I've seen two SMCP-A* ED Macro 200/4 sell on eBay, and have not yet seen a
listing for one at any of the online stores I watch, including B&H, KEH,
Adorama and many others. One of them sold on eBay in March 2003 and the
other in June 2004. Their sale prices are recorded on page 6 of the June
upda
Don,
I happily paid a list member $750 for one several years ago. This is a really rare
lens. I've seen it go for over $1,000 (US) on ebay in recent months.
I shot next month's (Oct'05) PUG contribution with it.
Regards, Bob S.
>>From: Don Herring
Subject: Lens V
I don't remember the exactly value, but if the body looks clean, it should
go for at least USD800+. I have a new tripod adaptor for this lens btw,
anyone wants it? Make me an offer.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
I'm coming out of lurk mode to inquire about a site or book where I could
- Original Message -
From: "Don Herring"
Subject: Lens Value
> Greetings,
>
> I'm coming out of lurk mode to inquire about a site or book where I
could
> get an estimate on the current value of a lens? Specifically a SMC
A*
> 200/F4 Macro ED (if anyone k
Greetings,
I'm coming out of lurk mode to inquire about a site or book where I could
get an estimate on the current value of a lens? Specifically a SMC A*
200/F4 Macro ED (if anyone knows off the top of their head).
Any assistance would be appreciated.
Don
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/01/03 09:07AM >>>
>>> I was in my local pentax store today and the Pentax
>>> representative told them that the sensor size will probably
>>> change to a larger size before the *ist is released. So,
>>> something more to discuss...
[Well, this actually should not be attr
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Pearson"
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: Best lens value for the *ist-D
> Well, sometimes the best made plans...
>
> I was in my local pentax store today and the Pentax
> representative told them tha
Sigma 15-30 that i use is so-so in the corners
> and will be fine with an APS sized sensor.
>
> Herb
> - Original Message -
> From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 10:00
>
the Sigma 15-30 that i use is so-so in the corners and will be fine with an APS sized
sensor.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 10:00
Subject: Re: Best lens value fo
I was wondering about this. What lenses that had bad corner performance
are now viable options?
Steven Desjardins
The 28-70/4 at 28mm had a covering circle too small for 24x36. The
blackening of the corners was due to that and not to light fall-off
according to Popular photography. This will b
I have a Phoenix 19-35mm zoom, which has nice centre sharpness and excellent
contrast and flare resistance. However, at 19mm, the corners aren't really
good until it's stopped down to f/11.
With the *ist D this will be equivalent to a 28 to 50 mm lens, and since the
smaller CCD won't use the c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Here are some photos of a SMC Takumar 1:4/300 with tripod mount.
Hey -- great! That's clearly the same lens I've got, so now I just
have to track down a sample of that tripod mount! Wish me luck! :-)
-tih
--
Puritanism -- the haunting fear that someone, somewhere
This is identical to my SMC Tak 300/4. I'm sure it's original.
Paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Here are some photos of a SMC Takumar 1:4/300 with tripod mount.
> I got it used so I've no idea if it is original, but does match the one on
> the K 400/5.6 that I have.
>
> http://members.aol.com/
Here are some photos of a SMC Takumar 1:4/300 with tripod mount.
I got it used so I've no idea if it is original, but does match the one on
the K 400/5.6 that I have.
http://members.aol.com/rfsindg/t300-0.jpg
http://members.aol.com/rfsindg/t300-1.jpg
http://members.aol.com/rfsindg/t300-2.jpg
http
My SMCT 300/4 has a nice tripod mount. Bought it used, so I can't say
whether it came that way or mount was added latter.
Otis Wright
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
> Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > My 300/4 screwmount has a tripod mount. It's a Super Multi Coated
> > Takumar, the
Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My 300/4 screwmount has a tripod mount. It's a Super Multi Coated
> Takumar, the last of the screwmount 300s.
Mine is labeled "Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4/300", and does not
have the tripod mount. Got it for a song, because there was a loose
screw
y 2002 09:53:18 +0200
From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 300mm f4 screwmount lens- value?
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The screwmount 300/4s have a tripod collar; the K-mount doesn't.
I sure wish my screw mount 300/4 had on
Paul Stenquist wrote:
> My 300/4 screwmount has a tripod mount. It's a Super Multi Coated
> Takumar, the last of the screwmount 300s.
Mine too, though it hails from ~1963 and is "just" a
Takumar - 3.5 pounds worth of Pentax Brass 'n Glass
!8^D Bill
---
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The screwmount 300/4s have a tripod collar; the K-mount doesn't.
I sure wish my screw mount 300/4 had one, but it doesn't, and my
Pentax service tech says it's not just missing, either; it was never
there. Different models, maybe? Or did you ge
Andre and everyone else who chimed in- thanks.
I gotta stop getting carried away and not try to
buy up everything in sight that is remotely interesting.
I think I'll stick to K mount stuff from now on, I'm trying
to get away from screwmount other than what I already have.
Taka
-
This message is
I think I paid around $250 for mine. If it's the super multi coated
version it's a very good lens. Great contrast, great color.
TM wrote:
>
> How much is one of these things worth?
>
> You don't see many of these available, so it's hard to value.
>
> Then again, do I really need a 300mm lens?
AIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Nitin Garg
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 10:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 300mm f4 screwmount lens- value?
>
>
> On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 10:13:56PM -0400, TM wrote:
> > I can't find any screwmount info- if this lens opticall
Yeah, I didn't bid too high because it's a screwmount. I wonder
if a PDMLer got the lens?
Taka
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Nitin Garg
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 10:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 300mm f4 screw
Don't know how much one would be worth. But I love having a 300mm in my bag.
I use it quite often. :)
--
Nick Wright
http://www.wrightfoto.com/
--
>From: "TM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: 300mm f4 screwmount lens- val
>I can't find any screwmount info- if this lens optically is like
>the K300/4, then it sounds like a good lens, esp. for $140, no?
>
>Taka
Taka, the K-mount 300mm is optically different from the Super and SMC
Takumar. The 2 separate back elements of the screw lenses became 2
doublets. I'm sure
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 10:13:56PM -0400, TM wrote:
> I can't find any screwmount info- if this lens optically is like
> the K300/4, then it sounds like a good lens, esp. for $140, no?
140 is extrapolated price from keh's price. no gurantee you will find it
for that on ebay. with patientce you sh
I was watching this too, did one of you get it?
CW
- Original Message -
From: "TM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 9:53 PM
Subject: 300mm f4 screwmount lens- value?
> How much is one of these things worth?
>
&
I can't find any screwmount info- if this lens optically is like
the K300/4, then it sounds like a good lens, esp. for $140, no?
Taka
-
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'
About ~$140 on ebay. $225 on keh. (for super-takumar 300/4)
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 09:53:07PM -0400, TM wrote:
> How much is one of these things worth?
>
> You don't see many of these available, so it's hard to value.
>
> Then again, do I really need a 300mm lens? Hmmm.
>
> Taka
> -
> This
How much is one of these things worth?
You don't see many of these available, so it's hard to value.
Then again, do I really need a 300mm lens? Hmmm.
Taka
-
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
v
OK, you guys have talked sense into me. I just bought a 400. It's not a Quantaray,
ancient screwmount, or used off-brand. It's a genu-ine Pentax SMC 400/5.6 PKA,
(condition EX-), with original case and hood, for (drumroll, please) $394 plus $9.50
shipping from Adorama. Since a 77mm B+W multicoa
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 5:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)?
On 2 Jan 2002 at 8:11, Paul F. Stregevsky wrote:
> By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at
> 50 percent of the pric
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)?
I suppose this is where certain other brands have an advantage.
In photo stores, you can rent those lenses (and cameras) for a day
or a week, lenses you'd otherwise never use due to their high
prices.
Paul F. Stregevsky suggested:
> By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at
> 50 percent of the price is a better value. I propose an alternative
> definition of value: cost per photograph taken. By this definition, the
> cheapest lens nearly always must win.
Shou
Paul...
You're making a pretty solid argument for a high-end zoom such as
Sigma's 70-300 f 4 IF APO ( B&H $ 800.00) which has impressive
sharpness and color fidelity from 70 to about 200mmnot as "pure"
as all those primes but hey price per frame is pocket change
On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 08:11:02 -0500, you wrote:
>By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at
>50 percent of the price is a better value.
No, a really good lens is the least expensive lens, even if it costs
twice as much. You will be more likely to get the shot inst
My thanks to Shel and others who have pointed out the limitations of my assumption. To
my surprise and delight, you've given me reason to go for something a cut above
Quantaray. A memorable picture is worth more than the paper it's printed on or the
cost it took to print it.
Paul Stregevsky
[E
On 2 Jan 2002 at 8:11, Paul F. Stregevsky wrote:
> By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at
> 50 percent of the price is a better value. I propose an alternative
> definition of value: cost per photograph taken. By this definition, the
> cheapest lens nearly al
I suppose this is where certain other brands have an advantage.
In photo stores, you can rent those lenses (and cameras) for a day
or a week, lenses you'd otherwise never use due to their high
prices.
But no Pentex for rent.
I recently visited a store, not only did they not have any Pentax to
r
er it would take to get the 20%
increase. Some things can't be undervalued by overly simplistic math--what
those things are are different for different people.
Lens value for me is determined by how much I want it -- which depends on
a) how much I am willing to give up for it
b) how hard it wo
Cory wrote:
>How much is a lens worth if it's the one you needed to get the shot you
>want? Is Quality-per-use to be discounted? If each time you use the lens
>you are disappointed with its results, the lens may have a negative worth.
>OTOH, I would agree that it makes more sense for most of u
Paul,
How much is a lens worth if it's the one you needed to get the shot you
want? Is Quality-per-use to be discounted? If each time you use the lens
you are disappointed with its results, the lens may have a negative worth.
OTOH, I would agree that it makes more sense for most of us to buy the
, perhaps, that was a couple too many. Maybe I should have kept
it. Of course, some nature photographer may be putting it to great service
now.
Len
---
-Original Message-
From: Paul F. Stregevsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 7:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj
By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at
50 percent of the price is a better value. I propose an alternative
definition of value: cost per photograph taken. By this definition, the
cheapest lens nearly always must win.
Say I'm choosing a 400mm telephoto lens fr
44 matches
Mail list logo
