It used to be easy to sell... now it isn't. Any of us that have bought and sold a lot know that. It just isn't the same market as 3-5 years ago.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I wouldn't get this Mnolta for free. Every time I look at prints taken with J3 they are special.
J3 aren't as common as J8, FYI.
Huss
Veteran
If you manage to find a decent one.
Yes, they are not as common as the J8. Right now there are 270 J3s available on ebay, vs 350 J8s.
And only 47 Minolta MD 50 1.4s. None for free, so you are right, you wouldn't get it for free.
Having used a bunch of these lenses, deciding on which one is 'best' depends on the look you are after. The MD 1.4 is sharp with a smooth bokeh wide open, while the J3 (if you get lucky and get a good one) is 'interesting'. Which works if that is what you want.
(Disclaimer, I also use lenses like the Minitar 32 2.8 and the Zenit Helios 85 1.5 so I am all about getting funky)
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Maybe sales will pick up as the cool fall weather approaches, and people are motivated to get out and shoot some fall foliage in pleasant weather.
goamules
Well-known
I've had four J-3s. They were all good. I've never had the proverbial "bad ones" of internet lore.
As to pricing of "special" glass, you have to ask what did it cost to research, develop, and manufacture when made? A J-3 probably cost 2 month's salary, in the USSR, in 1955. A Canon 1.5 or Nikkor 1.4 Sonnar also were not cheap lenses. I'd guess buying a good Canon or Nicca kit in 1959, adjusted for inflation, cost $900 or so in today's dollars. About like buying a new Fuji mirrorless today.
So saying the same lens, today, that costs $200 or $400 is "high priced" is relative. It would be like paying $46 for one, brand new, back in the 1950s. But you couldn't. A Leica DR Summicron was $189, for example. In today's dollars, that's like $1,000.
As to pricing of "special" glass, you have to ask what did it cost to research, develop, and manufacture when made? A J-3 probably cost 2 month's salary, in the USSR, in 1955. A Canon 1.5 or Nikkor 1.4 Sonnar also were not cheap lenses. I'd guess buying a good Canon or Nicca kit in 1959, adjusted for inflation, cost $900 or so in today's dollars. About like buying a new Fuji mirrorless today.
So saying the same lens, today, that costs $200 or $400 is "high priced" is relative. It would be like paying $46 for one, brand new, back in the 1950s. But you couldn't. A Leica DR Summicron was $189, for example. In today's dollars, that's like $1,000.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
If you manage to find a decent one.
Yes, they are not as common as the J8. Right now there are 270 J3s available on ebay, vs 350 J8s.
And only 47 Minolta MD 50 1.4s. None for free, so you are right, you wouldn't get it for free.
Having used a bunch of these lenses, deciding on which one is 'best' depends on the look you are after. The MD 1.4 is sharp with a smooth bokeh wide open, while the J3 (if you get lucky and get a good one) is 'interesting'. Which works if that is what you want.
(Disclaimer, I also use lenses like the Minitar 32 2.8 and the Zenit Helios 85 1.5 so I am all about getting funky)
J3 and J8 required aligment with RF camera. It is next to routine procedure. Once it is done, they are sharp.
I have done this and would never write funny things about them. They aren't build as old German from bronze. But they are very hard to find with as many glass issues as German old RF glass have and J8, J3 are light, compact and elegant.
And why you are comparing RF lens and SLR lens. Minolta MD is not for RFs as for as I understand. I'm RF film shoter and darkroom "printer", not a hipster who slams any old film lens on digital camera and it makes him expert on film lenses.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Like the market for vintage guitars and drums...where the market tanked for good awhile ago..
Its just a matter of time for the same to happen to photo stuff..esp stuff that's getting pretty old as of now and requires cla work..which aint cheap..
And its a good thing if this happens..as pricing will come down and level off..and good deals will appear again..and the market may gain speed once again.
But..
There are just too many lenses out there now..
And really..how many do you really need..
I have drawers full of vintage lenses..from old Protars and Dagors that cover up to 16x20 ULF..to the Leica stuff..
And lots of newer stuff as well..
And as I get older..less and less of it actually gets used..
Its just a matter of time for the same to happen to photo stuff..esp stuff that's getting pretty old as of now and requires cla work..which aint cheap..
And its a good thing if this happens..as pricing will come down and level off..and good deals will appear again..and the market may gain speed once again.
But..
There are just too many lenses out there now..
And really..how many do you really need..
I have drawers full of vintage lenses..from old Protars and Dagors that cover up to 16x20 ULF..to the Leica stuff..
And lots of newer stuff as well..
And as I get older..less and less of it actually gets used..
Huss
Veteran
And why you are comparing RF lens and SLR lens. Minolta MD is not for RFs as for as I understand. I'm RF film shoter and darkroom "printer", not a hipster who slams any old film lens on digital camera and it makes him expert on film lenses.
Because the majority of people are adapting all these lenses to be used on digi bodies.
Those using them on film (who actually are the hipsters, hipsters do not shoot digi) are in the minority.
But hipsters are cool. They after all have saved film photography...
f16sunshine
Moderator
I'm RF film shoter and darkroom "printer", not a hipster who slams any old film lens on digital camera and it makes him expert on film lenses.
I adopted Digital Rangefinders early (RD1 in '06) and DSLR relatively late (40D and 5D in '08).
"Adapting" lenses did not come from the digital evolution you know?
I long used M42 lenses on my Contax and Canon film bodies.
The it was the Canon EOS Bodies that got me into Zuikos not OM's (and a few nikkors but the really never stuck!).
Later when it was finally time try a DSLR I picked up a 40D to use my lenses on.
I did not buy a 40D to start buying old lenses. I think for a lot of old timers this was the case.
The question of chicken and egg started long before digital when it comes to "adapting" lenses!
JChrome
Street Worker
Lens Sales: is it just me, or are lenses not selling?
+1. I dont think this has gotten the attention it's deserved.
For my own theory for why everything is so inexpensive is due to the Yen. The yen is highly undervalued right now and the Japanese market on eBay has given us lots of lenses, bodies and everything else camera related. They have a very strong second hand market and their prices are very low.
This has in effect brought the rest of the market down. It's a great time to be a buyer
+1. I dont think this has gotten the attention it's deserved.
For my own theory for why everything is so inexpensive is due to the Yen. The yen is highly undervalued right now and the Japanese market on eBay has given us lots of lenses, bodies and everything else camera related. They have a very strong second hand market and their prices are very low.
This has in effect brought the rest of the market down. It's a great time to be a buyer
jarski
Veteran
hope you're right!
China and Japan have been mentioned, but European economy hasn't been good for a while neither. it can help explain weak demand on the subject.
padam
Member
Well, with the popularity of the fixed-lens cameras 35mm might become 'crowded' but I can't agree on the 75 Lux.
Yes, it is an odd FL living under the shadow of the f1 Noctilux but it is actually a better performer with distinctive qualities. Barely any bigger or heavier than its Summicron counterpart. (comparison)
And even if there will be a successor (not sure what Leica wants to do with the M system at this point) I guess it would be based on the Noctilux ASPH and it would cost over 10k$
While it was very difficult to use in its day, but now with live-view cameras (now with a stabilizer!) everything is cured (like recomposing or focus shift) and it is only going to get easier once we see EVFs like the one on the Leica SL.
It looks equally amazing for video, retaining that "3D-look", another application where it was not intended, but works really well. No wonder it was Mandler's favourite.
mfogiel
Veteran
Leica lenses are just some metal, glass and possibly plastic bundled together, so they are bound to deteriorate over time, and thus could lose value, unless they become collectible relics.
I would not easily agree though with the idea that Mandler lenses will necessarily lose value, because from a point of view of people who like this particular rendering, this is a scarce commodity: no matter how good the current Leica lenses are, they do not show the same fingerprint. On top of that, most of you forget, that the world population is growing fast, and within that growing population, the percentage of middle class is growing fast as well. I've seen some projections that in 2050 there will be 9 bio people on the planet, and the middle class will double from the current 2 bio to 4. That's a lot of potential for any fancy hobbyist market.
I would not easily agree though with the idea that Mandler lenses will necessarily lose value, because from a point of view of people who like this particular rendering, this is a scarce commodity: no matter how good the current Leica lenses are, they do not show the same fingerprint. On top of that, most of you forget, that the world population is growing fast, and within that growing population, the percentage of middle class is growing fast as well. I've seen some projections that in 2050 there will be 9 bio people on the planet, and the middle class will double from the current 2 bio to 4. That's a lot of potential for any fancy hobbyist market.
k__43
Registered Film User
I'd buy a second V4 summicron 35 if i get it for 500€
Robert: $650 for the ZM 21/2.8 ?? damn at that price I'd almost fall for it
Robert: $650 for the ZM 21/2.8 ?? damn at that price I'd almost fall for it