View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
pst
Joined: 25 Aug 2010 Posts: 108 Location: Austria
Expire: 2013-08-17
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 5:57 pm Post subject: Why are there so few "cheapo" 85mm lenses? |
|
|
pst wrote:
Looking trough the "sales" corner on some photo forum I found a lot of M42 lenses. In it there was a 35mm, two 135mm and a 200mm lens. All "no-name", well at least nothing I had ever heard of.
...It came to me; Why are there hardly any cheapo 85mm lenses. Like all those rebranded no-name lenses. You can find plenty in 28, 35, 50, 135 and also 200. But where are the 85s? _________________ Regards, Patrick. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sirrith
Joined: 17 Sep 2010 Posts: 215 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sirrith wrote:
Quite a good question, I've often wondered that myself... Seems like the 85's are some of the most expensive I've seen in fact. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
WolverineX
Joined: 19 Apr 2009 Posts: 1693 Location: Zagreb , Croatia , Europe
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WolverineX wrote:
my guess is that 85mm was usual focal length for portraits, so lens makers made those lenses extra quality lenses, hence higher price tag _________________ my tools:Oly E-M5 + 45mm/1.8 + Oly E-520 + 12-60 + 14-42 + 70-300 + Sigma 105mm + FL-50R + EC20 + SRF-11 ring flash
http://forum.mflenses.com/wolverinex-testing-my-lenses-series-link-list-t39524.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6622 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Plus they are usually fast, and non-50mm fast lenses are expensive regardless _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RTI
Joined: 15 Jul 2011 Posts: 282 Location: Moldova, Chisinau
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RTI wrote:
85ish and 100mm are quite expensive focal lengths, as it has been mentioned, being mostly portrait lenses - suitable both for FF and APSC form factors. 135mm is kinda more tele on 1.5 crop, a 50 "nifty-fifty" being a normal lens on FF and AFAIK isn't a proper portrait lens even on a cropped body, having some perspective distortions. _________________ Cameras: Canon 5DIII, Zorki-4, Canon AE-1
MF:Rokkor 58/1.2, Rokkor MC 58/1.4, Yashica ML 50/1.7, M39 Jupiter-9 (silver 1955), Zuiko 35-70/3.6
AF: Sigma Art 35/1.4, Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC, |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6602 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
50 is 75mm on a crop body, and looks perfectly fine as a portrait lens as far as I can see.
Zeiss sold their Biotar 75/1.5 as a portrait lens after all.
Lots of 55mm and 58mm lenses around too, and the equivalent focal length is that much more - 82.5 or 87mm is right in 35mm portrait lens territory.
The only problem is that you need more aperture for the same DOF, if thats an issue. You need roughly an f/1.2 55mm on APS-C to match the DOF of an 85mm f/2 on 35mm.
My guess on the lack of cheapo portrait lenses is that its hard and expensive to make a decently performing one with sufficient aperture to be attractive. 135/2.8 is easy to make, good ones can have just 4 elements. _________________ I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I think it is, as Luis says, cost to produce.
Most makes made 135mm lenses with both 3.5 and 2.8 speeds, the 3.5s are often 4 element tele-tessar types, the 2.8s are usually 5 element Sonnar types.
The Sonnar design is not cheap to produce.
Thinking of 85mm lenses, there was the Triotar 4/85 which is a triplet, and then the Sonnar 2/85 which is 5 elements, the Sonnar would have cost a lot more to produce. I know the 2/85 Sonnar is a superb portrait lens, don't know about the Triotar, it's a sharp lens with little distortion even at f4, but how it's rendering works for portraits I have no idea. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6602 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
AFAIK, all the 135/2.8's (and 135/3.5's) I've disassembled had 4 elements.
Even some quality ones like the Nikkor-Q only had 4 elements - I've had one apart recently.
Maybe the more expensive ones had five (maybe also the Takumars, etc.), but I only work on the cheap stuff. _________________ I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10994 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
I want to know which 135/2.8 are Sonnar!
Let's remember in the 85mm range are the 90/2.5 macro lenses (Tamron, Vivitar, etc.) which make great FF portrait lenses. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
mo
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 Posts: 8979 Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-07-30
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
mo wrote:
Having just bought a SP Tamron 90/2.5 my first lens in that range.I can see why they are expensive...however I did pick mine up for under $90au.I certainly won't be letting this lens go...maybe that's why there are not a lot out there as they are just kept by the original owners? _________________ Moira, Moderator
Fuji XE-1,Pentax K-01,Panasonic G1,Panasonic G5,Pentax MX
Ricoh Singlex TLS,KR-5,KR-5Super,XR-10
Lenses
Auto Rikenon's 55/1.4, 1.8, 2.8... 50/1.7 Takumar 2/58 Preset Takumar 2.8/105 Auto Takumar 2.2/55, 3.5/35 Super Takumar 1.8/55...Macro Takumar F4/50... CZJ Biotar ALU M42 2/58 CZJ Tessar ALU M42 2.8/50
CZJ DDR Flektogon Zebra M42 2.8/35 CZJ Pancolar M42 2/50 CZJ Pancolar Exakta 2/50
Auto Mamiya/Sekor 1.8/55 ...Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2.8/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 200/3.5 Tamron SP500/8 Tamron SP350/5.6 Tamron SP90/2.5
Primoplan 1.9/58 Primagon 4.5/35 Telemegor 5.5/150 Angenieux 3.5/28 Angenieux 3,5/135 Y 2
Canon FL 58/1.2,Canon FL85/1.8,Canon FL 100/3.5,Canon SSC 2.8/100 ,Konica AR 100/2.8, Nikkor P 105/2.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
F16SUNSHINE
Joined: 20 Aug 2007 Posts: 5486 Location: Left Coast
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
F16SUNSHINE wrote:
Hey nice pick up Mo. I've never heard of anyone disappointed in that lens. Great price you got it for as well. _________________ Moderator |
|
Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 8551 Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
Enjoy that lens Mo, it's a cracker. And that was a really good price if it's in good nick
patrickh _________________ DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 7448 Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
The cost of manufacture is a factor, but that isn't the real reason why 85s are so expensive. You'd never sell an expensive, high quality, lens (or anything else) unless someone was prepared to pay for it. The price is set by supply and demand. What we should be asking is why is there such high demand for 85mm lenses. _________________ Peter - Moderator |
|
Back to top |
|
|
std
Joined: 09 Feb 2010 Posts: 1826 Location: Bulgaria
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
std wrote:
There are some cheap russian 80 and 90mm (volna-3 and vega-12) but those are medium format lenses so they are normal focal length for 6x6 format. _________________ Stefan
My lens list:
SLR MD: Rokkor 1,7/50 Exakta: Kilfitt-Makro-Kilar E 3.5/4cm; CZJ 2/50 Pancolar;M42: CZJ 2.8/50 Tessar; Mir-1B 2.8/37; Jupiter-9 2/85 T-mount: Tamron 5.9/200; Tamron 6.9/300; Tamron 7.5/400 C-mount: Cosmicar 1.8/50 Y/S: Sun 3.5/38-90, Sun 4/70-210 RF Contax RF: Jupiter-8 2/50; Contax G:CZ 2,8/21 Biogon T; CZ 2,8/28 Biogon T; CZ 2/35 Planar T; CZ 2/45 Planar T; CZ 2,8/90 Sonnar T |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pst
Joined: 25 Aug 2010 Posts: 108 Location: Austria
Expire: 2013-08-17
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
pst wrote:
Isn't it possible to make a Gaussian type lens? Somehow change a 50/1.4 into a 85/2 or so...? _________________ Regards, Patrick. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
noddywithoutbigears
Joined: 13 Jan 2010 Posts: 215 Location: Leek, Staffordshire
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
noddywithoutbigears wrote:
I think it's just down to market forces, 85mm is not that bigger than a 50-55mm where as a 135mm is, lenses have always been a costly purchase, so your not really going to buy a new lens close to the one you already own unless it's for a specific application. Lens manf. make lens which will sell and maybe the 85mm is seen as a more specialised lens with less demand, so subsequently they make a more limited run. The Pentax M 50mm f1.7 is a excellent lens which there must have been 100,000 + in it's production run, hence cheap and readily available but the 85mm f2 was probably only in the 1000s so rare and expensive. Of course I maybe completely wrong. _________________ Sony A7
Super Takumar 55mm F18, Helios 44-2 58mm f2, Super Takumar 85mm f1.9, Pentacon 50mm f1.8, Zenitar 16mm f2.8 Fisheye, Carl Zeiss Vario Prakticar 35-70mm f2.7-3.5. Carl Zeiss Prakticar 35mm f2.4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hoanpham
Joined: 31 Jan 2011 Posts: 2575
Expire: 2015-01-18
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
hoanpham wrote:
Cheapest among 70-77-80-85-90-100-105 lenses can be one of the medium format lenses. 80/2.8 used to come as a kit. Like Pentacon6 lenses, I use them with adapter.
Second cheap I found is the macro lenses: tamron sp 90/2.5 1:2, tamron af 90/2.8 1:1, sigma af 105/2.8 macro. I got these lenses cheaper than the pentax M 85/2. The af are made by plastic.
Also the 100-105mm are in general a bit cheaper than 85mm.
Do we need faster than 2.8? Not really. I use them most at f4 and f5.6, but also with exception. A f1.4 lens step down to f2 or f2.8 gives razor sharp results.
The 85mm's stay, last to go. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Minolfan
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 3438 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Minolfan wrote:
Most amateurs in the old days choosed for 135 for a first extension of their gear. The 135 was sold a lot more then 80 -100mm.
For crop cameras that range is very attractive now. Few to find and a lot of interested buyers makes higher prices.
And the profi purchased the expensive fast lenses, ofcourse they are regarded now and get high prices!
The cost of producing 85-ish lenses is for an important part the effect of lower numbers made. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
peterqd wrote: |
The cost of manufacture is a factor, but that isn't the real reason why 85s are so expensive. You'd never sell an expensive, high quality, lens (or anything else) unless someone was prepared to pay for it. The price is set by supply and demand. What we should be asking is why is there such high demand for 85mm lenses. |
+1
Look Leica APO X + DOT BBB = 5000 EUR + in ordinary focal length like 50mm somebody can afford it , not related to anything.
People love some focal length, 85mm is one of them. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nesster
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 Posts: 5883 Location: NJ, USA
Expire: 2014-02-20
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nesster wrote:
My guess is along the lines of what people have already mentioned --- supply and demand. Not many 85's were sold, I think. Yet, since it is one of the traditional 120 format normal lengths, the basic designs had been worked out - the same for 105's. Therefore they tend to be quite good -the same way 50s tend to be good. Then you get the lux makers seizing the opportunity and adding cachet...
I think it's true that in the Nikon world, the 105 was the preferred portrait lens, and therefore much more common now than their 85's?
Back some 15 years ago when I went looking for a fast short tele for my OM, Keh priced the Zuiko 85/2 for less than the 100mm... but I'm thinking I must have been looking at the 100/2 rather than 2.8 _________________ -Jussi
Camera photos
Print Photographica
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
Let's look at Canon FD lenses:
FDn 85mm/f1.8: 6 lenses/4 groups, price at introduction 45 000 Yen.
FDn 100mm/f2.8: 6 lenses/5 groups, price at introduction 34,500 yen
FDn 135mm/f2.8: 6 lenses/5 groups, price at introduction 35,000 yen
Based on that, there is not much difference in manufacturing complexity between these lenses. 100mm/f2.8 is the cheapest to make as it requires less glass (it's the lightest of the 3). The used market prices are completely upside down from that, with 100mm/f2.8 being a lot more expensive than 135mm/f2.8 and 85mm/f1.8 being almost double the price of 100mm. This pricing is driven by the number of the lenses on the used market, not by anything else.
Now the number of the lenses on the used market is driven by original pricing. 135mm was the best deal of the 3, so was bought by all the amateurs and is available in large numbers. My guess is that higher pricing for 85/1.8 was set only by marketing considerations. The lens is most useful for indoor portraiture, which often means studio work, hence wealthier target market. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
yes, you do remember for 100mm f2 I think too _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10994 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
pst wrote: |
Isn't it possible to make a Gaussian type lens? Somehow change a 50/1.4 into a 85/2 or so...? |
I think this is Tamron 90/2.8 design! Double Gaussian configuration in front of a compensator group. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
pst
Joined: 25 Aug 2010 Posts: 108 Location: Austria
Expire: 2013-08-17
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pst wrote:
True, if I were shopping for only one lens above 50 the 135mm makes most sense. If I were to buy two lenses 100 + 200mm would make most sense. Maybe that's why Nikon sold more 100/105 lenses. _________________ Regards, Patrick. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
avidone
Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Posts: 15
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
avidone wrote:
my feeling is that this is definitely a supply and demand sort of thing, ie. lower supply originally making higher demand/ higher prices now. Even on lenses reasonably close to each other in quality, eg. 135mm/f3.5 Jupiter 37a lenses are all over the place and available in mint condition for very little. I think I got my 1980 Olympic model new old stock for like 35 euro on fleabay and recently I grabbed another good condition one for 12 euros I think at a thrift store. I have NEVER run across 85mm lenses in thrift stores and the Jupiter 9 (85mm f2) I got off the bay was in great condition but a bit over 100 euro. Still a bargain for that kind of quality IMHO, but absolutely cheap it is not
When I see people on eBay or in classifieds trying to sell complete SLR film kits, they are almost always camera/ 50 (or 55 or 5/135/28
Like 85's, 35's seem to be harder to come across and more expensive. I guess to most amateur shooters with limited funds, 28/50/135 gave a better spread and "bang for the buck"
It is a luxury that we can buy these lenses now for what are still great prices even after renewed demand (like from people here ) has brought the prices up. I love my Jupiter 9 and Jupiter 37a both on my APS-C DSLRs and can't wait for my new old 5d classic to arrive to try them on that. Pity I will not be able to also enjoy my Mir1sh (37mm/f2. on it, since it is reported to hit the mirror. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|