[GeneV]

I'm not sure I see too much of a market for a 50mm 1.7 lens only at $135. For that price, there is often a K1000 attached.

[paperbag846]

Whatever money you would get for those lenses would be peanuts compared to the cost of the K5, I'm going to guess you would get 150 for both.

Think about this: those lenses are also going to be useful in 10 years. The K5 might not.

If you need a bump in high ISO quality the K-X is your friend...

[JeffJS]

Whatever money you would get for those lenses would be peanuts compared to the cost of the K5, I'm going to guess you would get 150 for both.

Think about this: those lenses are also going to be useful in 10 years. The K5 might not.

If you need a bump in high ISO quality the K-X is your friend...

You would be wrong.

[peterh337]

I sold my big Olympus/Tamron/etc lens collection, an OM2SP and an OM4Ti, for pretty good money back in 2009, on Ebay.

Most of the stuff was at least 20 years old but I still got £100+ for some lenses.

I got about £200 for a Tamron 500mm F8 catadioptric lens but it was a Chinese buyer who complained about some fictitious stuff but luckily he did return it. He did not return other stuff bought from others, however, and disappeared. I later sold that lens for £150 to a UK buyer.

Apparently there is quite a specialised market in China for old manual lenses, and some of them fetch good prices. But beware as many buyers from that part of the world are scammers (they invariably buy on Buy It Now because they have no intention to pay for it, using the NAD scam**) so make sure you use only a bank transfer, not that stupid computer system called Paypal which makes buyers' scams really easy.

I don't think I got the £1100 to buy a K5 though But it was well worth getting rid of it. Today's lenses are so much lighter, and today's zooms are usable for most jobs whereas the zooms from the 1970s and 80s were mostly rubbish. I recently scanned about 5000 slides (using a Nikon ED5000 scanner which I bought just for that job) and the quality of a lot of them is not great compared to a half reasonable DSLR+zoom of today. Kodachrome 25 was good but e.g. Ektachrome 64 was grainy rubbish. The 200-400 ISO film you could forget. The last stuff I used was Provia 100 and that was similar to Kodachrome 25 in quality but nothing from the 35mm days gets close to even a K200D with a 16-45, never mind a K5.

(** the NAD (not as described) scam is where you buy an item on Ebay, pay by Paypal, get the item, write to Paypal it was NAD, Paypal immediately dock the amount from the seller's account, you obtain a proof of posting of returning it (which can obviously be some fictitious package), email that to Paypal, and Paypal immediately gives you a refund.

[paperbag846]

You would be wrong.

At the most, 250.

Peanuts compared to a 1500 dollar camera.

[northcoastgreg]

If find old legacy glass that's going for +$250 (unless we're talking really long focal lengths) seems to rely quite heavily on mystique and other hard to pin down characteristics, and I don't have the wallet for that kind of romance, I want facts!

While there may be exceptions (e.g., the K/A 15/3.5), I find that most of the old Pentax glass is at least worth the prices that it sells for; indeed, in some instances the old glass performs as well or better than considerably more expensive modern equivalents. The so-called "mystique" of the old glass refers merely to those characteristics that can't be easily measured, such as color rendition, micro-contrast, and bokeh. Now the best of the old lenses (which includes many of the old Pentax primes) more than holds its own in terms of these "hard to pin down characteristics" with the latest DA glass. I have some pretty fine DA glass, such as the DA 12-24, the DFA 100 WR, and the DA* 300 -- all exceptional lenses. But my K 28/3.5 has slightly better contrast and my K 50/1.2 has better bokeh than my DA glass.

Even in terms of resolution, the old glass often performs remarkably well. According to Yoshihiko Takinami's resolution tests, the center resolution of the K 24/2.8 exceeds the center resolution of FA* 24, while the K 85/1.8 nearly matches the resolution of the FA 77. So if a mint copy of K 24/2.8 sells for $250, that's still a good deal, considering that used copies of FA* 24 sells for over $600 at keh.com. Nor is the K 85/1.8 (or it's Tak equivalents) necessarily over-priced at $400+, considering the going rate of the FA 77 and FA* 85.

In short, the old Pentax glass (especially the K series) offers comparable IQ at less price than modern Pentax glass. This is true even of some of the lenses that sell +$250.

[JeffJS]

At the most, 250.

Peanuts compared to a 1500 dollar camera.

But the K5 isn't going to be $1500 forever. Even a year from now the camera will still be a great machine.

Peanuts to you perhaps but to someone trying to put the cash together for the newest body, not so. It's $250 or even to use your original number $150 that he doesn't have to come up with otherwise. Especially if the lenses are simply collecting shelf dust.

[Ira]

Today's lenses are so much lighter, and today's zooms are usable for most jobs whereas the zooms from the 1970s and 80s were mostly rubbish.

That's why the legacy zooms never enter these discussions. It's all about the primes.

And why today's lighter lenses seem to be put together with plastic, spit and glue, compared to the old Taks.

Once you work with a TAK--IQ and everything else aside--it's no comparison as to build quality. The newer stuff feels like cheap toys.

[gofour3]

I'm not sure about your contention; I' ve seen some crazy prices for old manual lenses here in Australia.

Speaking for myself, I'm reluctant to pay some of the asking prices for something that could well be a sketchy old lens filled with dust/fungus/scratches, when I can get a new lens with autofocus, guarantee, multicoating etc for typically only a couple of hundred dollars more, or a second hand "newish" lens for only 100-150 etc more. Unless it's truly extraordinary, I'm not interested in legacy - and if it's truly extraordinary, it's out of my current price range anyway!

I do think whilst old lenses can be fine, when you start getting past the $200 mark, you are very hard-pressed to justify paying the same or close-to prices that new lenses at similar if not identical focal length and arpeture designed for APSC command. If find old legacy glass that's going for +$250 (unless we're talking really long focal lengths) seems to rely quite heavily on mystique and other hard to pin down characteristics, and I don't have the wallet for that kind of romance, I want facts!

Your new DA AF lenses will be lucky to last ten years and then they will be toast. The old MF lenses are better built, made of metal and will last a lifetime. (Especially the Taks and K series).

So in the end the old MF lenses are a better value even if you pay more than $200.00.

Phil.

[v5planet]

That's why the legacy zooms never enter these discussions. It's all about the primes.

And why today's lighter lenses seem to be put together with plastic, spit and glue, compared to the old Taks.

Once you work with a TAK--IQ and everything else aside--it's no comparison as to build quality. The newer stuff feels like cheap toys.

Even my 35/2.8 DA Limited feels downright delicate and rickety after handling Taks, to say nothing of the cheaper plastic stuff.

[gofour3]

While there may be exceptions (e.g., the K/A 15/3.5), I find that most of the old Pentax glass is at least worth the prices that it sells for; indeed, in some instances the old glass performs as well or better than considerably more expensive modern equivalents.

Maybe on an APS-C DSLR, but not on film. Use the K/A15/3.5 on a full frame film camera and you’ll see what I mean, it’s worth every penny. Try finding an equivalent rectilinear lens that would give you 100+ degrees horizontal FOV and 111 degree diagonal FOV on an APS-C DSLR.

Phil.

[yeatzee]

Im from the opposite camp. I've seen nothing but lens prices jump.....

[JeffJS]

Your new DA AF lenses will be lucky to last ten years and then they will be toast. The old MF lenses are better built, made of metal and will last a lifetime. (Especially the Taks and K series).

So in the end the old MF lenses are a better value even if you pay more than $200.00.

Phil.

Your proof of this would be...... what?

[v5planet]

Your proof of this would be...... what?

Indeed; are any of the DA lenses even a decade old yet?

On the other hand, in order to stop a Takumar lens from working you'd probably quite literally have to throw it as hard as you could against a brick wall. Maybe more than once.

[GregK8]

Whatever money you would get for those lenses would be peanuts compared to the cost of the K5, I'm going to guess you would get 150 for both.

Think about this: those lenses are also going to be useful in 10 years. The K5 might not.

If you need a bump in high ISO quality the K-X is your friend...

Sorry for starting this thread and jumping ship. I just got busy for a couple of days.

I was hoping to get $250 out of the A50 1.7 and the A135. I also plan on selling my K20D, hopefully for $500 since it has 2 new spare Pentax batteries, 2 4GB Class 6 SDHC cards and a Katzeye installed. Now I'm up to $750. I have $124.26 in my change jar, getting closer. and I've saved about $500, so I'm up to $1375.

I just ordered an open box K-5 from Amazon for $1338, which I fully expect to come with a stained sensor, which I will promptly send directly to Pentax postage prepaid to have it replaced with a new one.

If I'll only get $50 for the 50 and $100 for the 135, I might as well keep them until i can afford a DA* 50-135. So that means I have to find another $250 before the credit card bill comes.