found in DDR quality control when they can modify or direct use 50 million Nikkor lenses made to this date (35 million before 2005, 15 million in 2006-2008). F-mount compatibility and low price/high availability of Ai/Ai-S lenses is a major reason why I am a Nikkor user in 3rd generation. Still today, I own and use Nikkors that my grandfather and father have used.

For owners of larger full-frame sensors it becomes even more complex, because (old and new) lenses show their optical shortcomings only when used on large sensor.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Esox lucius wrote:

Older (manual focus) lenses give more for bang for the buck only to advanced users. Standard DSLR entry photographer who needs/wants image stabilization, zoom factors, lens motor AF and a Swiss Army knife -type of lens, there is no bang at all.


On the other hand, learning with all-manual lenses is a way to become a more advanced photographer, and offers the possibility of experimenting with various fast primes with no affordable modern equivalent, cheap DIY macro with lens reversal, etc. Certainly not everyone is even interested in this stuff, but surprisingly many beginners are, especially technically-oriented ones with limited budgets may even buy a DSLR just for this purpose (instead of a point & shoot). Some end up like me and use manual focus lenses almost exclusively, poor sods… =)


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arkku wrote:
Esox lucius wrote:

Older (manual focus) lenses give more for bang for the buck only to advanced users. Standard DSLR entry photographer who needs/wants image stabilization, zoom factors, lens motor AF and a Swiss Army knife -type of lens, there is no bang at all.


On the other hand, learning with all-manual lenses is a way to become a more advanced photographer, and offers the possibility of experimenting with various fast primes with no affordable modern equivalent, cheap DIY macro with lens reversal, etc. Certainly not everyone is even interested in this stuff, but surprisingly many beginners are, especially technically-oriented ones with limited budgets may even buy a DSLR just for this purpose (instead of a point & shoot). Some end up like me and use manual focus lenses almost exclusively, poor sods… =)


Well, it worked for me Laughing I've even started shooting with film now Shocked


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arkku wrote:
Esox lucius wrote:

Older (manual focus) lenses give more for bang for the buck only to advanced users. Standard DSLR entry photographer who needs/wants image stabilization, zoom factors, lens motor AF and a Swiss Army knife -type of lens, there is no bang at all.


On the other hand, learning with all-manual lenses is a way to become a more advanced photographer, and offers the possibility of experimenting with various fast primes with no affordable modern equivalent, cheap DIY macro with lens reversal, etc. Certainly not everyone is even interested in this stuff, but surprisingly many beginners are, especially technically-oriented ones with limited budgets may even buy a DSLR just for this purpose (instead of a point & shoot). Some end up like me and use manual focus lenses almost exclusively, poor sods… =)


This is one of my motives for using a DSLR. My first lens was an Sigma AF zoom. Next lens was the 50/1.8 AF Nikkor, after which I bought a Cosinon 135/3.5 M42 and after that, I've almost exclusively bought just MF lenses since they give you so much - both quality-wise but also skill-wise. I think I learn much more by using manual gear, but it also gives me a stronger framework for using AF lenses too!

I would say it's purely dependant on how keen you are on knowing the bits and bobs of your equipment, no matter what your age or background is. Works for me, but other people of my age whose technical background is as strong as mine, choose to totally rely on AF - because they can, and they have no interest in getting to know yet another field of technicality. And I totally understand.

Having said that, there surely was no bang for the buck for me when I bought my first manual lens - but once I got into it, some of them are more precious to me than my AF lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shrek wrote:


Well, it worked for me Laughing I've even started shooting with film now Shocked



Same here!

I'm shooting now with a Canon Eos 1 and 3 using manual lenses and a Fujica St801. I love those big, vivids and brights viewfinders. When i shoot in digital i use a 350D and mostly AF lenses. It's a little difficult (but not impossible) to use manual lenses on this camera due to the viewfinder.

I hope to buy a 5D soon.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Both Esox lucius and Arkku have good points, both valid, I believe. Part of the problem we have is that we are all, here, those that think like Arkku Very Happy I, too, only became truly infatuated in photography after I received my very first cheap, fast primes (Pentacon 50/1.8, Helios-44M 58/2).

I recently initiated my 20 yr old roommate into photography (also bought a K-7) and he, too, was immediately drawn by the DoF and bokeh that he couldn't achieve with his kit lens, but could, with a couple of primes I lent him (Sigma 50/2.8 macro and Pentacon 50/1.Cool.