MP-E 65 vs Zuiko Auto-macro 38/2.8

seta666 · Post by **seta666** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:51 pm

I agree that when someone talks about a nice lens prices go up pretty fast, but if noone talked about this lenses we would not know the even exist. So it is a price we have to pay for that valuable information in forums like this one

Regards

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:01 am

I am wondering when we will start to see massive sell-offs of lenses.

Some dealers (in the UK, anyway) in used hardware have thousands of old film lenses, mostly MF. Many of their competitors have gone out of business, unable to compete with the digital revolution and recession combination. Every year that the big boys in the business hang on to their stock, with prices of many plummeting via Ebay, etc., brings them closer to being stuck with huge amounts unmoveable stock.

Harold

enricosavazzi · Post by **enricosavazzi** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:34 am

seta666 wrote:I agree that when someone talks about a nice lens prices go up pretty fast, but if noone talked about this lenses we would not know the even exist. So it is a price we have to pay for that valuable information in forums like this one

Regards

It is probably true, and I do expect that sellers continuously monitor the chatter level about specific lens models on this and many other bulletin boards, and set prices accordingly. Just wait a few months and things usually go back to normal. For instance, the EL Nikkor 63 mm f/3.5 for a while used to sell (or at least to be advertised) above 1,000 $ after being reported as particularly good for UV photography, but after it was found that most of the other EL Nikkors perform just as well it fell through the floor. The old-style EL Nikkor 80 mm f/5.6 was recently reported (again) as singularly good for the same use (perhaps accurately), and as a result prices spiked for a while.

ChrisLilley · Post by **ChrisLilley** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:13 pm

enricosavazzi wrote:For instance, the EL Nikkor 63 mm f/3.5 for a while used to sell (or at least to be advertised) above 1,000 $ after being reported as particularly good for UV photography, but after it was found that most of the other EL Nikkors perform just as well it fell through the floor. The old-style EL Nikkor 80 mm f/5.6 was recently reported (again) as singularly good for the same use (perhaps accurately), and as a result prices spiked for a while.

Since the former case was caused by believing a typo in Nikon sales literature

while the latter is accompanied by detailed transmission vs. wavelength measurements, the increase in value of the old-style (chrome) El-Nikkor 80/5.6 may be a longer lasting effect.

enricosavazzi · Post by **enricosavazzi** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:22 pm

ChrisLilley wrote:
enricosavazzi wrote:For instance, the EL Nikkor 63 mm f/3.5 for a while used to sell (or at least to be advertised) above 1,000 $ after being reported as particularly good for UV photography, but after it was found that most of the other EL Nikkors perform just as well it fell through the floor. The old-style EL Nikkor 80 mm f/5.6 was recently reported (again) as singularly good for the same use (perhaps accurately), and as a result prices spiked for a while.
Since the former case was caused by believing a typo in Nikon sales literature while the latter is accompanied by detailed transmission vs. wavelength measurements, the increase in value of the old-style (chrome) El-Nikkor 80/5.6 may be a longer lasting effect.

Yes, it is quite possible that this time the "alert" is motivated by real factors, but once most of the UV photographers (perhaps 50 or so currently active woldwide and interested in this lens because they cannot afford "real" UV lenses) have gotten their copy of the EL Nikkor 80 mm, the market is saturated.

dmillard · Post by **dmillard** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:39 am

enricosavazzi wrote:
ChrisLilley wrote:
enricosavazzi wrote:For instance, the EL Nikkor 63 mm f/3.5 for a while used to sell (or at least to be advertised) above 1,000 $ after being reported as particularly good for UV photography, but after it was found that most of the other EL Nikkors perform just as well it fell through the floor. The old-style EL Nikkor 80 mm f/5.6 was recently reported (again) as singularly good for the same use (perhaps accurately), and as a result prices spiked for a while.
Since the former case was caused by believing a typo in Nikon sales literature while the latter is accompanied by detailed transmission vs. wavelength measurements, the increase in value of the old-style (chrome) El-Nikkor 80/5.6 may be a longer lasting effect.
Yes, it is quite possible that this time the "alert" is motivated by real factors, but once most of the UV photographers (perhaps 50 or so currently active woldwide and interested in this lens because they cannot afford "real" UV lenses) have gotten their copy of the EL Nikkor 80 mm, the market is saturated.

But the continuing increase in the price of lenses like the formerly inexpensive 35mm Noflexar indicates that the market may not saturate that readily.

enricosavazzi · Post by **enricosavazzi** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:53 am

dmillard wrote: But the continuing increase in the price of lenses like the formerly inexpensive 35mm Noflexar indicates that the market may not saturate that readily.

This is another interesting "urban legend". I have two, tested one, and did not find it especially useful in UV photography (large focus shift between visible and UV, for instance). It is otherwise an interesting oddity because of its click-stop focus extension mechanism. If spreading good test results makes prices go up, maybe publishing mediocre ones will have the opposite effect?

Shouldn't we all start complaining of how bad are all these antiquated Zeiss Luminars, Macro Nikkors, Leitz Photars, and for the sake of completeness start badmouthing all our leftover Nikon and Mitutoyo infinity objectives that nobody really wants to use?