FA 31 1.8 ltd pricing??

paperbag846 · 08-03-2011, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by TOUGEFC

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.

TOUGEFC · 08-03-2011, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

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.

Pentaxor · 08-03-2011, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by JeffJS

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?

Pentaxor · 08-03-2011, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by TOUGEFC

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.

nah · 08-04-2011, 05:42 PM

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.

selar · 08-17-2011, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

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.

**miltona580** · 08-17-2011, 06:06 PM

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?

Pentaxor · 08-17-2011, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by miltona580

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.

Blue · 08-17-2011, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by selar

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.

Originally posted by miltona580

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.

dgaies · 08-17-2011, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Blue

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.

Originally posted by Blue

At present, BH has them for $899 and Adorama for $999.

FWIW, I believe B&H is also $999 as well.

Pentaxor · 08-17-2011, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

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.

dgaies · 08-17-2011, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

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.

Blue · 08-17-2011, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

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.

selar · 08-17-2011, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Blue

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.

Pentaxor · 08-17-2011, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by selar

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.

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	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	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

08-03-2011, 04:03 PM	#16
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by TOUGEFC 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
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	Originally posted by paperbag846 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
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by JeffJS 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
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by TOUGEFC 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: 282	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
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Originally posted by paperbag846 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
miltona580 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
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by miltona580 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
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by selar 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. Originally posted by miltona580 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
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by Blue 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. Originally posted by Blue 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
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by dgaies 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
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by Pentaxor 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
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by dgaies 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
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Originally posted by Blue 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
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by selar 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.