Lens Sales: is it just me, or are lenses not selling?

I've recently sent a couple of lenses to convert to M mount to MS Optical in Japan, due to exchange rate, the cost is about $300 lower than it used to be...
 
uhoh7 said:
Godfrey is right about the usual fall slump, but no doubt in general, lens prices have been falling, with a few exceptions.
Click to expand...

The repurposed M/LTM lens market has a rather thin market demographic. A small change in demand can appear to have large effect. Seasonal variation affects all consumer buying.

The long-term trend would follow the trends for film consumption and the purchase of new and used digital M-mount bodies. No doubt the presence of cost effective lenses from mirrorless brands has diminished the appeal of adapted lenses. Except for a relatively small population of enthusiasts, most photographers find adapted lenses bring diminishing returns. Those who already own a curated a set of prized M/LTM glass they repurpose for non-M-mount use are not likely to expand their collection.

It's important to acknowledge people don't (or shouldn't) purchase M/LTM lenses as an investment. These are value-added products. Their worth is determined by the enjoyment ownership brings. The potential for a slow, but steady, decrease in market value should not be a factor in the decision to purchase M/LTM lenses.
 
Older demographic is getting rid of stuff...not buying..
Used stuff was/is..overpriced..and is coming back down to reality..
General slump in the economy right now..
Extremely small market..is more vulnerable to pendulum swings..
..and right now..its swinging..down..
 
For those of us outside the USA (I'm in Canada) the US dollar exchange rate is a mixed blessing. Virtually every rangefinder item I've purchased over the years has been priced in US dollars. A few years ago the US and Canadian dollar were at par, and this made retail camera purchases (new or used) a lot more attractive.

Now the Canadian dollar is IMHO undervaluved at $0.73 against the US greenback. So yes, a handful of items I purchased in 2011 or 2012 I might be able to sell at a slight loss due to the widening exchange rates. Case in point, the Zeiss 21mm F2.8 I mentioned earlier. I still lost money on the sale but it wasn't as painful because of the weak Canadian dollar in 2015.
 
Good values are still moving quickly.

There are some odd situations like that current beautiful Pentax limited lens and a particular "Button rewind" M2.
Both wicked good values,....Those things should have evapoarted as soon as the listings opening.

Some of the other lenses...... Especially the Leica gear,.... have long been overpriced.
Priced correctly they still sell quickly as well.

For a long time it seemed like prices would continue to rise on items like the V4 35mm Summicron.
At the same time we all have been asking for an anwser to the expensive Leica Digital Rangefinders and lenses.
Fuji, Ricoh, and Sony have given some answers. Those less expensive yet just as capable options are having an impact as well.

I'll stay with my first reply in this thread.... Wait until the Hollidays. Emotional purchase season is nearly here :p
 
Well, I've had a slow ad recently. Just checked on it and way down at the bottom was a "PM sent" type of post from a week ago. Never got the PM...
 
Emile de Leon said:
Used stuff was/is..overpriced..and is coming back down to reality...
Click to expand...

Perfect example of that are the old Jupiter lenses. Not rare, not well made, a crap shoot if you get a good one. But somehow there was a frenzy that made a J3 cost $250 while you can get an incredible (in comparison) Minolta MD 50 1.4 for $40.
 
Well I'm in a different price status than OP. Really only been watching like 2 different lens for me price has been steady for a year one stays around $90 the other 2 under $200 one at $150. Guessing pretty much supply/demand and pressure from other forces relating to disposable income.
 
Huss said:
Whatchoo got?
Click to expand...

Gave some away already, but the block at the moment:

Minolta: MD 50 1.7 (rubber grip buckling a bit), MC 28mm 3.5
LTM Industar 69, 26 (both not in the best of shape, 69's lens block might not be straight and 26 is a bit loose)
Yashica C/Y 35-105mm 3.5-4.5 ML

Plus maybe some others lying around....I'll give it some thought but I'm alright with sending some of those off for free for cost of shipping (from EU). Also may put an SLR body or two in the classifieds sometime soon for little or nothing.
 
I'm thinking of doing the same, and relieve some GAS problems. It's kind of like good karma to pass along. I figure that it's better that some of my vintage gear gets used by someone who enjoys it -- rather than just sitting in my cupboard.
 
burancap said:
Well, I've had a slow ad recently. Just checked on it and way down at the bottom was a "PM sent" type of post from a week ago. Never got the PM...
Click to expand...

That is that. I sent a PM to the buyer, which he DID receive. He has moved on. Makes you wonder how many sales are missed by the problems with the PM system?
 
willie_901 said:
It's important to acknowledge people don't (or shouldn't) purchase M/LTM lenses as an investment. These are value-added products. Their worth is determined by the enjoyment ownership brings. The potential for a slow, but steady, decrease in market value should not be a factor in the decision to purchase M/LTM lenses.
Click to expand...

But... Beanie Babies!

Which is not that far off; people like to think that things are "investments" and then are floored when speculative runs crash, and it turns out that stuffed animal is worth no more than the next one.

The value you get out of lenses can either take the form of photo sales, personal enjoyment, or skipping therapy because you got the thing you were looking for neurotically. But even when prices hold "steady," items are depreciating by the rate of inflation each year. When you sell, don't freak out - for every $52 you lose, you've gotten to "rent" the item for a dollar a week.

And it is wholly unrealistic to assume that the sale price is going to rise (or even stay the same) when manufacturers are pumping so much product into such a small market. You have all the RF lenses ever made the first time (through 1967 for most companies and the present for Leica) out in the marketplace already, you have Cosina coming out with its second or third versions of every one of its lenses, the original use for these lenses (film bodies) falling out of widespread use, and a dearth of affordable digital rangefinder bodies that actually use these lenses as intended. Then you have all the APS-C and Micro 4/3 companies making awesome lenses. What could go wrong?!

Today, you can see that only the following things really maintain their sale value:

  • Super-speed lenses (most of the non-Soviet ones).
  • Lenses with seriously irrational performance characteristics (Sonnars, Summars, Tessars).
  • Special editions (example: Ricoh, Minolta, Konica LTM lenses; maybe the VC Heliar).
  • Hand-built lenses (MS-Optical, Avenon).
  • Varifocal lenses for M (Tri-Elmars, M-Hexanon Dual).
I would bet that the prices for the following are not going to stay anywhere near where they currently are:
  • 35mm Summilux pre-asph
  • 35mm Summicron v.3 and v.4
  • 75mm Summilux
  • 60mm Hexanon L
  • Jupiter-3
I'd look to the following to lead the price-performance curve in the future:
  • 1990s Leica M lenses.
  • M-Rokkor lenses (40 and 90; 28s if any survice).
  • M-Hexanon lenses (except for the 35).
  • The recent crop of very wide and very fast Cosina M lenses.
And I predict these next things will drop to where they were selling fifteen years ago:
  • All Cosina screw mount lenses, especially those that don't do well on digital.
  • Almost all manual focus SLR lenses.
  • Unexceptional LTM lenses (the 50/1.8s, the 35/2.8s, etc.).
  • Pretty much anything from the former USSR.
I don't have perfect clairvoyance (or any at all), but that's my prediction.

D
 
I think you're pretty close to what I believe. Except I don't think RF lenses in LTM will drop to their starting prices at the end of the film era (when they were dirt cheap). In 2000, there weren't any digital cameras to use them on, and barely an internet to discuss them on. They are small, all metal, and have precise focus and aperture. They will stabilize at a price somewhere between the 2000 and 2013 prices.
 
I pretty much agree with you Dante, except for the 35 Summilux pre-asph and the M-Rokkors. I don't feel that the Summilux will fall much, as it has mystique. I feel the M-Rokkors are falling as we speak, It appears even the 28's in good condition are hard to find buyers for.
 
Dante,

in what sense does a Tessar have "irrational performance characteristics"? Unless you bend the formula (making an f:2 Tessar or something) they are pretty stable and predictable on film - perhaps it is different on digital?

A Triotar craze on the other hand ... who knows? :D

I am secretly hoping for a good cheap Color Skopar 50/2.5, in chrome, please. :)
 
In the Large Format world, Tessars are the most common lens from about 1920 on. They have a very nice look, are totally corrected for aberrations (as anastigmats) and had reasonably fast speeds. They are very cheap in the LF sizes.
 
astro8 said:
I pretty much agree with you Dante, except for the 35 Summilux pre-asph and the M-Rokkors. I don't feel that the Summilux will fall much, as it has mystique. I feel the M-Rokkors are falling as we speak, It appears even the 28's in good condition are hard to find buyers for.
Click to expand...

Greg -

Should have clarified that wrt the Rokkors - they will be cheap and good choices for people (hence price:performance). The 40 does the best, but it's a great, tiny lens. It is also, I'm sure, being buoyed by the fact that the 35/2 v.4 (whose results are not a whole lot different) costs almost 4x as much.

I disagree on the 35/1.4 pre-aspherical. It has mystique (I had one, and even clean, I used to joke that it was the Summar of Summiluxes...) but I'm guessing primarily because it is cheaper than the aspherical. For people who care more about performance, you now you have the ZM Distagon and others chipping away at it.

Dante
 
Jerevan said:
Dante,

in what sense does a Tessar have "irrational performance characteristics"?
Click to expand...

It's irrational in the sense that with today's multicoatings, there is no downside to going with a faster and still more highly corrected double-gauss (a desired "look" can be engineered into pretty much anything).

The Tessars I've used on various MF cameras have been great, but I've often felt that the lens works for those applications because it tends to be small (yet covering a big negative) and therefore friendly to leaf shutters. That, and you have such a big imaging surface that losing a little performance is no big thing.

goamules said:
In the Large Format world, Tessars are the most common lens from about 1920 on. They have a very nice look, are totally corrected for aberrations (as anastigmats) and had reasonably fast speeds. They are very cheap in the LF sizes.
Click to expand...

Lens elements are harder to make well the bigger they are, and Tessars require fewer elements to get to an acceptable result. That may be another reason that f/2 lenses are pretty much unknown in formats larger than 35mm.

Dante
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom