On Jun 28, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Toralf Lund wrote: >> Now why in the world would you compare an f1.4 with an f2.0? > I would compare a high-quality, sharp, high-resolution lens with > another > high-quality, sharp, high-resolution lens. Maximum aperture isn't > everything.
I agree with Shel. If I were looking to compare pricing of equivalent purchases, I'd look between lenses of similar speed. If I were looking at performance, I might consider two lenses of different speeds depending upon what I was looking for. There are plenty of high-quality, sharp, high resolution lenses in the world. I was contrasting the price of two 50mm f/1.4 lenses of comparable performance. >> Now a Pentax 50/2.0 can be had for $10.00 Summicron 50mm >> lenses have sold used more in the neighborhood of $500 - $800 >> depending on >> the exact model and condition. >> > Actually, some have sold for less. It think I've seen something > like $300. Some *ancient* Leica 50mm f/2 lenses (30-50 years old) have sold for $300. But go to http://www.keh.com and look at Leica M Summicron-M 50mm f/2 lenses made in the past 25 years and I think you'll find that the average USED price is around $800 apiece. A NEW price for that lens is $1,450. Since I was comparing against NEW Pentax lens prices, the price of a used example is irrelevant. AS is the price of an f/2 lens compared to an f/1.4 lens in the context which I was making the comparison. > But we weren't discussing "a 1.4 lens". We were discussing a certain > Pentax lens that someone said were almost as good as a much more > expensive Leica in terms of sharpness, resolution etc. That would be me. I compared the price of a Pentax FA50/1.4 with a Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. The Pentax holds up pretty damn well for a lens that that is priced at less than 8% as much as the Leica lens. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
