Aside: there's at least 1other Australian active in this thread (although I recall Rob is leaving Pentax...?) - Paxtons (Sydney) is no longer buying 2nd hand and as such is reducing the prices to clear. I did see a 135/2.5 of one description (manual, of course) for circa AUD250 amongst others. Graces in Kings Cross (Sydney; incidentally, the last place I had a manual-focus argument) has a mint Sigma 17-35/2.8-4 and a stack of other manual mounts.
Both are probably worth a phone call if this is up your alley. On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:10:58 +1000, Quasi Modo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Don the domain name rather gives you away. A brief analysis of the > market opens an opportunity, yes: D/DS have been successful releases > not matched with commensurate lens production/adjustments for crop > factor (+ issues with 35mm lenses at certain focal lengths => > discontinued production) => shortages of AF lenses. > > This becomes more and more truistic for auto-focus as we take into > account prices paid for second hand versions of still in-production > lenses Vs averages for those out of production and supposedly rarer. > The most interesting part is claiming manual focus virtue in its > cheapness and profitability. Pause for reflection... Signs point > to increased lens production Don so those returns will be more > difficult to sustain but good luck. > > Endow an Australian with the acronym AO and you make him a happy man, > Shel. With regard to manual focus lens collection, optical quality > and/or superiority to AF is the classic fallback position. It was > assumed that you were part of this manual-focus clique (pretty much > what it is) based on your defensiveness and immediate resort to > ad-hominem re my anonymity. Therefore, the fallback of optical > superiority was only a matter of time. > > Finally, it's amazing how few of these head to head comparisons > between F/FA/DA/DFA and A/K/M etc lenses see the light of web. I'm > all ears. > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:35:47 -0800, Shel Belinkoff > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Did I say that older lenses are "superior?" I just said there's a market > > for them. Some older lenses may be superior to newer glass, but, > Anonymous > > One, it's necessary to define superior. Different lenses have different > > fingerprints, as it were, different optical qualities, and depending on > the > > look and feel one wishes to achieve, an older lens, with low contrast or > > less sharpness, or different bokeh, may be superior to a newer lens for a > > given task. If you desire to use only newer glass, that's your choice. > But > > don't go putting words in my mouth. > > > > And I do have a small collection of vintage cars, and while they are not > > "superior" in many respects to newer cars, they are in some ways, and they > > certainly provide a pleasure and gratification that newer cars don't. > > > > Shel > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Quasi Modo > > > > > Let the market decide, Shel. If you want to collect lenses and that > > > floats your boat, by all means do. But the only delusions are indeed > > > yours if you think a) they're consistently and noticably superior > > > optically to their younger AF siblings and b) they're worthy > > > investments. By all means collate the relevant data as you see it, > > > talk to someone who actually designs lenses for a living, preferably > > > with the company concerned, learn the history and find yourself > > > completely debunked as I did. > > > > > > Anyway we're here to learn not impose idiosyncratic mindsets but if it > > > were larger items such as older cars the (de)merits of collection > > > become immediately apparent. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:09:10 -0800, Shel Belinkoff > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > HAR! If you pay much attention to anything this antonymous poster, > > Quasi > > > > Modo, says, you'd be deluding yourself. Rob Studdert is probably > right. > > > > > > There's still a very strong demand for manual focus lenses throughout > > the > > > > world, both from users and collectors. > > > > > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > > > From: Cory Papenfuss > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Quasi Modo wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Manual lenses = too much hassle in this day and age. We are the > > > > > > Instant Gratification Generation. If I didn't filter my lens > > > > > > browsing to auto-focus only I'd be there all day. (I think that > > > > > > captures the sentiments of ~90% of ppl in the market for Pentax > > > > > > lenses) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Great news then... so the 10% of us that like to tinker with > > > > > quality old gear won't have to pay as much for it. A DSLR with > > manual > > > > > lenses is still instant gratification, there are just a few more > > steps to > > > > > > > > > do along the way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
