Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Shipping is free, but alas so is the fungus.

eBay link

[Wild Mark]

Yes, I have noticed this one too. What a humungous risk at that price. I wouldn't take the risk at half the price.

[Wasp]

That is a LOT of money for something with a fungal infection.

Are these things rare enough to justify the asking price?

[Wild Mark]

That is a LOT of money for something with a fungal infection.

Are these things rare enough to justify the asking price?

In a word, NO. If it is a dud it is a dud. I wouldn't pay that kind of money to find out.

[antipattern]

Apparently ‘the lens has been cleared, but the lens of the rear glass can not be opened, so there are fungus in the rear glass.”

The lens is also listed as mint, with few signs of use. I guess the fungus is a sign of disuse then?

[Pål Jensen]

Not impossible that new real elemen(s) can be provided from Pentax. Worth checking out. I am not selling mine!

[SSGGeezer]

Definitely not mint. I am surprised that that seller is so wrong as they carry a lot of photo gear that includes Pentax. Sad when the one here sold this month for much less and was immaculate.

[onlineflyer]

Definitely not mint.

That was also my observation. How someone can call this mint is beyond me.

[fsge]

Not impossible that new real elemen(s) can be provided from Pentax. Worth checking out. I am not selling mine!

There is no FA*200 f4 spare parts anymore.
I discussed that with a pentax gentleman last month. I am not selling mine either !

[Wild Mark]

The part would need to be manufactured - this requires the acquisition of the right glass type (if this is known). Then the glass needs to be machined. I am doing this at the moment for a K28/2 internal element - the search for the person who could even do this was hard enough let alone the glass.

At best, the element can be removed, polished, recoated then re-inserted. Imagine a cost of about $1000 for that then you have some idea of the starting point. The above commentary applies if the polishing is unable to sort the fungal 'etching' out.

[antipattern]

The part would need to be manufactured - this requires the acquisition of the right glass type (if this is known). Then the glass needs to be machined. I am doing this at the moment for a K28/2 internal element - the search for the person who could even do this was hard enough let alone the glass.

At best, the element can be removed, polished, recoated then re-inserted. Imagine a cost of about $1000 for that then you have some idea of the starting point. The above commentary applies if the polishing is unable to sort the fungal 'etching' out.

I guess you would also need to do a new coating, possibly of lower quality than the SMC, right?

Looking at it, I don't think the fungus is bad and should easily clean up. The SMC coatings are relatively resilient, not as bad as say, the east German Pentacon coatings that come off you just look at them the wrong way. In the description it says that the fungus is not accessible. So either the lens is glued together or the lens group is in a tube that's glued together. Too risky for that sum of money.

[onlineflyer]

I guess you would also need to do a new coating, possibly of lower quality than the SMC, right?

Looking at it, I don't think the fungus is bad and should easily clean up. The SMC coatings are relatively resilient, not as bad as say, the east German Pentacon coatings that come off you just look at them the wrong way. In the description it says that the fungus is not accessible. So either the lens is glued together or the lens group is in a tube that's glued together. Too risky for that sum of money.

But it's in 'mint' condition.

[sculptor666]

one sold a few weeks ago in good condition for less.

[Wild Mark]