[m8o]

For lenses this expensive, wouldn't it be possible to rework a lens from another mount? Incl. the contacts and AF mechanics? There are great fine mechanical companies around here...

Or just get a Sigma 500/4.5, K20D, and crop about 20% of the extra pixels the K20D gives you to get to the fov of the 600mm. ...but we digress, much. <lol>

[Samsungian]

24mm is $500, 200mm Macro $3500, 80-200 $1,500 and 400mm $2,500. maybe a bit more since your silver paint is scuff free.

I have a FA*200/4 in better condition than this. My lens is in new condition with no scratches at all. I had no idea that it was worth this much. Maybe I should take more care of it and not take it with me everywhere


All four lenses was bought for a total sum less than $3.500,-

[monochrome]

I have a FA*200/4 in better condition than this. My lens is in new condition with no scratches at all. I had no idea that it was worth this much. Maybe I should take more care of it and not take it with me everywhere


All four lenses was bought for a total sum less than $3.500,-

Just shoot with them - or sell them while the selling is good.

[Ron Boggs]

When joining this forum a year ago, I intended to sell either the A*200 Macro or the FA*200 Macro. When I mentioned possibly selling the FA* there were a few VERY interested potential buyers hinting at paying over $3000 for it. I was floored! In the end I sold the A* to a forum member in Singapore--and nope, not Frank...

As part of a very fortunate fraternity who has owned both A* and FA* simultaneously, I can say with full confidence they are both better than you can imagine until you shoot through them, and then you won't believe the results! Which is better? That's very hard to answer as both are killer. I wish both lenses still resided here in my hands, but I'll have to "make due" with "just" the FA*.

Honestly, for a few years the A* lived in a safe and the FA* lived in my kit and with my travels. But also honestly, I during that time frame I was spending more time using a 67II kit and shot more normal perspective medium format macro than the really tight 200 telemacro stuff. The A* works really well as a handheld "bug and critter" macro with flash bracket and Turbo battery. Short distance hunting so to speak. The FA* is bigger and bulkier and doesn't have as nice "feel" for critter hunting, but the results are basically the same for the two lenses. The FA* has a more punchy color pallete, but just ever so slightly different.

When I bought the lenses new they were cheap by current standards. The A* was $999 from B&H in about '96. The FA* was $1400 from the same retailer in 2001 or 2002. I did not buy them as an investment...

The FA* has some very exotic elements. I have printout from a Pentax web news release from around the turn of the century about the optical formula and such. I'll try to get a clean scan to post tomorrow--it's late here tonight.

As a Pentax freak who also owns the FA*600/4 and FA*250-600/5.6, the macros are both worth the current market price. Essentially if you want to do serious critter work, you can't beat the 600 no matter what it costs. Likewise, if the goal is the best possible macro work you can produce through Pentax logo'd products, then the 200mm twins are the twin pinnacles. The fact that they are rare and will hold collector value is only a "kicker". The images are why these lenses are worth the cost.

[huqedato]

That FA200 Macro worth less than 1000$.
I think that "FA" hysteria is getting too high. Their prices are about 5 times exagerated. Absolutely insane!
They have formed a bubble soap market which will finally blow. Exactly like those toxic assets within the global economy.
I repeat: they are overrated. Their value are much more lower than actual.

[Eaglerapids]

I'll say this, I'm glad I bit the bullet this winter and finished getting the FA Limited's. It's such a shame that a company as recently as 2002 was putting out glass like the FA* 200 macro can't even get a weather sealed 1.4X TC to market today. Whether it's the Pentax user base that quit buying the awesome lenses or it's Pentax marketing that lost communication with the user base or the engineer's who didn't stay in tune with the market with new digital bodies in the early days, doesn't matter. It's a shame to have to pay astronomical prices for some of this legendary glass. Especially since Pentax doesn't see a dime of it to help them stay competitive today.

[Eaglerapids]

I have to agree with huqedato, as an average guy there is no way I can afford to pay $3500 for ANY lens. I'd love to own a FA* lens but I can't foresee ever paying more than their original selling price for one. I'll make do without.

[Ron Boggs]

There is a misconception amongst many Pentax shooters that there were the "good old days" when Pentax was king and now they have somehow lost it. Fact is, almost nobody ponied up to buy the high end FA* lenses when they were on the market. Very, very few U.S. dealers stocked FA* lenses. Less than 1000 FA* 200 Macros were ever produced over the 6 or 8 years they were being built (that's just over 100 a year for the world market--not many at all). Same for many of the FA* lenses. Pentax hasn't upgraded teleconverter choices in more than 25 years. This isn't a new issue.

Back in the early '90's when people kept telling me Pentax was going under any minute because they haven't kept up with canon and nikon, I found it pleasurable to dive into a "weird" brand with weird lenses. The K1000 may have been mainstream, but Pentax high quality equipment--* lenses and such--have never been mainstream, common or cheap. So now most Pentax high quality equipment has held its value or even appreciated in value. Being a bit weird as a brand has kept the brand valueable. Strange how that equation works...

Without any data to back it up, I'll go out on a limb and assert that the DA* and DA Limited lenses of today's marketplace are selling at somewhere around ten times the pace that the FA* and FA Limiteds sold during their heyday. DA* are not likely to be collector's items. Instead, quality DA lenses are simply great tools for photography and there's nothing wrong with that!

[Ron Boggs]

As to the money issue regarding how much a lens costs...this is a very inexpensive hobby. Your neighbors own a motor home that cost tens of thousands of dollars, another neighbor spends three weeks a year traveling to exotic vacation destinations, your uncle owns a cabin or second home in another state, your neice is a wine snob (or was before the crash)...

Hobbies cost money and photography is really a very cheap one as hobbies go. So what if a lens costs $5000? The neighbor kid gets a new dirt bike every year for about that sum. At least that lens will be useful for decades. Your friend from work follows the Broadway plays...figure that hobby at a couple thousand annually by the time you add in cab fare and fine dining to round out the evening. Several thousand if there is a night or two of lodging tied in.

Once you get your "stable" of lenses for what feels like lots of upfront cost, this photo thing gets cheaper each year. I hardly have to spend anything annually anymore--a new digi body every few years, an accessory item here or there. Your neighbor's grandpa spent more to go drag racing in the '70's than you need to spend on photography today. And we can shut down the LBA at any time we choose and just go enjoy shooting pictures. Odds are, most of us reading this forum have enough gear to have a ball for the rest of our lives. Your broadway play following friend has to keep spending to keep enjoying that hobby...

Any time you feel that your hobby is too costly, just look out your window at the neighbors with boats, motorhomes or fancy "hobby" cars in the driveway. We photo enthusiasts are nowhere near as deeply "in" as any of those folks. And the joy of our images will last our entire lives!

[Wheatfield]

I have to agree with huqedato, as an average guy there is no way I can afford to pay $3500 for ANY lens. I'd love to own a FA* lens but I can't foresee ever paying more than their original selling price for one. I'll make do without.

The A* and FA* lenses have never been "average guy" lenses any more than Rolls Royce is an "average guy" automobile, and if their rarity causes them to appreciate in value, then so be it.
When I was much younger, the price of gold was something like $35.00 an ounce. Should we say that gold at $600.00 an ounce is over valued because at one point it was worth 1/20 of that?
Pricing is controlled by supply and demand. We aren't talking about subprime mortgages on over valued real estate or "toxic assets" (whatever the hell that is).
We are talking about a very high end camera lens that is also very rare. If people think it is worth in excess of 3K, then that is what it is worth.



Shot with an overpriced lens.

[m8o]

A big Kudos to you Ron for putting that in such clear succinct perspective.

I'm so tempted to make Mrs. M8o read that. Problems arise however when we subscribe to several of those vices. However, regarding "And we can shut down the LBA at any time"... can we? Well may-bee. I have went 3 months w/o a purchase most recently.

[legacyb4]

That's what I keep telling my wife!

As to the money issue regarding how much a lens costs...this is a very inexpensive hobby. Any time you feel that your hobby is too costly, just look out your window at the neighbors with boats, motorhomes or fancy "hobby" cars in the driveway. We photo enthusiasts are nowhere near as deeply "in" as any of those folks. And the joy of our images will last our entire lives!

[Pål Jensen]

Isn't the Pentax-A version the superior one?

No. It is not.

[Pål Jensen]

Given recent sales of other uncommon * lenses such as the FA* 250~600 and the F*300 (even some sales here), I wouldn't call the price totally out of line for a spotless example - but this lens has cosmetic flaws. It is not a collector-quality example. Buyer overpaid for a user-quality lens.
]

It is rare. I've heard they only made 900 units....

[Fototim]

So what if a lens costs $5000? The neighbor kid gets a new dirt bike every year for about that sum.

You and I probably lives in very different hoods