JonR
Well-known
Does anyone around here have a good feel for what the Nikon Rangefinder system costed when it originally was introduced to the market ? I have the following Nikon RF cameras and lenses right now:
- S2
- S3
- S3 2000
- 35 f/3,5
- 50 f/1,4
- 105 f/2,5
- 135 f/3,5
Anyone who can guide me on what the original price level were for those ? I have looked in the two books of Robert Rotolini but there is really no reference to price levels there...
Jon
- S2
- S3
- S3 2000
- 35 f/3,5
- 50 f/1,4
- 105 f/2,5
- 135 f/3,5
Anyone who can guide me on what the original price level were for those ? I have looked in the two books of Robert Rotolini but there is really no reference to price levels there...
Jon
Last edited:
JonR
Well-known
Thanks!
Interesting to see that the 35 and 50 mm lens was priced higher than the 105 and 135 mm lenses - I would have guess that in 1955 the 50 mm should have been relatively cheap and the the 105 and 135 regarded as more "pro" lenses at a much higher price...
Jon
Interesting to see that the 35 and 50 mm lens was priced higher than the 105 and 135 mm lenses - I would have guess that in 1955 the 50 mm should have been relatively cheap and the the 105 and 135 regarded as more "pro" lenses at a much higher price...
Jon
Sonnar2
Well-known
..Sonnars with two cemented triple groups always were expensive (way more expensive at Zeiss).
It amazes me that the (new, 1955) 105/2.5 lens actually was cheaper than the (much smaller) 85/2! One more reason for its popularity and large sales?
It amazes me that the (new, 1955) 105/2.5 lens actually was cheaper than the (much smaller) 85/2! One more reason for its popularity and large sales?
VinceC
Veteran
The Nikkors were, in nearly all cases, cheaper than Zeiss and Leitz lenses. They were establishing their market and had relatively inexpensive labor in the '50s. And, of course, the Nikkor and Canon Serenar lenses came in focal lengths and/or fast apertures unavailable with Zeiss and Leitz at the time.