Rare equipment removed from photographic use by collectors

[Esox lucius]

The other day, someone paid USD 34 020 (equivalent to EUR 27 587 with the day's rate of exchange) for a Nikkor fisheye 6/2.8 which was manufactured in a total of 109 copies only. It became one in an endless row of equipment which has been removed from the World of photographic use to sit on a collector's shelf, not producing images for others to enjoy.

Screen grab 1200px - http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6897/nikkor6mmh.jpg



List here other cases, where ridiculous overprice, rarity or other equipment interest merits making it to this sad list.

Vilhelm

[LucisPictor]

Yeah, I bought it!
I just had to sell our car. Sshhht! My wife doesn't know yet...

[Hari]

[Scheimpflug]

What makes you think it is being removed from photographic use?

Perhaps instead it was bought from a collector, specifically to be used, putting one more rare lens back into service?

The price isn't a sure indicator... anyone who wants one to use one is going to have to outbid the collectors.

[Esox lucius]

Well, given what members on this forum have written about discontinued lenses worth > 1000€

- "I couldn't possibly carry/travel/use it anywhere where it could be lost"
- a specific topic listing gear too precious to be used anywhere
- my personal experience where I for years regularly have been asked how dare you bring that lens here, aren't you afraid something could happen to it and you can't replace it?.

That's comments on affordable discontinued lenses like Nikkor 28/1.4D or Voigtländer APO-Lanthars. I am fairly confident with a price like that, it's not going to see much use if any. I may be wrong of course, let's hope I am.

[alex]

It's going to be a right bugger trying to find a filter for it.

[Hari]

May also be safe to assume it's a guy and he's not married?



j/k

[Esox lucius]

Safe to assume buyer's insurance company will send Season's Greetings cards, all-around insurance for that lens would be about 1000€ annually (0% VAT) over here (insured for 25 000 EUR)

[CarbonR]

Generally, pure collectors pay lots of money to have lenses they will never use, some of them doesn't know how to use them. Consequences :
- Real users have to pay more than collectors, creating a vicious circle
- We almost never hear about theses lenses or stuff, they do not share anything
That's why I generally hate pure collectors who keep things that are designed to be used , and can still be used nowadays. I know I keep some (rare) lenses, and I don't use often some of them. But lenses users would use whereas I don't are not numerous, and I try to share my results. I would not be surprised too, that this lens will be keep on a shelf or a safe...

[ManualFocus-G]

Yeah, but then the collectors die and their children sell them badly listed on ebay, and then we snap them up for twenty quid or so

[peterqd]

Are there any pictures around taken with this lens? They must be weird. I bet you can see the back of your head when you're looking through the viewfinder.

[alex]

[egidio]

a lot of good lenses are owned by collectors and not photographers. People are too worried to scratch the lens body these days, just for retail value

[Mal1905]

[symphonic]

I agree with you on the collectors part.

I can't imagine even how to properly handle a lens like this. And the price is really ridiculous.

[Esox lucius]

[nemesis101]

I think it is a bargain price when you consider what Arse n All ask for a 'rare' 'prototype' 49mm filter! lol

Doug

[peterqd]

[kds315*]

A guy I know uses it...


to make shots like that with it...


I had that lens (another copy) for a while, but sold it later...

[Esox lucius]

[PaulC]

Hopefully the new owner will "AI" it with a Dremel tool to make it more handy for modern cameras. That's what I'd do, the AI version is always worth more.

Seriously, though, I don't get the "depriving the world of pictures from it" argument. Where are all the pictures the world is admiring from the other 100+ copies of this lens? The world isn't admiring them, we can't even find more than a handful. And what value would there be in Mr Averagely-crappy photographer owning it, shooting like mad with it, and sharing every ugly, ill-composed frame with us through Fickr?

It's only in the hands of a real Master that this lens would generate outstanding images (unless you think everything distorted is outstanding), and the Master will create great photos regardless of whether he has this lens (so if he was using it, it would be depriving us of the masterpieces he would have been creating with another lens if he didn't have that one).

[Esox lucius]

What do you recommend? That there would be some sort of a quality certificate or creative driver's license for a person to have a right to own a rare lens?

Seriously: I rather see shitloads of crap photos with odd & rare lenses on Flickr than wikipedia-clone blogs where photogs present collections of cameras, as opposed to collections of photos. The value in the crap on Flickr is that from a heap of dung always rises seeds of creativity, if not directly in results by existing owners then as a source for others to discover lenses and use them with more interesting results.

No, I don't find anything distorted creative. I do find this particular photographer's use of the strange perspective this lens produces to be very creative though:

http://www.kubetschek.de

[PaulC]

[Esox lucius]

I may be an idealist then, because I've sold rare equipment I owned so that it would find an owner who used it.

[Cowboy]

More photos:

http://arsenalphoto.com/ge/product.asp?pid=116339&cat1=12&cat2=294&cat3=2&catx=0&keys=&caty=0&size=&sort=&dir=&pg=

edit: where's the link I posted?