[magkelly]

I paid in the neighborhood of $3200 for my used Pentax-A 400mm f2.8 - what a monster! But some of my Leica M lenses cost about the same, and they are much more compact...

Regards, Jim

My gosh. I could literally buy a used car for that. Maybe not a recent one, but DA...Y...UM....

[Blue]

My gosh. I could literally buy a used car for that. Maybe not a recent one, but DA...Y...UM....

Yes, that is an expensive glass. However, f2.8 is very fast for a 400mm. In fact, f4 would be considered fast for a 400mm. Plus, that thing is gi-normous and has an aluminum trunk for a case.

[Pioneer]

The only lenses I have paid over $1,000 to buy have been for the 645Nii. The most expensive 35mm has been the DA* 300, a truly great lens.

[GlennG]

My gosh. I could literally buy a used car for that. Maybe not a recent one, but DA...Y...UM....

+1! At this point about 60% of us responding have paid over $750. That is still a big number for me as I'm still coming to grips with the cost of big time glass for this hobby.

[Steinback]

Probably $400 for my recently acquired Sigma 10-20mm. I can't think of a more expensive lens I've acquired, which probably makes me cheap seeing as the vast majority of the 50 something lenses that have passed through my hands were purchased in the $1 to $100 range regardless of their supposed street or resale value. The only photographic accessory I have that cost more (in one shot) is my K10d body, acquired new in 2007.

[Jools]

While there are lenses I drool for, I have not paid more than $500 for any lens and that top price came at a large expense with my wife.
My top three costly lenses are the DA 10-17mm FE, the Sigma 10-20mm and the Tamron 300mm f2.8 SP (manual focus). All used but it is a pretty penny for me.
Content with what I have.
The gems are in the under $150 range (if folks are into manual focus because who needs AF after all). This is my target. I can live with these little folks all year round.
But then again they meet my current requirements and others may differ.

[bdparker]

$1200 on Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG

[yurko_yr]

1100 USD for FA*85/1.4. Amazing lens. Just love it. The second scores Sigma 100-300/4 and than FA31/1.8. All three are in use very often.

[LFLee]

Paid 1250 for FA85, paid $1000 for a FA31 MIJ ver new.
:O

At that time my K200 is only $500 (w/kit lens). ouch!
They are both great lens, FA85 is just amazing.

[slackercruster]

25mm 645D lens broke all records for me. Prior to that it was about $1100 for a lens for me.

[grhazelton]

I paid about $550.00 for my 645n's used 35mm manual focus lens. It was quite a "gulp" moment as I am descended from French Huguenots, folk famed for their "thrift." When the lens arrived it was "new old stock," in its original box, all packing material, even a warranty card! At this moment KEH lists the lens in LN- for $1,169.00 and in Bargain at $819.00, so I feel much, much better! Its a wonderful lens!

Prior to that my highest price paid was for a 50mm f1.2A in KEH's Ex+ condition, as I remember about $400.00 in the mid '80s. Another gulp moment but I felt that the LX I bought from them at the same time deserved Pentax's finest and fastest 50mm. The best Pentax SLR with a true classic lens. This is not to demean the metal 50mm f1.4A or metal 50mm f1.7, which I own and enjoy.

These all-metal classics have a feel and heft which the plastic-fantastics just can't match, regardless of the new guy's optics. Like my wife's old all metal Bernini sewing machine, they exude class and a "run for ever" quality.

[8540tomg]

With tax I paid about $1,000 for a DA* 16~50/2.8 a few years ago.

Tom G

[Raybo]

The DA* 300/4.

Me too!

[guinnessman]

$479 on a Sigma 10-20.

[lammie200]

$200 for a K300 f4 in true mint condition. It might not be the best 300 out there, but I like it. It was on ebay and didn't hit the reserve. The seller emailed me with a $200 offer. Maybe I am a fool but I jumped on it.