Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-03-2011, 04:03 PM   #16
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by TOUGEFC Quote
Fact of the matter is that people out there are willing to pay that little bit extra for MIJ, regardless that its the same lens as the AIV.
Only the kind of people who believe everything they read on forums.

08-03-2011, 04:11 PM   #17
Veteran Member
TOUGEFC's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,561
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
Only the kind of people who believe everything they read on forums.
Not necessarily, these kinds of consumers are everywhere, and most people prefer MIJ products.
08-03-2011, 04:49 PM   #18
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by JeffJS Quote
Call B&H and tell them you want to by an AIV FA31 for $750. Let me know what their answer is after they stop laughing.

really now Jeff? have you even read or understood my previous statements that you quoted?
08-03-2011, 04:57 PM   #19
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by TOUGEFC Quote
Not necessarily, these kinds of consumers are everywhere, and most people prefer MIJ products.
true. and there is always a market for them no matter if it sounds silly for others. that is why it is a question of trying to meet the price between MIJ and AIV. the market price sold by vendors may be the same, although at the used market, the price would be quite different between them for some owners/sellers, be it rarity of sorts or quality or even value. if we apply their principle, it would be some significant difference in pricing. if the seller decides to sell his AIV copy for the same amount of that of what maybe a collector's value MIJ, I would think that that MIJ would be the first one to sell, unless the AIV becomes cheaper than the MIJ.

08-04-2011, 05:42 PM   #20
nah
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Westminster, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 280
I'm in the market for one and I'd say the most I'd pay is around $850 for a used one, either AIV or MIJ.

There was an eBay auction that sold for $810 recently AIV. I should have bid on it as it was in Canada so i wouldn't have to pay taxes crossing the border.

Anyways, seeing how you can get a new one from Adorama or B&H for $1000 w/ warranty. Around the $800 range is fair for a used lens.
08-17-2011, 05:17 PM   #21
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
Exactly the same lens, exactly the same price. I call bullshit on your price as well.
Well, the early MIJ ones may not be exactly the same lens that is being sold now. There was some rumour of the early Limiteds having lead glass, ask Frank about it, hes the one who reported it.
08-17-2011, 06:06 PM   #22
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 309
I've always wondered why the pricing on this lens is so odd. It seems like the new price varies from slightly under 1000 to 1350ish. Why is that?
08-17-2011, 06:09 PM   #23
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by miltona580 Quote
I've always wondered why the pricing on this lens is so odd. It seems like the new price varies from slightly under 1000 to 1350ish. Why is that?
it doesn't hurt to get more profit from unsuspecting and clueless consumer.

08-17-2011, 06:33 PM   #24
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
Well, the early MIJ ones may not be exactly the same lens that is being sold now. There was some rumour of the early Limiteds having lead glass, ask Frank about it, hes the one who reported it.
That was the FA 43 and it was allegedly changed before the 77 or 31 were released. It was either lead in the coating or the glass but the details have been sketchy. I am guessing someone like Hirakawa Jun would be the only one that could definitively answer that question regarding the 43.

QuoteOriginally posted by miltona580 Quote
I've always wondered why the pricing on this lens is so odd. It seems like the new price varies from slightly under 1000 to 1350ish. Why is that?
At present, BH has them for $899 and Adorama for $999.
08-17-2011, 06:42 PM   #25
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
That was the FA 43 and it was allegedly changed before the 77 or 31 were released. It was either lead in the coating or the glass but the details have been sketchy. I am guessing someone like Hirakawa Jun would be the only one that could definitively answer that question regarding the 43.
I tried to do a comparison between the early serial number silver 43 and a late model MIJ black 43 a few months back and was unable to find any substantial differences, and none that I would attribute to anything more than normal sample variation. I know someone else on the forum who did a similar comparison (with a different copy of each) and was unable (as far as I know) to come up with any conclusive differences either. That's not to say there isn't actually a difference in the glass, just that I was unable to notice a consistent difference between the copies.

QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
At present, BH has them for $899 and Adorama for $999.
FWIW, I believe B&H is also $999 as well.
08-17-2011, 06:58 PM   #26
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
I tried to do a comparison between the early serial number silver 43 and a late model MIJ black 43 a few months back and was unable to find any substantial differences, and none that I would attribute to anything more than normal sample variation. I know someone else on the forum who did a similar comparison (with a different copy of each) and was unable (as far as I know) to come up with any conclusive differences either. That's not to say there isn't actually a difference in the glass, just that I was unable to notice a consistent difference between the copies.



FWIW, I believe B&H is also $999 as well.
there was a thread here before regarding a comparison between an AIV and MIJ copy of an FA LTD where one of the two lenses have a construction defect like it wasn't properly or perfectly circular. I think the difference would more likely be on the overall construct rather than IQ tolerance. although the reported first batch of the FA LTD's maybe an exception with regards to IQ and construct at the same time.
08-17-2011, 07:08 PM   #27
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
there was a thread here before regarding a comparison between an AIV and MIJ copy of an FA LTD where one of the two lenses have a construction defect like it wasn't properly or perfectly circular. I think the difference would more likely be on the overall construct rather than IQ tolerance. although the reported first batch of the FA LTD's maybe an exception with regards to IQ and construct at the same time.
I believe the comparison you are referring to was of the AIV 31 and MIJ 31, and you are correct, the were some early production issues with the AIV 31 copies.

The comparison I was referring to was of the early MIJ 43 vs later MIJ 43 in regards to the (potentially) different glass used, where I believe the presumption is that the older 43 used leaded glass.
08-17-2011, 07:11 PM   #28
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
I tried to do a comparison between the early serial number silver 43 and a late model MIJ black 43 a few months back and was unable to find any substantial differences, and none that I would attribute to anything more than normal sample variation. I know someone else on the forum who did a similar comparison (with a different copy of each) and was unable (as far as I know) to come up with any conclusive differences either. That's not to say there isn't actually a difference in the glass, just that I was unable to notice a consistent difference between the copies.



FWIW, I believe B&H is also $999 as well.
They changed the price since I checked it this morning.
08-17-2011, 08:19 PM   #29
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
That was the FA 43 and it was allegedly changed before the 77 or 31 were released. It was either lead in the coating or the glass but the details have been sketchy. I am guessing someone like Hirakawa Jun would be the only one that could definitively answer that question regarding the 43.
The EU ROHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) directive prohibiting use of lead in camera lenses (among other goods) only took effect in 2006. The FA31 commenced production in 2001. It would be fair to say that all Lens manufacturers including Pentax used lens blanks that had lead before 2006, or atleast sometime between 2003 when the ROHS was agreed to in the EU and 2006, when it came into effect.
The copy of the FA31 MIJ I have was purchased in 2005, I believe there's a fair chance that my copy has leaded glass, the fact that it was bought in a non EU country, gives me more reason to believe so.
08-17-2011, 08:28 PM   #30
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
The EU ROHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) directive prohibiting use of lead in camera lenses (among other goods) only took effect in 2006. The FA31 commenced production in 2001. It would be fair to say that all Lens manufacturers including Pentax used lens blanks that had lead before 2006, or atleast sometime between 2003 when the ROHS was agreed to in the EU and 2006, when it came into effect.
The copy of the FA31 MIJ I have was purchased in 2005, I believe there's a fair chance that my copy has leaded glass, the fact that it was bought in a non EU country, gives me more reason to believe so.
if that were the case, I think the old MIJ copies command a much higher premium compared to the new MIJ copies, much so with the AIV's. it's more like they are the LIMITED EDITION of the FA LTD's.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
fa, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-r Pricing... yes again... chukers Pentax K-r 19 03-09-2011 01:10 PM
Help - pricing? amoringello Pentax Film SLR Discussion 7 02-01-2011 02:56 PM
USA Pricing vs Canada Pricing Babbs Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 11-18-2010 05:27 PM
K5 pricing - opiedog Pentax DSLR Discussion 32 09-27-2010 06:01 AM
Kx pricing future_retro Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 09-12-2010 01:03 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:56 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top