Hi, > Do you think they are really buying the pancake because it is a collectable? > It isn't, to my knowledge, a rarity. I think they were produced in pretty > great quantity. I think the lens has gained an undeserved reputation of > being an extremely sharp lens,
collectible and rare are not the same thing. Collectors don't operate according to any logic discernible to non-collectors. A good example of this, which I've been able to take advantage of, is the Leica M4-2. 16,100 of these were made, compared with 22,444 of its successor the M4-P. Yet the M4-2 sells for significantly less than the M4-P because it has a bad name with collectors. This bad name is entirely undeserved; it's simply an irrational collector thing, like the pancake lens. There's more about it here: http://www.nemeng.com/leica/016b.shtml I got mine, which is in very good condition, for significantly less than than I could have got any other Leica M, and as far as I can tell it's no worse (or better) than any others. It's certainly no worse than my M3, which cost the same and is in noticeably worse condition cosmetically. The pancake lens is rather like this. I paid about US $100- for mine. It's in perfect condition. Optically it's a good enough lens for most purposes, but it's certainly not 'extremely sharp'. The focal length is very nice indeed, and the thin focusing grip is not a problem for me. But I can't understand why people get into a frenzy over them; it's just one of those inexplicably irrational things, like beanie dolls, hula hoops and clackers. --- 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 .
