when did the 28 m rokkors get so expensive?

Double Negative said:
Probably some time shortly after the forum-hive uttered, "aww, dude! this lens rocks!"

Or was that a different lens? I forget.
Click to expand...

I'm losing track, myself. The Noctilux/pre-aspherical 35mm Summilux/Canon 50 f1.2/Voigtlander 35 f1.2 crazes are all blurring together now. All I'm sure of is that these lenses spike in price a few months after I sell my copy. :p
 
The Konica 28mm/2.8 M-Hexanon ROCKS the socks off of the 28mm Rokkor.
Said the owner of the 28mm M-Hexanon hoping to inflate the price of that stellar lens.
 
I was thinking the price was down on the 28. I sold my copy several years ago, partly because I didn't think it was all *that* great. Seemed quite prone to flare. Anyways, I sold mine for $600 which was the going price at the time. Went pretty quick too, then I bought a 28/1.9 Ultron for a little more than half of what I sold the rokkor for, and it was a better lens, though a bit larger.

The price and hype on the CLE and rokkor 40 are quite high right now tho, more than when I sold mine. I know partly because quite a few people love them, and say so. The 40 was a nice compact lens, though the OOF highlights were distracting.. The CLE handled well, but the electronics seemed a little finicky and would act up every once in a while. Actually my avatar pic (taken w/ a Minolta 7D & Maxxum 100/2), is of me shooting with the CLE & 40.
 
The definition of "Market Value" is clear and forthright.

The definition of "Market Value" is clear and forthright.

back alley said:
kinda crazy prices for them now...
Click to expand...

"Market Value" is described as the price that a willing buyer will pay to a willing seller.

The rising prices on many lenses that have a quality history AND can be use on the digital mirrorless cameras with adaptors is a reflection of that rule.

The number of willing buyers is rising as is their willingness to pay more.

The dollars, adjusted for inflation, on most of those lenses is still lower in today's dollars than when the lenses were new, in most cases.

Also remember that when most of these lenses were new they were manual focus, and those who recall that are not put off that they have to be manually focused when adapted to the new digitals.

The irony is that most of the people who are jacking the prices up, are not aware that most of those lenses can be outshot by the lenses made for the digital cameras.... even the new zoom and using autofocus. You hear this complaint or finding, over and over from people who are using old Leica, Rokkor, Pentax, and Olympus glass, not to mention the other old quality lenses.
 
I had a 28 CLE lens (had the whole outfit) and then along the way I picked up a 28th Elmarit 4th version. IMHO I couldn't see much difference. The 28 CLE is much smaller and with the proper lens hood very much comparable to the Elmarit. So as the Elmarit rises in price so does the CLE.
 
...since people ascribed performance to them that made them that desirable. I think prices are silly, just as they are for a 35mm V4 cron. There are tonnes of lenses with which you can produce world famous images, but some like to chase silver bullets instead.
 
Clean examples of this lens (which there aren't that many of) have always been more expensive.
 
kermaier said:
What makes it a $400 lens to you? Is it overall quality vs. other 28/2.8 lenses (M-Hex, Canon LTM, Elmarit Asph, Elmarit pre-Asph)?

::Ari
Click to expand...

why are you asking me hard questions? ;)

i think when compared to other lenses, when you look at overall build quality, the 'white spot' problem, original cost etc...it is not worth 600 bucks. even lenses that have been cleaned can have a re-occurance of the spots so it is a risky buy.
i would risk 300, maybe 400 bucks on it but not 600.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom