[house]

Your "largely cosmetic" statement is simply untrue.

Yes I worded it poorly. I'm aware they contain a lot of metal. Despite this they do seem to have a tendency to come apart / loose. So the question is if the metal is a solution to the problem of construction or the problem of marketing.

[goatsNdonkey]

The original post, addressed cost compared to value of the lens, but nearly all of the discussion that has followed has been about internal build quality. It seems to me that, if someone gets an older extremely well-built lens for a very low price, because it is used and old and less appreciated by people who mainly want the newest thing, AND if that lens turns out to be, in making pictures, very high quality -- then that case would contradict the OP's thread title assertion. Such a case would mean that you might not have to pay a high price to get high quality.

[cyberjunkie]

No, with vintage lenses, definitely you don't always get what you pay for. I've bought lenses for quite cheap, that show the highest level of mechanical quality, ergonomy and well thought engineering. Sometimes optical quality is surprising too, but it's not very likely, especially with old zooms and wide-angle primes.
Some vintage german glasses are extremely well built. Steinheil and Schacht lenses are among the best. Most Isco's, Schneider's and non-plastic Enna's are also good.
Some early japanese objectives, in particular preset lenses, were of superior mechanical quality. Of the brand still active, I like the old M42 Fuji's, Olympuses, and Mamiya's. Of the defunct ones (in T-mount and M42 attachments), I prefer the brands Sankyo Kohki (Komura), Fujita and Kyoei Acall. I like Itoh lenses too, often found in the EU with the Berolina brand.

The german lenses can vary quite a lot in price, while the best japanese ones are cheaper, but not in great supply.

Cheers

Paolo

[Arjay Bee]

show the highest level of mechanical quality, ergonomy and well thought engineering. Sometimes optical quality is surprising too, but it's not very likely, especially with old zooms and wide-angle primes.

Sankyo Kohki (Komura

I like these ones as well- often selling under the Vivitar name serial number starting 28...

[Nicolas06]

I think this is the case for nearly all products. In a world where price is more important than quality to a lot of people and volume sales are crucial to a manufacturer's survival, building a product that lasts much past its warranty is of no benefit to shareholders. Planned obsolescence (or rather planned failure) is rife. When was the last time you saw a coat or some shoes that would last a lifetime, or carpentry tools you could hand down to your grandkids or a new house that would stand for centuries? Those days are gone, because they are not compatible with long term fiscal growth and because consumers are conditioned to desire continous upgrades.

People have been saying that for many years. My now 10 years old TV from samsung was supposed to last no more than 5 years thanks to the supposed new manufacturing standards; My cars was supposed to not last. it never had an issue. I just had to change tires, battery and do the periodic thing and far less often than on old cars. Actual in antiquity already many people where complaining that the old way were better and that everything was going away...

I have coats that are actual 15 years old, no issue and my father has some older. things like kitchen applience seems to last quite long too.

The difference is that before you had it only expensive. Now you have the choice, so you can take high quality, long lasting stuff or cheap, maybe not so long lasting stuff.

For shoes, this is not a problem of the shoes only but also of persons. Put shoes on me and the most expensive would wear off fast. Put it on my mother and it would last 20 years.

I do think that professionnal quality tools still work for a lifetime, no issue and that the cheap one may work for you 20-30 years but when you go out need to buy 10 tools, you may choose the cheap set for 50€, the ok set for 300€ rather than the great set for 1000€. Again a matter of choice. The 1000€ set would last a life time but it is not worth it for most people.

Houses never lasted for centuries without constant work to keep it in shape. The industry standard is that you should spend 1-2% the value of the house each year to keep it in shape. It is funy when you visit ireland as an example they have mostly ruins in to visit while in France everything (you visit) is in good shape. That not they didn't construct well... That because they had religious war and so on and that the building had to be left... And a building left to itself wear off in a few years. People are accustomed with old roman or even catholic building that have just stone and you mostly see the stone work. All the painting look dark. But the building were not like that, most were very colorful back in time with vivid colors but all the painting on the wall and whole surface of the whole disapeared. We accept to see church with just the stone thinking it was like that back in time but it was not. Just seeing the stone is like today just having the concrete.

And again there price... My father house has a particulary good quality of surface for his house, so it is 45 years old and need nothing. It was just washed 10 years ago and that's all. He also has a flat in collective building that is more 70 years old and while the building is in perfect shape itself, the surface was redone 30 years ago and will be redone today again... Because people didn't ask or wanted to pay for the high quality surface that you can still get if you wish too.

You have more choice and most people not being rich prefer something maybe not perfect than nothing. A century ago nobody could afford to build a house or building except the weathest... Everybody rented and house were all VERY expensive. And you'll notice that in europe they are almost all in stone or bricks. Because before they were in wood, the whole cities would burn and so stone and brick was mandatory. But much more expensive and longer lasting. And of course we only see what remains. There almost no old wood building. See how many of the initial settler house are still in good shapes in US. And US a baby country in term of history.

Now a couple working both for minimum salary can make themselve a nice small house and many do it. If their house may only last 200 years if carefully taken care of, who care?

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

There is no doubt about cars... They are far more long lasting than a few decades ago. Other than some new peripheral electronics and hybrid tech, basic operations of conventional gas engine drivetrains are a mature technology.

Cameras and lenses are different, as the technology has evolved continuously. To generalize about a particular brand, let alone particular eras, is inherently not precise or accurate. Certainly older MF lenses could take an impact and survive because they had far less to go wrong. Not all lighter AF lenses are fragile. Plastic can be superior to metal for critical components. Even the feel of the lens isn't going to tell you that much about durability. My 16-45 has held together fine despite my typical clumsiness over several years - and it has always felt crappy. Yet, the old Tokina lenses that were built like a tank often fell apart over years of moderate use.

The internals of the Samyang 85mm look no worse than the internals of the SMC 21mm that has a flimsy design and shown a tendency to result in focus mechanism loosening (loss of infinity focus). My Samyang (Rokinon) 85mm does have an inconsistent feel when focusing rapidly, but the image quality remains stellar for its intended purposes - portraits and low light shooting. I'm much more worried about the 21mm over the long run. Complexity and ultra-compactness is often a troublesome combination. As for my other Samyang lenses - the 14mm and 8mm - they are especially robust and smooth. The build seems a bit more solid than on the 85mm (which was an earlier design and priced somewhat lower).

You get what you pay for is a convenient thought for those who don't want to face the possibility that they purchased some poor-value lenses. Plenty of early SDM adopters - some with lenses that perform marginally optically in the first place - can attest to paying far too much for what they got.

[Arjay Bee]

Sorry, yup komine not Kimura, my bad read. Still good though.