On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Mike Johnston wrote:
> It annoys me when people call a 40mm "rare."
I agree. It deserves at least a "RARE MINTY L@@K L@@K L@@K!!!", doesn't
it? <g> That being said, if I'm selling one, and I have space in the
title to slip a "rare" in, I'll definitely consider it.
> They're not at all rare. They show up every month or two, and
> sometimes there are two or three on the auction board at once.
But "rare" is relative, Mike. Surely, just because something is
relatively common on eBay is no indication that it is easy to find
elsewhere. And the 40/2.8 was sold as a standard lens, and I believe it
*is* the rarest standard lens of its time.
> There are half a dozen Pentax lenses that are rare,
I bet we can come up with more than that. :)
> and the 40mm isn't one of them. And there are a dozen Pentax lenses
> that are MORE rare than the 40mm.
Agreed, but that doesn't stop the 40mm from being rare (at least in a
relative sense). I can't count the number of 50's, 135's, and 28's that
I've seen come through Don's Photo, but I've only seen *one* pancake in
the two years that I've been there. Again, rare can be relative.
> Nothing against the 40mm, but the only thing remarkable at all about
> it is the high price it regularly fetches.
On that we're agreed. :) No one ever said that eBay prices had to make
sense.
chris
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
