Re: Lens Value
- Original Message - From: Don Herring Subject: Lens Value Greetings, I'm coming out of lurk mode to inquire about a site or book where I could get an estimate on the current value of a lens? Specifically a SMC A* 200/F4 Macro ED (if anyone knows off the top of their head). Fifty bucks. Send it to me, and I'll get a cheque in the mail as soon as it arrives. Seriously, either eBay or KEH. William Robb
RE: Lens Value
I don't remember the exactly value, but if the body looks clean, it should go for at least USD800+. I have a new tripod adaptor for this lens btw, anyone wants it? Make me an offer. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan I'm coming out of lurk mode to inquire about a site or book where I could get an estimate on the current value of a lens? Specifically a SMC A* 200/F4 Macro ED (if anyone knows off the top of their head). Any assistance would be appreciated. Don _ Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
Re: lens value A*200/4 Macro
Don, I happily paid a list member $750 for one several years ago. This is a really rare lens. I've seen it go for over $1,000 (US) on ebay in recent months. I shot next month's (Oct'05) PUG contribution with it. Regards, Bob S. From: Don Herring Subject: Lens Value Greetings, I'm coming out of lurk mode to inquire about a site or book where I could get an estimate on the current value of a lens? Specifically a SMC A* 200/F4 Macro ED (if anyone knows off the top of their head). Any assistance would be appreciated. Don
RE: Lens Value
I've seen two SMCP-A* ED Macro 200/4 sell on eBay, and have not yet seen a listing for one at any of the online stores I watch, including BH, KEH, Adorama and many others. One of them sold on eBay in March 2003 and the other in June 2004. Their sale prices are recorded on page 6 of the June update file for SPLOSdb: SPLOSdb-2004-06-30.pdf at www.jcolwell.ca Jim www.jcolwell.ca P.S. I've also seen them occasionally on www.eBay.de and www.eBay.it, but I don't track them for SPLOSdb.
Re: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)?
Paul F. Stregevsky suggested: By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at 50 percent of the price is a better value. I propose an alternative definition of value: cost per photograph taken. By this definition, the cheapest lens nearly always must win. Shouldn't it be cost per photo-you're-satisfied-with, rather than cost per frames exposed? 'Cause the quality of the lens just might affect one number more than the other. -- Glenn, trying to catch up on list mail while Excel recalculates a spreadsheet chock full of VLOOKUP() calls. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)?
You should consider the formula based not on photos taken but by the number of good photos taken. If a cheaper lens gives you less useable shots that needs to taken into account. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Studdert Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 5:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)? On 2 Jan 2002 at 8:11, Paul F. Stregevsky wrote: By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at 50 percent of the price is a better value. I propose an alternative definition of value: cost per photograph taken. By this definition, the cheapest lens nearly always must win. Paul, Your equation doesn't work for me. Some of us are just prepared to sacrifice a bit more and buy the best available in order to provide the optimum potential (in the given format). I never want to be wishing I'd shot that shot with a better lens. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)?
Paul, I read an article once that discussed this subject. It also used the cost per photo to suggest that we should look at how often we use a particular focal length lens to determine: a) Whether we should buy it, and b) Whether we should keep it. It pointed out that something like 85-percent of contest winning photographs were shot with normal lenses. I can't decide whether this is a good concept or not. About a year ago, I traded off a 400mm f/4.5 telephoto simply because I hadn't used it in quite a few years. It was way too heavy to carry around for casual shooting and it called for carrying a heavy tripod to support it, as well. It didn't lend itself to doing wedding and portrait photography, either. ;-) In return, I got some other equipment that was more useful to me. I have only had a couple of times since then that I wished I still had the lens but, perhaps, that was a couple too many. Maybe I should have kept it. Of course, some nature photographer may be putting it to great service now. Len --- -Original Message- From: Paul F. Stregevsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 7:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)? By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at 50 percent of the price is a better value. I propose an alternative definition of value: cost per photograph taken. By this definition, the cheapest lens nearly always must win. Say I'm choosing a 400mm telephoto lens from three candidates. One costs $250; the second, $400, the third $2000. On a scale of 1 to 10, the $250 lens rates a 5 ($50 per point), the $400 lens, a 9 ($44.44 per point), the $2000 lens, a 10 ($200 per point). Logic, common sense, and greed would suggest that I go for the $400 lens. But I'll probably use a 400mm lens for maybe 15 shots a year. At that rate, the cost per photo will be astronomical at any price, and perhaps I should settle for a $200 specimen. Or a teleconverter, which would spare me the need to buy yet another protective filter and carry yet another big lens. It seems unfair that frequency of use must dictate the quality that it is prudent to buy, but I can't escape the math. It would certainly seem that a well-built lens is an extravagance for someone who will probably not see rugged use. So a lens that has a reputation for being optically excellent but mechanically mediocre would be a good candidate for the infrequent user. Comments? Paul Franklin Stregevsky 13 Selby Court Poolesville, Maryland 20837-2410 [EMAIL PROTECTED] H (301) 349-5243 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)?
Paul, How much is a lens worth if it's the one you needed to get the shot you want? Is Quality-per-use to be discounted? If each time you use the lens you are disappointed with its results, the lens may have a negative worth. OTOH, I would agree that it makes more sense for most of us to buy the mid-range unit. No real need to spend ALL the money on lenses that'll see limited use. Use some of that money to buy more gear and maximize it's potential! :) Cory Waters Has a few low dollar lenses and nothing more. Snip It seems unfair that frequency of use must dictate the quality that it is prudent to buy, but I can't escape the math. SNIP reputation for being optically excellent but mechanically mediocre would be a good candidate for the infrequent user. Comments? Paul Franklin Stregevsky - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)?
Cory wrote: How much is a lens worth if it's the one you needed to get the shot you want? Is Quality-per-use to be discounted? If each time you use the lens you are disappointed with its results, the lens may have a negative worth. OTOH, I would agree that it makes more sense for most of us to buy the mid-range unit. No real need to spend ALL the money on lenses that'll see limited use. Use some of that money to buy more gear and maximize it's potential! :) Well, I for one have never regretted buying to good and expensive lenses. I'm convinced its cheaper in the long run. My oldest lens, the Pentax 18/3.5, I bought new in 1978. It was very expensive but I still use it and probably will in the next 20 years as well. Whats more, if I choose to sell it I'll probably get more than I gave for it back then. I have similar experiences with other great lenses. The A* 135/1.8 I sold for more than I gave for it. About four times as much in fact! I fully expect the Limited lenses to be a good investment as well. People will still want them in years to come. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)?
Sounds silly to me. It looks to me as though you are failing to include how important that 20% difference might be to the individual doing the valuation. For example, 80% of my minimum daily oxygen intake, regardless of how cheaply supplied, is not enough. I'm willing to fork over whatever it would take to get the 20% increase. Some things can't be undervalued by overly simplistic math--what those things are are different for different people. Lens value for me is determined by how much I want it -- which depends on a) how much I am willing to give up for it b) how hard it would be for me to part with it once I have it (which is heavily dependent on how easily it is reacquired (see a)) Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul wrote: By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at 50 percent of the price is a better value. I propose an alternative definition of value: cost per photograph taken. By this definition, the cheapest lens nearly always must win. Say I'm choosing a 400mm telephoto lens from three candidates. One costs $250; the second, $400, the third $2000. On a scale of 1 to 10, the $250 lens rates a 5 ($50 per point), the $400 lens, a 9 ($44.44 per point), the $2000 lens, a 10 ($200 per point). Logic, common sense, and greed would suggest that I go for the $400 lens. But I'll probably use a 400mm lens for maybe 15 shots a year. At that rate, the cost per photo will be astronomical at any price, and perhaps I should settle for a $200 specimen. Or a teleconverter, which would spare me the need to buy yet another protective filter and carry yet another big lens. It seems unfair that frequency of use must dictate the quality that it is prudent to buy, but I can't escape the math. It would certainly seem that a well-built lens is an extravagance for someone who will probably not see rugged use. So a lens that has a reputation for being optically excellent but mechanically mediocre would be a good candidate for the infrequent user. Comments? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)?
I suppose this is where certain other brands have an advantage. In photo stores, you can rent those lenses (and cameras) for a day or a week, lenses you'd otherwise never use due to their high prices. But no Pentex for rent. I recently visited a store, not only did they not have any Pentax to rent, they didn't even have a used pentax to sell. Only new stuff, and just the zooms. But they had lots of certain other brands' used lenses, both for rent and for sale. Regards, ___ Tonghang Zhou (Zhou is pronounced like Joe) On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Paul F. Stregevsky wrote: But I'll probably use a 400mm lens for maybe 15 shots a year. At that rate, the cost per photo will be astronomical at any price, and perhaps I should settle for a $200 specimen. Or a teleconverter, which would spare me the need to buy yet another protective filter and carry yet another big lens. It seems unfair that frequency of use must dictate the quality that it is prudent to buy, but I can't escape the math. It would certainly seem that a well-built lens is an extravagance for someone who will probably not see rugged use. So a lens that has a reputation for being optically excellent but mechanically mediocre would be a good candidate for the infrequent user. Comments? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)?
On 2 Jan 2002 at 8:11, Paul F. Stregevsky wrote: By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at 50 percent of the price is a better value. I propose an alternative definition of value: cost per photograph taken. By this definition, the cheapest lens nearly always must win. Paul, Your equation doesn't work for me. Some of us are just prepared to sacrifice a bit more and buy the best available in order to provide the optimum potential (in the given format). I never want to be wishing I'd shot that shot with a better lens. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)?
My thanks to Shel and others who have pointed out the limitations of my assumption. To my surprise and delight, you've given me reason to go for something a cut above Quantaray. A memorable picture is worth more than the paper it's printed on or the cost it took to print it. Paul Stregevsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)?
On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 08:11:02 -0500, you wrote: By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at 50 percent of the price is a better value. No, a really good lens is the least expensive lens, even if it costs twice as much. You will be more likely to get the shot instead of wasting film, and you can always re-sell a really good lens for almost what you paid for it, thereby making your use of it nearly free. You only live once. A crappy lens uses up your photographic life to no good purpose, assuming one could possibly afford something optically better. Your limited opportunities to take pictures is far more valuable than mere money. Life is too short for crappy lenses. Been there, done that, learned my lesson. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)?
Paul... You're making a pretty solid argument for a high-end zoom such as Sigma's 70-300 f 4 IF APO ( BH $ 800.00) which has impressive sharpness and color fidelity from 70 to about 200mmnot as pure as all those primes but hey price per frame is pocket change Bob - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
