They have closed anyway... maybe the reason why already huge price became, well, 
astronomical ones? Go figure...

>----- Message Initial -----
>De
: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Envoy?
: Vendredi 
, Novembre 
 5, 2004 03:58 PM
>A
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Objet
: Re: 'dem French
>
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Yes, totally agree, I just assumed that maybe not everyone knew about Ang?nieux ;)
>> 
>
>I understand. However, almost anyone who has been keenly aware of who 
>makes what in the 35mm camera industry over the past 40 years or so, 
>ought to know of Angenieux. They had quite a reputation for excellence, 
>in every respect, 'build' as well as optically.
>But, I do appreciate your bringing it to the attention of the group.
>There are always those whose interest has been very narrow, and they 
>might well have missed the maker.
>
>I don't think they are much of a player today, but they sure were "back 
>then!"
>
>keith whaley
>
>>>----- Message Initial -----
>>>De
>> 
>> : Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 
>>>Envoy?
>> 
>> : Vendredi 
>> , Novembre 
>>  5, 2004 02:33 PM
>> 
>>>A
>> 
>> : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 
>>>Objet
>> 
>> : Re: 'dem French
>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>OK maybe you dunno but Angenieux was one of thse brands (like Leica lens eg) which 
>>>>are just excellent everywhere. A 28-70mm 2.8 was excellent at 28 at 2.8 as well as 
>>>>as 70mm. No distortion, no vignetting... nothing.
>>>
>>>True, but... this particular one is a bit of a dog, isn't it. Marks and 
>>>cleaning marks on the front element, cleaning marks on the rear element, 
>>>and the body is not all that pristine...
>>>Why pay for the best of the lot, if it's [probably] no longer able to 
>>>compete with unsullied lenses?
>>>Seems way out of line, considering it's condition.
>>>Used to be top of the line, perhaps, but it's been abused along the way, 
>>>hasn't it.
>>>Not worth it.
>>>
>>>keith whaley
>>>
>>>
>>>>They ran out of business 'cos... well not enough people to buy these I guess.
>>>>But the equivallent zoom from Nikon/Pentax/minolta/Canon were at least half the 
>>>>price... end were pretty good.
>>>>
>>>>thibouille
>>>>
>>>>>----- Message Initial -----
>>>>>De
>>>>
>>>>: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Envoy?
>>>>
>>>>: Vendredi 
>>>>, Novembre 
>>>> 5, 2004 01:37 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A
>>>>
>>>>: 'Kostas Kavoussanakis'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Objet
>>>>
>>>>: Re: 'dem French
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Frantisek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>KK> Why would anyone (other than a collector, but then again it's in
>>>>>>KK> well-used cond) prefer this lens to Pentax's SMC offerings?
>>>
>>>>>>Why would anyone (other than a collector) prefer Pentax's SMC
>>>>>>offerings to Nikon glass? <grin, duck & run>
>>>
>>>>>(I have a few but only give you the relevant one) Because they already
>>>>>have investment in the other mount? The Angenieux in that auction is
>>>>>an M42 (so not even the best Pentax -- let alone Nikon :-P -- bayonet
>>>>>can compete with that if you have a Spottie), at 1200 dollars. There
>>>>>must be a compelling reason for that (which I am casually looking
>>>>>for).
>>>>>
>>>>>Kostas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
>



Reply via email to