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

Assessing fungus/value of trioplan 2.8/100
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Splendid portrait Nordentro!


PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bernhardas wrote:
Interesting discussion about value and price. Both seem quite simple and innocently clear terms on the surface but can get complicated very quickly when you dig deeper.
(literature on the matter is still growing rapidly)

The "historical" "Value" tb-a refers to is a memory to a time, where lenses with sharp corners, high micro contrast, decent sharpness wide open, and brilliant color rendition were either non existent or VERY rare and expensive. The "triplet" was the class for the mass of moderate priced or cheap cameras.

Today any lens from CaNikon/ Zeiss /Leica or Sigma and Tamron (not to forget the sharp Samyang ones) delivers effortlessly (some even in the low/medium price range) the top quality or better from 60 years ago. Now the "good" of the "historical-Value" has become the new "normal" and the "old" "standard" has become over time the new "unusual".

The rest is human nature and quite straight forward supply/demand relation.

Let's just for fun get some perspective: Recent CIPA number show that in 2014/2015 about 1.1 million interchangeable cameras are shipped per month, that is 55000 per working day. For sake of simplicity lets assume a 10 hour workday in Asia.

Then roughly every working hour more interchangeable lens cameras are produced (shipped) today then all original Trioplans ever produced in total.*

Tick tock, tick tock.

* Rough guesstimate on my part: Meyer produced about 180000 lenses between 1950-1960 The 100 2.8 was not the most produced lens. If my estimate of about 5500 produced is not even in the ballpark or anyone knows the exact number please correct me.


Indeed, interesting discussion and interesting opinions. The whole antique and art market is based on the demand and not on the real value of the goods. Look at the ridiculous prices at Westlicht auctions at Vienna. However, my view is still based on the practical use of photographic equipment rather than on any artificial collector pricing which is more comparable to the collection of stamps or any other typical collectors stuff. I am also under the impression that some clever vendors of such old lenses are inventing some attributes like "3D-view", "bokeh monster", "Tomioka effect" and alike to make their stuff more interesting for potential customers with deep pockets. Some do even invent some miraculous characteristics which would never pass any "blind test" but do work due to simple psychological factors or even the lack of knowledge of the potential customers. This is comparable to the "HiFi-Voodoo" market where people even buy cables made of gold or platinum because they believe that this will produce a better sound which is definitely not possible. Simple physics and blind tests will tell you the contrary.
So finally I am more or less amused that this marketing strategy is still successful and generates demand and new buyers.
However, as already stated, everybody is free to spend the money for whatever. I am not too sure if the investment in such old photographic stuff without real practical value is a good investment for the future as this hype may easily die sooner or later and the peak may be already reached.
Though, only the future will tell us whether my judgment is right or wrong. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pancolart wrote:
Splendid portrait Nordentro!

Thank you, I was lucky and found a good spot. The sunlight bounced in a large window and lit him up nicely under the trees. Almost like a studio setup... There is a road in the background with lots of shiny cars for the bokeh. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Market prices of old glass is rising more than gold prices Wink The lens market will be vacuumed if only 1% of the mirrorless market start buying legacy lenses and prices will continue to grow. Hold on to your keepers!

Cyclop bought for 50 EURO, sold for 300 USD just tree years later. And the Trioplan sells for five times more now than five years ago.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nordentro wrote:
Market prices of old glass is rising more than gold prices Wink The lens market will be vacuumed if only 1% of the mirrorless market start buying legacy lenses and prices will continue to grow. Hold on to your keepers!

Cyclop bought for 50 EURO, sold for 300 USD just tree years later. And the Trioplan sells for five times more now than five years ago.


That's certainly true to some extent and you're right that the prices increased tremendously during the past few years, particularly since the introduction of the Sony A7 series.
However, I believe that a natural ceiling is already reached because new and good lenses from manufacturers like Samyang are already available new for moderate prices; e.g. the 85/1.4 for 240 Euro. Who would buy a lens delivering lower quality for higher prices in a comparable focus length except some collectors?

So my assumption is that besides some enthusiasts who will still to some extent buy lenses for ridiculous collector prices, the mass of the photographers will rather go for the better quality at cheaper pricing.

Therefore I see the peak below the price of a comparable lens which is available new and delivers normally better quality than any "antique" lens. Manufacturers like Samyang or Sigma will influence the market to even lower the prices again. Normally the market works like that. Why should it be different with lenses?

We will see it anyway. For me the times to buy old glass are more or less over, except I find a real bargain somewhere. Honestly speaking, when I tested some old M42 glass against my Minolta AF 50/1.4 some days ago I totally lost interest to use those old fifties ever again. It's much more convenient to have AF AND far better quality as well.

The only remaining question for me is whether to use this hype now to start selling all my unneeded glass or to wait a little bit longer. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, what is quality really? Is it the perfect balanced, sharpest modern lens? Or is it the lens with classic rendering, unique character and bokeh? All the conventional forums is about sharpness, there is no discussion around other qualities with a lens. Some people doesn`t even know about bokeh existence. It`s just about sharp and blurred.

So why do people buy expensive old cars? They are certainly not faster or more comfy... It`s all about the experience and the outcome. Same with old lenses...


PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nordentro wrote:

So why do people buy expensive old cars? They are certainly not faster or more comfy... It`s all about the experience and the outcome. Same with old lenses...


That's a good example. Old cars produced in masses are still far cheaper than comparable new ones. Even if they are very old and well restored. Only the extraordinary and very rare ones which have been very expensive when new are selling for astronomical prices. That's exactly what I mean. Same is true for old watches or any other collector items. Old standard lenses which have been produced in masses are in comparison far too expensive already today.

So I am totally in agreement that there always will be a certain demand from enthusiastic people who believe that they only get certain results when using such old lenses BUT I don't think that the prices will constantly grow much further. IMHO rather the contrary will be the case besides the collector factor for extremely rare and extraordinary lenses which may even increase their prices further.

And (as already stated) there is a lot of Voodoo believe around that only a certain lens is able to deliver some special rendering, though there are certainly also some rather rare exceptions. But that's only my personal opinion and everybody is free to see it differently. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nordentro wrote:
Well, what is quality really? Is it the perfect balanced, sharpest modern lens? Or is it the lens with classic rendering, unique character and bokeh? All the conventional forums is about sharpness, there is no discussion around other qualities with a lens. Some people doesn`t even know about bokeh existence. It`s just about sharp and blurred.

So why do people buy expensive old cars? They are certainly not faster or more comfy... It`s all about the experience and the outcome. Same with old lenses...

+10


PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Wed May 11, 2016 8:48 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understand the romantics speaking of creativity with even faulty lenses, but when it comes to a lens being almost blind by fungus then creativity of any kind with that lens is out of question.
Trioplan lenses have never been famous for being razor sharp. That amount of fungus we see here will certainly degrade the already poor quality (in terms of technical numbers) of the Trioplan lens. Even worse, due to the fact that the fungus has spread in unevenly on the elements of the lens, the results will also have uneven effects across the frame.
That lens is easy to disassemble. Try it and try to kill and clean the fungus. If the glass has not been etched much by the fungus, there will be no visible difference even from those as clean as new.
Price wise, that lens is expensive because it is rare and collectible. Its price has nothing to do with its qualities.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

zanxion72 wrote:
Price wise, that lens is expensive because it is rare and collectible. Its price has nothing to do with its qualities.


Well ,I have to disagree, the Trioplan has its qualities but in a different manner. Trioplan 100mm is rare, but not super rare, there are many other more rare lenses that sells for less than the Trioplan. In the other hand, the Trioplan bubble bokeh is rare, which is the quality that push the prices that much. So I would say yes, it is about its qualities.

Bubble bokeh is not my style, but I can still understand why some people adore this lens after owning a copy myself. The lens is different than most others...