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

Meyer Trioplan 100 2.8 price !
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:46 pm    Post subject: Meyer Trioplan 100 2.8 price ! Reply with quote

Hello everyone,

Can you guys tell me how much is this lens worth these days ? Prices on ebay are all over the place !

I have an m42 copy, a little beat up, dust inside, but the aperture and focusing rings are smooth !

It produces beautiful pictures, but I don't use it very often !

Since I'm going through some hard times, I may have to let some of my vintage glass go !







PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

2-300 USD


PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your examples show why it fetches a good price. Try searching the sold listings on eBay for an idea of what they go for, but I imagine Attila is about right.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
2-300 USD


My opinion, completely unrelated to the pics that are really nice:
IMHO, you can get better lenses for that price, maybe even a couple of them.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that if you "need" a trioplan there are few to none alternatives, but the price seems like it includes some hype.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aanything wrote:
Attila wrote:
2-300 USD


My opinion, completely unrelated to the pics that are really nice:
IMHO, you can get better lenses for that price, maybe even a couple of them.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that if you "need" a trioplan there are few to none alternatives, but the price seems like it includes some hype.


If you were active doing photography in the early 1970's, a whole bunch of people would have agreed with your assessment. Back then, the Trioplan was considered "budget East German junk", in the U.S. A at least. That was a time when a Trioplan would set you back maybe $ 49.99 brand new, whereas a 105mm F 2.5 Nikkor (had the reputation as being "the best" portrait lens at that period of time) would cost you about $225.00. Sellers at camera swaps who showed up with hoards of Exakta or Practica bodies, and a lot of CZ Jena/Hugo Meyer/Isco lenses to go with them would be ignored-photographers in the U.S.A considered anything from DDR to be inferior junk.

How funny it is now that things seem to be flipped around. The Trioplan has benefitted from the extreme obsessive trend of bokeh above anything else (in the early 1970's, no one gave a flipping diddly damn about bokeh-sharpness and contrast was the thing). So its current price is right in line with the trendy fashion of the day.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Asian friends look different they are love all kind of strange or not strange bokeh highlight they pickup this lens as art tool and use it very very well. I never get even close how they handle this Trioplan , in my hands pretty much low quality lens or junk. I sold all of mine, but these days I wish to have one Smile


PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, Trioplan was budget East German lens, it's a simple triplet. A good 100mm option from Meyer was/is Orestor, which is 5 element design similar to Primoplan (according to this thread http://forum.mflenses.com/list-of-lens-diagrams-triplets-planars-and-hybrid-lenses-t22934.html)


PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anscochrome wrote:

How funny it is now that things seem to be flipped around. The Trioplan has benefitted from the extreme obsessive trend of bokeh above anything else (in the early 1970's, no one gave a flipping diddly damn about bokeh-sharpness and contrast was the thing)


I agree to a point. Tastes and trends change over time. When I was a poor college student trying to furnish my dorm I bought a 1930s era chair at a junk store for $15. Today it's worth about $3k. They call it "shabby chic" now.

I remember, before "bokeh" became cachet, swirls and circles were considered signs of lens defects if not poor photography. The march of time and taste can change the rules.

However, I don't think Meyer was ever considered junk, except maybe the Domiplan. Meyer was a lower cost option to Zeiss at the time but still always pricey.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anscochrome wrote:
Aanything wrote:
Attila wrote:
2-300 USD


My opinion, completely unrelated to the pics that are really nice:
IMHO, you can get better lenses for that price, maybe even a couple of them.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that if you "need" a trioplan there are few to none alternatives, but the price seems like it includes some hype.


If you were active doing photography in the early 1970's, a whole bunch of people would have agreed with your assessment. Back then, the Trioplan was considered "budget East German junk", in the U.S. A at least. That was a time when a Trioplan would set you back maybe $ 49.99 brand new, whereas a 105mm F 2.5 Nikkor (had the reputation as being "the best" portrait lens at that period of time) would cost you about $225.00. Sellers at camera swaps who showed up with hoards of Exakta or Practica bodies, and a lot of CZ Jena/Hugo Meyer/Isco lenses to go with them would be ignored-photographers in the U.S.A considered anything from DDR to be inferior junk.

How funny it is now that things seem to be flipped around. The Trioplan has benefitted from the extreme obsessive trend of bokeh above anything else (in the early 1970's, no one gave a flipping diddly damn about bokeh-sharpness and contrast was the thing). So its current price is right in line with the trendy fashion of the day.


Yes, I remember the reviews from photographic magazines from the 1970's These kinds of lenses always seemed to run last in the comparative tests. They were the cameras/lenses you bought "if you could not afford anything better". Ha ha.
Funny how times have changed.
OH


PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you !

Well it's worth more than I expected ! I guess it's gonna have a new home soon !

Anyone interested in buying one ?


PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No sales under 200 post please read Marketplace sticky.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry didn't know that !

My bad !


PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

littleearth wrote:
Sorry didn't know that !

My bad !


I thought , np I just let you to know it, simple.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This lens first came into my attention reading the books of Stapf (Fotografische Praxis) and of Teicher (Handbuch der Fototechnik), both from the 60s but reedited many times up onto the 80s. Also translated in different languages (for the Stapf I know for shure it is avaible in Hungarian, Romanian and I think Polish). Highly reccomended literature. (And in my opinion of clearly higher value than the literature from West Germany, including Feininger. On the ohter hand especially Teicher's book is mostly based on prewar literature and I think Stapf's book had also prewar prints.)

You will find in these two books a lot of pictures taken with the Trioplan. Especially Stapf mentions it more than once, that this is only a 3 element lens but still capable of very good results. And he demonstrates this using the lens for different type of picture along the book. Potrait, arhitecture, nature, nude.
The pictures are really so good that I wanted to buy this lens, althought then I looked depreciatively to anything below a Tessar. Fortunately none of the pictures shown show the donuts, this would have made me to ignore this lens.
Well... I still don't have this lens. In the 90s when they were cheap I was poor and now I'm not so poor but the prices went up.