Reading mode: Light Dark

Vintage lens market: more mirrorless bodys out, less lenses and higher prices?

Go to last post
ProfHankD said:
  • The collector/user: a person who wants specific famous lenses and is willing to pay to get them. Very brand sensitive; they own a fleet of Zeiss lenses and feel dirty if they touch a Vivitar. Catch phrase: "Look at that great 3D pop!"
  • The small thinker: a person who always wants the smallest, lightest, optic. This is how rangefinder lenses, and lenses from half-frame cameras, get pricey. At least Canon FDn lenses are light because they are made of plastic. Catch phrase: "I'm looking for a pancake version of that."
  • The "lomo" hipster: a person who wants the funkiest, most distinctive, lenses -- dramatically boosting the price of fairly terrible optics. Here I'm including the folks who will rush to buy any lens with an f/number less than 1.4. Catch phrase: "Bokelicious! It makes every photo a work of art!"
  • The old craftsmanship junkie: a person who wants only manual lenses that are in finely machined solid metal barrels, no matter the brand, and will forgive most optical issues in such a lens. These are the folks boosting prices of every manual lens in a metal barrel (especially zebras); often big fans of M42 Takumars. Catch phrase: "Silky smooth focus...."
  • The I-really-want-a-modern-lens user: a person who buys the lenses that seem most like current lenses, for example, buying current-production used lenses or looking for old lenses that are "modern" in various ways. Catch phrase: "What old lens should I buy to shoot ultrawide images?
Click to expand...
Great categorization of buyers! I may add 'The optical perfection (doesn't exist) dreamer', always disappointed and buying more lenses.
ProfHankD said:
For example, there are some really great 200mm f/3.5-f/4 manual lenses out there that nobody wants because they are not Zeiss brand, are big/heavy, have clean "not artsy" renderings, might have a plastic aperture ring, and aren't AF zooms like modern lenses.
Click to expand...
I have a superb Nikon 200/4.0 AIs, in perfect condition and very, very sharp... I don't need it anymore, having too many lenses... wanted to sale it... and discovered that they are going for less than $100 on Ebay! I keep it.
ProfHankD said:
Incidentally, I've noticed one more trend beginning: old ultra-fast lenses are starting to get cheaper. Basically, this is because there are now cost-competitive modern lenses with even faster apertures so the hipsters are starting to buy them instead. I think this trend will continue.
Click to expand...
I bought a Contax-Zeiss 180/2.8 'as new' for the same price than a Contax Zeiss 200/4.0!This 180 was probably 3x or 4x more expensive than the 200 in the 1980's.

Finally, Minolta MD and Canon FD lenses are abnormally cheap because they are not usable on Canon EOS cameras. Canon EOS cameras are a huge % of the interchangeable lens market.

Personally, my criteria number one when buying a lens is the condition - I want 'as new' lenses. Frustrating, 100% ratings of Ebay sellers and 'Mint' condition is often not good enough. My first reasoning was to buy MF lenses as recent as possible - for example Pentax A lenses instead of Pentax K lenses, Canon New FD instead of Canon FD S.S.C., etc. Not a good plan: I am discovering the hard way that actually, a Pentax K lens 15 years older than a A lens will often be in better condition, because they were better build (material, ball bearings, etc.), or more simply because the manufacturer used better grease, and also, some lenses seem to be more prone to haze, fungus, tight focusing or aperture ring, etc. than others.

Here is my short and incomplete list of typical problems encountered with old lenses:

- Pentax A: separation of elements, tight focusing ring

- Nikon AIs: dust

- Canon New FD: loose focusing ring, difficult to use aperture ring (don't know if it was the same when new)

- Leica R: tight focusing ring

- Minolta MD: tight focusing ring, white dots (fungus?)
 
I actually feel the peak demand has already been seen! Sony gave us this gift in 2013 :)

Look at all the great names now making manual glass of high optical and high build qaulity which for most surpasses the old lens designs. This is what limits the potential supply and demand of vintage glass. You can buy it new.
 
Belgarchi said:
- Minolta MD: tight focusing ring, white dots (fungus?)
Click to expand...
If the white dots refer to Minolta MD tele lenses with the white dots around the rear element at the baffle, then it is most likely Schneideritis you think of. A paint problem that first was encountered in Schneider medium format lenses, hence the nick name. Easy to fix, remove the old paint, paint new matt black with a modern type of acrylic paint (doesn't fume after it is dry).
 
goldiethedog said:
I actually feel the peak demand has already been seen! Sony gave us this gift in 2013 :)
Look at all the great names now making manual glass of high optical and high build qaulity which for most surpasses the old lens designs. This is what limits the potential supply and demand of vintage glass. You can buy it new.
Click to expand...
You mean, like Zeiss, Voigtlander and Samyang?

I didn't use new Zeiss lenses, but I am sure they are outstanding. I am sure too that they are ridiculously heavy and expensive.
Voigtlander seems to be overrated. I tried a few, their optical performance was very average.
Never tried Samyang, they are heavy but cheap... I have doubts about Q.C. and coating, but maybe it is just a prejudice. Did you try some?
 
lattesweden said:
Belgarchi said:
- Minolta MD: tight focusing ring, white dots (fungus?)
Click to expand...
If the white dots refer to Minolta MD tele lenses with the white dots around the rear element at the baffle, then it is most likely Schneideritis you think of. A paint problem that first was encountered in Schneider medium format lenses, hence the nick name. Easy to fix, remove the old paint, paint new matt black with a modern type of acrylic paint (doesn't fume after it is dry).
Click to expand...
Thanks, interesting.

I didn't see in actual lenses, but saw often on Ebay photos, white dots inside Canon FD wide-angle lenses.

Any idea what these could be?
 
Belgarchi said:
lattesweden said:
Belgarchi said:
- Minolta MD: tight focusing ring, white dots (fungus?)
Click to expand...
If the white dots refer to Minolta MD tele lenses with the white dots around the rear element at the baffle, then it is most likely Schneideritis you think of. A paint problem that first was encountered in Schneider medium format lenses, hence the nick name. Easy to fix, remove the old paint, paint new matt black with a modern type of acrylic paint (doesn't fume after it is dry).
Click to expand...
Thanks, interesting.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the catch is that the fumes also seemed to react with the lens coatings and some plastic parts. MD 135mm lenses seem particularly likely to have this problem. I don't know of a fix once the glass is affected....
Belgarchi said:
I didn't see in actual lenses, but saw often on Ebay photos, white dots inside Canon FD wide-angle lenses.

Any idea what these could be?
Click to expand...
A lot of the older Canon lenses apparently had very fungus-friendly coatings. However, if it's on the barrel/mount rather then the glass, it's likely corrosion.
 
ProfHankD said:
Belgarchi said:
lattesweden said:
Belgarchi said:
- Minolta MD: tight focusing ring, white dots (fungus?)
Click to expand...
If the white dots refer to Minolta MD tele lenses with the white dots around the rear element at the baffle, then it is most likely Schneideritis you think of. A paint problem that first was encountered in Schneider medium format lenses, hence the nick name. Easy to fix, remove the old paint, paint new matt black with a modern type of acrylic paint (doesn't fume after it is dry).
Click to expand...
Thanks, interesting.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the catch is that the fumes also seemed to react with the lens coatings and some plastic parts. MD 135mm lenses seem particularly likely to have this problem. I don't know of a fix once the glass is affected....
ProfHankD said:
I didn't see in actual lenses, but saw often on Ebay photos, white dots inside Canon FD wide-angle lenses.

Any idea what these could be?
Click to expand...
A lot of the older Canon lenses apparently had very fungus-friendly coatings. However, if it's on the barrel/mount rather then the glass, it's likely corrosion.
Click to expand...
LENS 1:

My MC200/4 on arrival.
My MC200/4 on arrival.

Rear element seen from the front through the lens. The glass edges has some sort of problem.
Rear element seen from the front through the lens. The glass edges has some sort of problem.

After my fixing.
After my fixing.

LENS 2:

Unscrewed rear baffle on my MD200/4 shows how it looked upon arrival.
Unscrewed rear baffle on my MD200/4 shows how it looked upon arrival.

After my fixing.
After my fixing.

I haven't encountered any problem in restoring these two lenses, but the glass was only affected on one of them and it was easy to get what ever it was on the glass away with a toothpick.

The rear baffles I striped the paint on and then re-painted with Acrylics primer and then Acrylic matt black. Not really as matt as the original paint, which is why they used that sort, it was ultra matt. But obviously not so good over time.

--
Best regards
/Anders
----------------------------------------------------
42 Megapixels is the answer to life, the universe and everything.
You don't have to like my pictures, but it would help: http://www.lattermann.com/gallery
 
Last edited:
Exactly the same flaws with the MD lenses I have and I solved them alike.

Still have to get an ultra light absorbing paint that could enhance any internal part that reflects unwanted light. Vantablack for example. I have a suspicion that vintage lenses can benefit a lot by that, starting from the lens hood to the adapter internals.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !
 
E Dinkla said:
Exactly the same flaws with the MD lenses I have and I solved them alike.

Still have to get an ultra light absorbing paint that could enhance any internal part that reflects unwanted light. Vantablack for example. I have a suspicion that vintage lenses can benefit a lot by that, starting from the lens hood to the adapter internals.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !
Click to expand...
I have used Semple's Black 2.0.

It is not a very robust paint, and it doesn't kill NIR, but it absorbs light very well. It isn't really blacker than some black acrylics or even latex I've used, but it is remarkably matte. Probably the best non-hazardous reflection-absorber you can apply with a brush....
 
E Dinkla said:
Exactly the same flaws with the MD lenses I have and I solved them alike.

Still have to get an ultra light absorbing paint that could enhance any internal part that reflects unwanted light. Vantablack for example. I have a suspicion that vintage lenses can benefit a lot by that, starting from the lens hood to the adapter internals.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !
Click to expand...
Yes, I have also painted several of my adapters inside but it is hard to paint the chrome parts of the mount on the inside and get the color to stick. And too sand away the chrome, one finds brass under, which also is really hard to paint well since it oxidizes over time. There were a really strong two component primer that ate into the brass, we tried at the model railway club I was with (we built a lot of etched brass models), but it was hard to use as it hardened in 20 minutes after mixing and was really hard to clean out of the airbrush due to that and also hazardous so it was banned. The more modern alternatives are not as good in sticking on to the brass. And also one can't paint all parts around the mount since they glide on each other.

The Novoflex adapter is the best I have seen, it is matt inside and shields the mount from being seen from the sensor, so it does a good job of keeping reflections out. I compared it to a chinese no name adapter that was the usual shiny black inside and I could see in the images how they differed in some light situations. With the shiny adapter I got low contrast spots.

But even with the Novoflex, the sun flares comes when the sun is in the frame, those seems to arrive due to weaker coatings on these lenses (some Pentax lenses from the same age seems to be better at this, but on the other hand, one must also decide why one uses vintage lenses, is it to find an old lens as good as a modern one, or does one seek the vintage look).
 
Proplus888 said:
ProfHankD said:
lattesweden said:
Yes, I have also painted several of my adapters inside but it is hard to paint the chrome parts of the mount on the inside and get the color to stick.
Click to expand...
For aluminum parts (not chrome), there's Aluminum Black, which approximates black anodizing and can even take wear.

Here's an example of how I used it.
Click to expand...
For those who are comfortable with working with chemicals:

optical-black-coatings.html
Click to expand...
The non-toxic, water-base, Black 2.0 paint from Semple is about 2.5% reflective. The best flat black paints I've found are more like 3%-5%, but don't stay that low at angles.

Singularity Black is about 1.2% reflective. Singularity is not just chemicals -- it's chemicals and carbon nanotubes, both hazardous, baked-on at 300C. And the resulting surface is "no touch" -- incredibly fragile. Vantablack is even harder to use; it requires that the carbon nanotubes be grown to obtain the correct orientation for 0.2% reflectance, meaning it isn't applied to a surface but grown at high temperature.
 
ProfHankD said:
lattesweden said:
From what I can see, there are less lenses available and the asked starting prices are higher.

Just a local phenomena or have others noted the same?
Click to expand...
Well, prices are always increasing in general -- inflation. However, yes, in the USA there definitely has been a general increase in asking prices for most lenses... but not all.

Older manual-focus primes have definitely gone up. 135mm f/2.8 lenses that people couldn't give away for shipping cost five years ago are now commonly $30 or more.

However, certain types of lenses have actually gone down. For example, a clean Minolta Beercan (AF 70-210mm f/4) used to be in the $100+ range and now can be found for $30! It's a little hard to explain this, because the Beercan is really a very desirable lens: fast, good focal range, very solid IQ, with amazingly solid build. The same is true of the Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 : it's basically an AF version of the old Rokkor 50mm f/1.7 and used to sell for around $75, but is now often seen under $30. Part of why these have gotten cheaper is the huge volume of A-mount lenses made and the very small number of current cameras able to use them as AF lenses -- although they actually are perfectly workable as manual lenses on a dumb adapter, only a Sony A-mount body or LA-EA2/4 adapter gives full AF functionality. However, that's only part of the story....

I think the old lens market has fragmented into specific sub-markets. Instead of mostly people buying and using various old lenses, often favoring the ones they wanted or had years ago, I think you now have:
  • The collector/user: a person who wants specific famous lenses and is willing to pay to get them. Very brand sensitive; they own a fleet of Zeiss lenses and feel dirty if they touch a Vivitar. Catch phrase: "Look at that great 3D pop!"
  • The small thinker: a person who always wants the smallest, lightest, optic. This is how rangefinder lenses, and lenses from half-frame cameras, get pricey. At least Canon FDn lenses are light because they are made of plastic. Catch phrase: "I'm looking for a pancake version of that."
  • The "lomo" hipster: a person who wants the funkiest, most distinctive, lenses -- dramatically boosting the price of fairly terrible optics. Here I'm including the folks who will rush to buy any lens with an f/number less than 1.4. Catch phrase: "Bokelicious! It makes every photo a work of art!"
  • The old craftsmanship junkie: a person who wants only manual lenses that are in finely machined solid metal barrels, no matter the brand, and will forgive most optical issues in such a lens. These are the folks boosting prices of every manual lens in a metal barrel (especially zebras); often big fans of M42 Takumars. Catch phrase: "Silky smooth focus...."
  • The I-really-want-a-modern-lens user: a person who buys the lenses that seem most like current lenses, for example, buying current-production used lenses or looking for old lenses that are "modern" in various ways. Catch phrase: "What old lens should I buy to shoot ultrawide images?"
Ok, I'm overstating things in the above (hopefully, I didn't offend anyone too severely)... but it really is sort-of what's happening. The Minolta Beercan price went down not just because A mount is less popular now, but because it isn't a desirable object for any of those five niches of potential buyers. It's just a really nice and highly useful old AF lens. I expect Nikon Z will cause screw-drive Nikkors to have similar price drops....

Anyway, this has actually opened-up some old-lens-lens-buying opportunities. The correlation between pricing and optical quality was never very strong, but is now wildly poor. For example, there are some really great 200mm f/3.5-f/4 manual lenses out there that nobody wants because they are not Zeiss brand, are big/heavy, have clean "not artsy" renderings, might have a plastic aperture ring, and aren't AF zooms like modern lenses.

Incidentally, I've noticed one more trend beginning: old ultra-fast lenses are starting to get cheaper. Basically, this is because there are now cost-competitive modern lenses with even faster apertures so the hipsters are starting to buy them instead. I think this trend will continue.
Click to expand...
Hahahahahahah..so spot on even though at some point all of us in this forum or even MfLenses/pentaxforum etc fall into one of the categories...now after reading this ,if i should probably keep ahold of some of my lenses,was trying to thin down the herd but i got most of them for steals and they're the good stuff.:-)

BTW i've been wanting a beercan but the prices were silly awhile ago..might be time to revisit hahaha.
 
Nikon AIs <should> go up, because they should be a delight to use on the new Nikon Z6 and Z7.
 
ProfHankD said:
ProfHankD said:
l I expect Nikon Z will cause screw-drive Nikkors to have similar price drops....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Interesting read, Hank. I've got a Nikon 1 system as well as F lenses, and use the FTN adapter so I can use them on my N1 cameras. Features and the lack thereof will be the same as the new FTZ.

Although non-AFS lenses can't autofocus, exposure and focus confirmation work well, and I can zoom in to check focus in live view. Exposure and zoom focus aren't possible with dumb adapters, so other mounts are practically useless except for the "fun- factor" of using adapted lenses, so don't expect miracles with Nikon Z cameras unless other adapters become available.

As for your categories, you forgot one: The Cheapskate, like me. This photograoher is willing to buy an old lens only if it's a heck of a good deal, it might be fun to use every once in awhile, and the lens could be resold at a profit if it doesn't turn out as expected. Catch phrase: "Ooh, I better get my hands on that one before somebody else sees it, and I can easily sell it to Bernie for double that price!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
"Vintage" look with older Canon EF lenses on Mirrorless cams?
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
fairfaxian
F
gKorg
24mm vintage lens on sony FF
Replies
8
Views
1K
Parry Johnson
Parry Johnson
D
Looking for a vintage lens
Replies
3
Views
364
Travis Butler
Travis Butler
muncungliar
Canon mirrorless or dslr for old EF L lenses
Replies
10
Views
2K
ProfHankD
ProfHankD
A
Quick Review: Both versions of the 105/2.5 Nikkor
Replies
3
Views
13K
monte12345
M

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top