Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
Yes, they certainly are around, E, but when Nikkormats can be gotten for as little as 10 bucks, the 35 bucks for a normal lens seems outrageous. Digital caused this because of the lens transferability. Minolta and M42 normals can be gotten for even as low as 5 bucks each, sometimes even less. - David Lyga
What is outrageous about $35 for a normal lens? The value of a lens is not tied to the value of a camera body, so it's a false comparison. You're citing a rock-bottom price for a Nikkormat, and expecting a normal lens to cost less? Only if it's in the same condition as a $10 Nikkormat. And what about cheapie box cameras, which often cost less than a roll of 120 color film? Does that mean the film price is outrageous?
Things are worth what they are worth, and $20 to $35 is what I expect to pay for a normal lens around f/2 in good shape from any major camera maker, though I might get one for less (and for some lenses, more). At any rate, the price of a normal lens in a long-abandoned mount of limited current popularity is not relevant to the price of a normal lens in a still-current mount of high popularity.
When new, a Nikkor f/2 was probably around 25% the price of a new Nikkormat, maybe a little less. So, to extend your logic regarding a camera body/normal lens cost ratio, a good used f/2 Nikkor should be around $2.50, which isn't realistic.

Besides, how in the world is it going to be worth it to convert a lens to Nikon mount, losing auto diaphragm function, when the most you can save is $35, and that's if the lens to be modified is free?