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

Kiron 105, can't wait
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:59 pm    Post subject: Kiron 105, can't wait Reply with quote
Just won Click here to see on Ebay I think for a good price, now the wait for it to arrive begins Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hey you got it damn cheap! congrats!!


PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looks to be in very good condition also Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Damn I am green from envy Wink one of the best macro lens under 500 USD for sure.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
+1 = Attila is right


patrickh


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's a great bargain, and a wonderful lens. Looking forward to some pictures taken with it!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Damn I am green from envy Wink one of the best macro lens under 500 USD for sure.

$500? LOL Smile That's a pretty gross overestimation. An old, non-AF macro with no auto aperture control is probably worth.. well, $250 in this inflated market. $300 will buy you a used AF macro.

You can try a modern AF Tokina 100/2.8 (sells for around that much BRAND NEW) and you'll see what I mean, optically. I use this lens extensively (and I do love MF, but shooting macros with no automatic aperture control is a PITA). To counter the "build quality" argument, the Tokina is built of metal, and is available for most modern AF mounts except Pentax K (Pentax makes SMC Pentax DFA 100/2.8 which is built even better, is smaller and lighter than the Tokina).

Having said that, 110 EUR *is* a great bargain on this lens; congrats!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fantastic bargain, well done on capturing it. Smile


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes good price but maybe not good enough for the seller, I've had no contact despite asking for a total amount as his listing did not include postage, prior to auction he quoted me €15 for shipping and Paypal won't let you add delivery charge or pay without action from the seller Confused
Very Happy updated invoice received Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
Attila wrote:
Damn I am green from envy Wink one of the best macro lens under 500 USD for sure.

$500? LOL Smile That's a pretty gross overestimation. An old, non-AF macro with no auto aperture control is probably worth.. well, $250 in this inflated market. $300 will buy you a used AF macro.
Having said that, 110 EUR *is* a great bargain on this lens; congrats!


I think you have misunderstood, Attila didn't mean it was worth $500 merely one of the best under $500, that said one recently sold for $450 Click here to see on Ebay


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tervueren wrote:
I think you have misunderstood, Attila didn't mean it was worth $500 merely one of the best under $500, that said one recently sold for $450 Click here to see on Ebay

That's at least 50% collector value. That particular lens is Pentax K/A mount. Having said that, Pentax builds a superb macro lens, DFA 100/2.8, which is tiny, metal-bodied, and optically superb. Choosing an old dinosaur over such an excellent lens is pure LBA Smile

P.S. I've seen a page somewhere testing the performance of several AF and MF macro lenses that included both the Kiron and the Pentax... can't find it now Sad


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That second ebay link show pentax mount lester dine version. It has A setting for automatic aperture control, also the Lester dine version are better known which makes the price go up (even though as far as I know they are identical).
The first one, Minolta mount? I think no automatic aperture, full manual.

I found one Kiron 105 macro Pentax KA mount "incognito" for less then 100€ It is a very unique model where the lettering that says Kiron is gone... Cool Laughing (admittedly it came and had to be cleaned a bit)


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
Attila wrote:
Damn I am green from envy Wink one of the best macro lens under 500 USD for sure.

$500? LOL Smile That's a pretty gross overestimation. An old, non-AF macro with no auto aperture control is probably worth.. well, $250 in this inflated market. $300 will buy you a used AF macro.

You can try a modern AF Tokina 100/2.8 (sells for around that much BRAND NEW) and you'll see what I mean, optically. I use this lens extensively (and I do love MF, but shooting macros with no automatic aperture control is a PITA). To counter the "build quality" argument, the Tokina is built of metal, and is available for most modern AF mounts except Pentax K (Pentax makes SMC Pentax DFA 100/2.8 which is built even better, is smaller and lighter than the Tokina).

Having said that, 110 EUR *is* a great bargain on this lens; congrats!


Matter of point of view with an AF lens your stuck on one system, if you buy lenses to Canon you can't bring them to Nikon etc. All electronic means advanced risk to stop working, if lens get fungus , harder to clean it ,several lenses Tokina is one example not open able any more they simple push lenses to plastic and not open able any more. Image quality not better at all usually etc long list vs AF or MF , people start to get shock once happen something above list.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Matter of point of view with an AF lens your stuck on one system

Same with most MF lenses bar T2, Adaptall-2, YS, TX and T4 mounts (which would be too old anyway to offer competitive performance even compared to the more recent MF counterparts).

Attila wrote:
if lens get fungus , harder to clean it

Why would a modern lens get fungus at all if it's not abused or used in extreme climate (e.g. Thailand) all the time? This problem usually develops in very old lenses stored in very improper conditions.

Attila wrote:
several lenses Tokina is one example not open able any more they simple push lenses to plastic and not open able any more.

You are far less likely to encounter any sort of mechanical problems with lenses that are not 40 or 50 years old (e.g. Tokina 100/2.8 in "D" version, which are, BTW, made of metal).

Attila wrote:
Image quality not better at all

Again, it depends. In general, reasonably recent (e.g. up to 50 years old) MF prime lenses may offer comparable or better performance and may offer higher reliability, especially in the long run (due to no need to facilitate internal focusing, no cost savings as major design priority etc.)

This, however, does NOT automatically apply to some categories of lenses due to the relative complexity of their design: zoom and macro lenses. Granted, a Zeiss 100mm macro lens made 30 years ago would give a run for the money to modern AF macros but... the Kiron wouldn't. Kiron was one of the better second-tier manufacturers, but not Nikon nor Zeiss. It does produce images comparable to modern lenses, but its usability is lower due to no automatic aperture control (ant it is a MAJOR hassle to stop aperture down when shooting anything resembling real macros!) and no AF (which is generally no big deal for macros, but makes it more difficult using the lens e.g. for portraits).

I am a fan of MF lenses myself, BUT: there is a price tag attached to everything. Old MF lenses bought from the used market are not even remotely as safe a purchase compared to something bought new. Legacy glass should be either (relatively) inexpensive, offer something unique (e.g. Helios-40) or bear collectors value. This is why I don't see a sane reason to pay "up to" $500 for the old Kiron. Up to $250? Nope. I paid $300 for said AF Tokina and using it a lot more for money-making purposes (product shots) than I would be able to use any MF lens. In my view, a fair price for a tool (if we view the lens as a tool and not as a display collectors item) such as this Kiron would be in the 100-150 EUR range.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:


This, however, does NOT automatically apply to some categories of lenses due to the relative complexity of their design: zoom and macro lenses. Granted, a Zeiss 100mm macro lens made 30 years ago would give a run for the money to modern AF macros but... the Kiron wouldn't. Kiron was one of the better second-tier manufacturers, but not Nikon nor Zeiss. It does produce images comparable to modern lenses, but its usability is lower due to no automatic aperture control (ant it is a MAJOR hassle to stop aperture down when shooting anything resembling real macros!) and no AF (which is generally no big deal for macros, but makes it more difficult using the lens e.g. for portraits).


Frankly you've lost me here. It may be true for a DSLR that you are probably using. On mirrorless (or any camera with a decent implementation of live view/magnification), there is no issue whatsoever to focus the lens at f11 or any other aperture, so auto-aperture is not needed. Moreover, it's detrimental at macro distances due to focus shift. Sure, AF is useful for portrait shots, but we know that already when we choose a MF lens, be it Zeiss or Kiron.

And yes, this Kiron would give a run for the money to any Nikon or Zeiss macro. It was insanely expensive lens when new, and generally is held in higher regard than 105mm Nikon macros of the same era.

Quote:

I am a fan of MF lenses myself, BUT: there is a price tag attached to everything. Old MF lenses bought from the used market are not even remotely as safe a purchase compared to something bought new. Legacy glass should be either (relatively) inexpensive, offer something unique (e.g. Helios-40) or bear collectors value. This is why I don't see a sane reason to pay "up to" $500 for the old Kiron. Up to $250? Nope. I paid $300 for said AF Tokina and using it a lot more for money-making purposes (product shots) than I would be able to use any MF lens. In my view, a fair price for a tool (if we view the lens as a tool and not as a display collectors item) such as this Kiron would be in the 100-150 EUR range.


This is debatable. Go to any photography forum and you'll find countless reports of faulty AF lenses bought new. The laundry list includes decentering, fungus, faulty electronics, OIS causing blurry images, rubber focus rings delaminating, stuck aperture blades, and what not. Some of this stuff is obvious and leads to a painless exchange; good luck proving (and figuring out) that your OIS is causing blurry images though.

It's true, that the possibility of a fault on 40 year old MF lens bought randomly on ebay is higher than on a brand new lens bought from a shop. However,
1) The reparability of old lenses is much higher.
2) If you want to eliminate the risk of buying a faulty MF lens, buy from someone knowledgeable and reputable.

As for the price tags, $500 is a bit higher than current market value of Kiron, but market value has very little to do with performance. Kiron is certainly a better performing lens than Helios-40. Btw, for the purpose of product shots it's just as good (if not better) tool as your AF Tokina.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1