[yeatzee]

The price of old lenses has been adjusted by the market over the past couple of years. The value disappears each day. Most old lenses are no longer worth the asking prices.

Do you ever visit ebay? To my eyes it appears that almost* all of the deals are long gone and only overpriced lenses fill the auctions. Your right a lot of old lenses aren't even worth their cheap asking prices, but thats because they weren't any good from the get-go. Cue M 50mm F/2

stuff of quality has been holding its value for years and years. The K 135mm F/2.5, or K/A 50mm F/1.2 for example has been pretty consistent from what I've seen. Im sure theres better examples but thats just what pops up into my head.

*The star is for you Rico because im sure you'll quote me to brandish your past deals

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Do you ever visit ebay?

At the beginning of this year, I realized I was finding less and less bargains so I stopped looking. It's not worth the time for me. Plus, the last few lenses I got were all fungus infested and I had to waste my time to return them to the sellers. Before that, I spent a year hunting lenses on ebay and learning first hand about fungus and element separation. Made some good deals too, but I only made a good deal overall considering the experience I gained, not the value I collected.

[RioRico]

*The star is for you Rico because im sure you'll quote me to brandish your past deals

Oh, pretty soon now I'll stop quoting my bargain prices. I can't gloat forever. But I *can* say that excellent deals are still out there. They aren't in BINs or well-described listings, but I rarely got my best deals there anyway. The bargains are mostly obscured behind ignorance and bad photos, as always.

Too much of eBay has always been at retail prices. Sometimes it's even crazier, like when I see bidding to levels higher than the same items from KEH or other retailers. If a listing says TAKUMAR, I'll likely be outbid. So I look for misspellings, wrong IDs, murky images, obscure cameras, etc. Who knows what that TIFFEN 49M LENS 4 CANON really is? Or what lens is on that PANTXA MV-1 FOR PARTS under the grime?

OK, I've revealed enough secrets. Y'all can figure out the rest yourselves.

[neil]

The A 35-105mm f3.5 is a fantastic bang-for-the-buck. Wonderful image qualities, great corner to corner to sharpness, excellent colour, low distortion and can be found for $150 or less. (I got mine for $119 and it's flawless).

[thethirdcoast]

For me, it is probably the Takumar 135mm f2.5 I got for about $20 or 30. You can stick a 1.4x TC on it and still get ridiculously sharp, nicely contrasty captures. Second is probably the "plastic fantastic" FA 28-70mm f4 zoom. Third is probably the Pentax A 50mm f2.8 1:2 Macro which I got for a song in 2004. You won't find any deals on it these days because people have realized what a stunning lens it is.

[northcoastgreg]

So, for $100, you would give away: - 55-250mm range - shorter focusing distance, i.e. smaller magnification (the M has 4m MFD compared to the DAs 1.4m) - autofocus - full metering capability - full auto-aperture capability - resistance to chromatic aberrations and purple fringing. And you think you got much good value remaining?

As economists have known since the 1870s, value is subjective. I understand that for many people the DA 55-300 is of great value to them for its wonderful versatility and fine performance in a lens of its grade. But for some of us, it's just not sharp enough at 300mm. I have no interest in shooting with a lens that produce images which I find unsatisfactory. Such a lens would be of no value to me, regardless of its price.

Now using old glass may involve some rather drastic compromises: shooting wildlife with a manual focus 300mm lens lacking a tripod colar can be challenging. You'll miss more shots and have fewer keepers. But the keepers you do get will be flat out better than what you'd get with comparably priced AF glass. And if what you're seeking to do is make the best image possible, the M* 300 may be the way to go.

The M300 may sound good on paper, but like most of the old lenses, it would be a [pain] to use wide open due to purple fringing issues.

When I did research on this lens a few years ago, I could find no evidence that purple fringing was a serious issue (as it is with K 300/4). In any case, as long as it cleans up in post, I don't regard PF as something to be uptight about. For my own personal needs, for what I'm trying to achieve as a photographer, the M* 300 would be more valuable to me than the DA 55-300. I'll willingly sacrifice AF, lack of tripod colar, MFD, and automatic exposure to get more IQ. Luckily for me, I was able to scrape up enough money to get the DA* 300, so I didn't have to make any these sacrifices; but if I had not been able to afford that DA* lens (which is a rather expensive piece of glass), I would have gladly contented myself with an M* 300.

Most old lenses are no longer worth the asking prices.

Not true. The fact that they are selling for higher prices shows that some people find them worth those prices. In the last two years I have bought a K 28/3.5 for $123, a K 50/1.2 for $365, and a K 35/3.5 for $90. These prices may seem high to those who don't appreciate the older glass; but I would pay significantly more to replace these lenses if I had to. The K 28/3.5 creates more distinctive colors than any other lens I've owned or seen, and I get more compliments from images made with that old glass than any other lens I own. The K 50/1.2 is simply one of the best SLR lenses ever made; at $365, it's a raving bargain. The K 35/3.5 combines excellent resolution with stunning color rendition. This old glass allows me to create images more distinctive than what other landscape photographers in my local area (including the professionals) are getting from their top-of-the-line Canikon zooms. I recently saw an exhibit of a local landscape photo who shoots with an FF Canon. His images, although sharp and well composed, simply don't have the same intensity or piquancy of color that I'm getting from my old K series primes. And it has nothing to do with my skill as a photographer. I did all the same things when shooting with the DA 18-55 without ever achieving the same richness of color.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

@northcoatreg. I shoot MF too and I don't think that is a drawback. But in my experience, no old long lens is devoid of purple fringing issues. Maybe the M* is the odd one not following this rule - maybe, but I'm skeptical. I am also skeptical of claims that the DA is not sharp enough at 300mm, but the M* would be significantly more so.

Most old lenses are no longer worth the asking prices and your selection of a few lenses does not disprove my statement. A 1.2 lens is valuable because there is no other modern alternative to it - you can probably still argue its value if you paid twice as much as you did. Some old lenses are worth their value, but there are fewer and fewer of them as their prices keep increasing. And prices increase to reflect value, but also to reflect hype and collector interest. As for stunning color rendition - that sits next to pixie dust as far as I am concerned and as far as I am able to observe it and describe what it is.

[RioRico]

The value of any transaction is precisely what the buyer and seller agree upon. If a winning buyer bids X amount of bucks|yen|euros|pesos for something, then that is exactly its value. Nothing has any intrinsic value; it's only worth what is agreed upon during an exchange. If I feel I really NEED something, I'll likely place a higher value upon it than on something optional.

What is a cup of coffee worth? McD's spends about a nickel on what they sell for a buck, and dumping a spoon of instant crystals into hot water may cost about as much. But if you NEED that coffee whilst on the road, you'll pay the buck. If I don't need a lens, I won't pay much for it. If I feel I NEED it, then I spend whatever it takes. Value is all about perception.

We have a problem with the Anglish language. VALUE can mean morals|mores|ethics, or price|worth, or measurement level, or opinion, or 17 other definitions listed in my old unabridged dictionary. BEST VALUE is not the same as MOST VALUABLE nor MOST VALUED. Slipping between definitions doesn't clarify the discussion. And it tends towards metaphysics. Yow.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

The value of any transaction is precisely what the buyer and seller agree upon

No, they only agree on the price, not on the value.

And estimates of value are not fixed even for the same person. Have you never purchased something that you thought was great value at the time of the purchase only to change your opinion later through use and discovery of other alternatives that offered even better value?

[Roob-N-Boots]

Oh, pretty soon now I'll stop quoting my bargain prices. I can't gloat forever. But I *can* say that excellent deals are still out there. They aren't in BINs or well-described listings, but I rarely got my best deals there anyway. The bargains are mostly obscured behind ignorance and bad photos, as always.

Too much of eBay has always been at retail prices. Sometimes it's even crazier, like when I see bidding to levels higher than the same items from KEH or other retailers. If a listing says TAKUMAR, I'll likely be outbid. So I look for misspellings, wrong IDs, murky images, obscure cameras, etc. Who knows what that TIFFEN 49M LENS 4 CANON really is? Or what lens is on that PANTXA MV-1 FOR PARTS under the grime?

OK, I've revealed enough secrets. Y'all can figure out the rest yourselves.

It's true, it's true.I recently got an FA 28-70 f4 for $35 with film camera. But my best Ebay find was An F 50 2.8 macro in MINT condition bundled with and SF1 and a Takumar F 28-80 for $150! Both purchases had bad pictures but I was able to identify items.

[jwc77]

Thanks for some of your input on the F35-70...I ended up pulling the trigger on it for cheap. I have only had a chance to take a few photos with it so far...but so far, so good. I really like the results I got from a quick session in the backyard photographing my daughters. Tomorrow I take it through some serious paces. Can't wait...first F series lens. And I bought it for a song.

[Doclock]

for your money ! my order would be...

1st - Pentax M 50mm f2 ( you can get these for under £20 on ebay and as a portrait lens on my Kr and K5 it rocks )
2nd- Pentax M 28mm f3.5 ( Sharpest 28mm on DSLR i have had and great colours )
3rd - Pentax A 50mm f1.7 ( simply legend - a must have , beautiful colour rendition )

runner up

Pentax M 200mm f4 - so crisp / sharp and fast

naturally the pentax A 50mm f1.4 , the pentax FA 50mm f1.7 etc are better lenses but are so much more expensive , but for under £50 thats my top 3 !

[starjedi]

Why? The OP's language is ambiguous and you are just assuming an interest in Pentax"-made" lenses only. I find it more meaningful to interpret the question as "what is the best value lens I can buy for a Pentax camera". Also, I assume the question is for lenses still in production - old lenses have no intrinsic value without a price attached to them and their prices vary too widely.

Pentax: DA 40/2.8, DA 35/2.4, DA 10-17/3.5-4.5, FA 50/1.4. Third party: Rokinon 85/1.4, Tamron SP 17-50/2.8, Tamron 90/2.8, Sigma 105/2.8.

Strongly agree！

[micromacro]

Thanks for some of your input on the F35-70...I ended up pulling the trigger on it for cheap. I have only had a chance to take a few photos with it so far...but so far, so good. I really like the results I got from a quick session in the backyard photographing my daughters. Tomorrow I take it through some serious paces. Can't wait...first F series lens. And I bought it for a song.

Yes, that lens is a steal for the price. If the copy is good, it's sharp, easy to use, and the macro mode (close up) is very good. I think it's hard to find another such a performer af lens for about $30.

[Mr Bassie]

personally I love using the Takumars because they can be found very cheaply and they don't require use of the green button.