Well, my 34 years are obsolete on Yesterday.
OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
Rolleicord Va: Humble.
Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.
well I did like Ben's quote few posts earlier
Originally Posted by wblynch
but the quote above is so wrong
the inflation is caused by D 'camera' owners with adapters buying cheap off brand antiques
If film should disappear you either
only need to buy a D ****** sorry and adapter or
sell the antiques at >>>>>>>>$
I use single coated and multi coated lenses for the difference in signature dependent on contrast of scenes and signature I want and I work with long scale mono film my sensor has long toes and shoulders not a sharp cut off like digital
Good investments are difficult to spot ~ for some but as Ben's penultimate post suggests it is hard if you don't have a bucket full of lenses already.
Investments, that's not what photography's about anyone buying photographic equipment either analogue or digital gear as an investment is a fool, the reason to buy equipment is to use it and enjoy it, I have had much more value from my equipment in the joy of using it for many years than mere money could ever compensate me for.
Originally Posted by Xmas
Last edited by benjiboy; 09-18-2013 at 06:07 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Originally Posted by benjiboy
I tried out a OM1N (refurbished by Michael Spencer, so it was literally mint) with some OM lenses, and prefered to stick with Pentax kit instead. In particular, I have a modern 50/1.8 MIJ which was definitely less sharp than my Pentax M 50/1.7, which distinctly put me off the system. I found the 135/3.5 v sharp though, and the 28/2.8 only OK relative to my Pentax M 28/3.5 and K 24/2.8.
As for prices, you often see someone saying on Pentaxforums "lens prices are going up". But in my experience, with inflation considered, old lenses are falling in real terms. People tend not to want to pay more for a lens than the price they have seen it going for. Often, the people buying lenses on the great internet auction site end up selling it again, to try something else out. Equally, to be a bit morbid, there is a continual supply of lenses from photographers relatives auctioning stuff off, after they have departed planet earth. These relatives dont know what they are selling, take a bad photo, or just list the stuff as a bundle, which means there is a continual supply of cheap kit coming into the market. I reckon half this stuff gets picked up by traders who try selling it on at BIN prices of USD 1000 etc, and then give up, as they realise they have too much inventory.
For what its worth, I tracked the median price of Oly kit, and here are some results:
OM4 Ti, 215.01
2.8/35 shift, 256
OM2n Spot -lens, 46.255
screen 1-4n, 18.45
all prices in sterling...obviously, this neglects condition, so its only a guide to the fair price, and INCLUDE POSTAGE, as there are always people who try to bamboozle buyers with ridiculous postage costs
Last edited by hoojammyflip; 09-20-2013 at 09:45 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
As you say, that list includes the full range of lens sales, including complete dogs with scratched elements and ptetzeled filter rings, etc. Most people on this forum will tend to look higher up the price scale. My perception is lenses are cheap compared to original prices, and in comparison to DSLR lenses, but prices are climbing for good examples, and most are more expensive than five or six years ago.
Originally Posted by hoojammyflip
Just to clarify, its the median price, and of stuff I am watching, certainly not dogs. But I did not differentiate for instance between the different eras of 50/1.4. Seriously, if you want to invest in something, buy something other than camera kit, which pays financial dividends. I just keep a list like this so that I know what a fair price is. Make of it what you will.
Sure, I agree. What I was trying to say is people buy a lot of rough lenses in my experience, and if you want a good example you may not get one for the median price. I'm also with you on camera values. As manufacturers become fewer and film types are cut (and digital becomes more sophisticated in its signature look) who knows where film camera and lens prices will go long term?
Originally Posted by hoojammyflip
By looking at the median value and not the mean, you remove the impact of extreme values, for example where someone from the middle east decides they want a mint 50/1.4 lens and pays double the normal price.
One thing of note is that you tend to get clustering of prices. If someone overpays on an auction, the subsequent auctions are affected for a while. And vice versa. I was looking at buying a V500 scanner, and a chap was selling a load of them. As a result, the price dropped about 6 months ago to less than 100 including postage...its now back up again.
I must say, though, that for value for money, I think all this old kit is cheap. My brother bought a 15-85mm zoom lens from Canon...terrible distortion at the short end, which you could see through the viewfinder. It was more expensive than my entire 35mm set up. When you consider what people pay for drinks and drugs nowadays, getting out of their minds, photography is both cheaper and better for you!
I also have a Bronica ETRSi with 50/75/150 lens kit...incredible value for what it can do. However, I don't buy this stuff pretending I can make a living by selling it on! Its just valuable to me as I can take pictures with it.
One setup I'd be particularly interested in would be a Contax G1 with 28/45/90 lens kit. I think it sounds awesome. But then I'd also like a Spotmatic with 28/50/105 etc etc....
That auction site is odd in general though. People seem to be bidding more for second hand kit than they could get the items for new sometimes.
And, as for 2nd hand gear, I was looking at Topcon lenses earlier – hardly as popular as OM Zuikos surely? $400+ for some 50mm lenses. I mean, they have a decent enough reputation, but c'mon who is buying this stuff?