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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
