[.a.t.]

Considering the quality of this lens ( note I have owned it since 1981) I am always surprised at the low value it commands used.

"Value" is the word I'd use to describe my lens. Lloydy has me beat, but I'm very happy to have paid only $40 for my copy last year.

They were very expensive in their day - I seem to remember those lenses costing £140...

Thanks for all the Shake Reduction info, m42man. Also, I think your memory is pretty good. According to this page http://web.archive.org/web/20021101165753/medfmt.8k.com/third/table1.txt, in the U.S. in 1977, the list price for a Series 1 70-210 was $340. And according to an online inflation calculator I found, that would be $1267 today. I'll let you figure out the GBP .

Considering the capabilities of modern DSLRs and lenses, I reckon we're doing pretty well nowadays (just wish the build quality and QC on modern lenses could match the old ones' though).

Agreed. Plastic lens mounts and filter rings? !

Tim

[m42man]

...Also, I think your memory is pretty good. According to this page http://web.archive.org/web/20021101165753/medfmt.8k.com/third/table1.txt, in the U.S. in 1977, the list price for a Series 1 70-210 was $340. And according to an online inflation calculator I found, that would be $1267 today. I'll let you figure out the GBP .

Yes, it's funny how some things stick in your mind. That's a very interesting list you have there, and I suppose the exchange rate at the time would have probably been just over 2 $/£, which would stack up with my £140 price (which would actually be a selling price as opposed to a list price). Unfortunately, things have changed somewhat, and I have the feeling that nowadays what you pay in dollars is what we have to pay in pounds, despite the non-parity exchange rate.

Agreed. Plastic lens mounts and filter rings? !

Tim

I must say, I'm not too averse to the use of plastics per se, though I can't help feeling that it's being used to inject some artificial "product differentiation" (e.g. DA-L vs DA) - which is I suppose fair enough (i.e. it means decent lenses for all budgets). What I really hate is the apparent lack of care taken in the assembly of lenses. I'm sure in the "old" days we expected all copies of any given lens to be pretty much identical in their optical capabilities. Not so now.

But all in all, we get very good value for money nowadays - especially when it comes to the camera bodies, actually. I have every admiration for the engineers involved in the design of the DSLRs nowadays.

[Lloydy]

Wow, that IS cheap, sounds like a car boot bargain. They were very expensive in their day - I seem to remember those lenses costing £140, but I may be a few pounds out here. Anyway, if you allow for inflation plus a bit more to allow for wages growth, you could be talking £700 pounds in today's money. To further put it into perspective, I think I can remember some more prices from about 1980:

M 28/2.8: £60
M 75-150/4: £75
M 80-200/4.5: £110
Tak (Bayonet) 135/2.5: £30
M 135/3.5: £45-50
MX (black) + M50/1.7: £115
K1000 body: £55
Canon A1 + 50/1.8: £210
Hoya HMC 49mm skylight filter: £5

Considering the capabilities of modern DSLRs and lenses, I reckon we're doing pretty well nowadays (just wish the build quality and QC on modern lenses could match the old ones' though).

I'm sure it was expensive back in the day, but you got what you paid for I think. The lens I bought is in excellent condition and feels like a good quality new lens, which speaks volumes for the quality of it. I've had more modern lenses that basically came apart with very moderate amateur use.
I got it from a dealer at the Wolverhampton Camera Fair, and he said that if it was a Canon or Nikon fit it would be £50 and it would have sold hours ago!
It's M42 !
He asked for £10, and I already had a filter in my hand that was priced at £2 so I offered £10 for the two and he took it. I got the impression I was doing him a favor as he didn't want to take it away with him. I can do favors like that all day long !

[RioRico]

I paid a whole US$32.75 for my M42 v1, shipped. Was I robbed?

And I'll be a spoilsport and point out that close-focus ability does not mean that a lens is macro. Yes, it's a classic design, and well-suited for portraits of flowers, among other things. But weight, and zoom creep, and lack of A contacts for the SR'bot, limit its applications for me. YMMV.

[.a.t.]

Yes, it's a classic design, and well-suited for portraits of flowers...

Speaking of which...
As my 70-210 is my fastest / best 200mm lens, I like using it to isolate flowers.
From a few days ago, here's one of my favorites (@ 210mm, f/3.5 with extension tubes; some color & contrast added in PP)

[m42man]

Nice one, all thumbs!

Presumably the red glow/halo is an out of focus red flower in the background? Very clever!

[.a.t.]

Thanks, m42man.
And you're right about the background: it's a red, red rose.
Just don't ask me about the foreground flower - I don't know its name!