> >>> Now why in the world would you compare an f1.4 with an f2.0? >>> >> I would compare a high-quality, sharp, high-resolution lens with >> another >> high-quality, sharp, high-resolution lens. Maximum aperture isn't >> everything. >> > > I agree with Shel. If I were looking to compare pricing of equivalent > purchases, I'd look between lenses of similar speed. If I were > looking at performance, I might consider two lenses of different > speeds depending upon what I was looking for. > I thought you were talking about the FA50's sharpness or whatever, and thus looking at a performance characteristic different from the speed. But maybe I got your post confused with a different one. And also that we were discussing value for money, which isn't exactly the same thing as "equivalent purchases". I think if you do, you should compare with a somewhat broader range of alternatives.
I wouldn't deny that Pentax lenses in general are better value for money than most lenses of other brands, of course. Heck, I got a Pentax system mainly because I thought this was the case. I've had my doubts about the used FA50s, however. Given the price of Leica equipment, I'd assume that it's still better value for money than that (unless perhaps you see your purchase mainly as an investment), but maybe not by quite as much as your price comparison would seem to indicate. > There are plenty of high-quality, sharp, high resolution lenses in > the world. I was contrasting the price of two 50mm f/1.4 lenses of > comparable performance. > > >>> Now a Pentax 50/2.0 can be had for $10.00 Summicron 50mm >>> lenses have sold used more in the neighborhood of $500 - $800 >>> depending on >>> the exact model and condition. >>> >>> >> Actually, some have sold for less. It think I've seen something >> like $300. >> > > Some *ancient* Leica 50mm f/2 lenses (30-50 years old) have sold for > $300. But go to http://www.keh.com and look at Leica M Summicron-M > 50mm f/2 lenses made in the past 25 years and I think you'll find > that the average USED price is around $800 apiece. I suppose you are right. I haven't checked Leica prices that carefully... I don't think age *as such* should matter, though. I mean, it should be regarded only of old means lower performance. Which I suppose it often does, but there are people who claim that Summicron 50s from the 50s (!) are the "sharpest lenses in the World". (Now, I must stop believing what I read on the Internet...) > A NEW price for > that lens is $1,450. Since I was comparing against NEW Pentax lens > prices, the price of a used example is irrelevant. Yes, but the thread was originally about the high price of used FA50s. > AS is the price of > an f/2 lens compared to an f/1.4 lens in the context which I was > making the comparison. > > >> But we weren't discussing "a 1.4 lens". We were discussing a certain >> Pentax lens that someone said were almost as good as a much more >> expensive Leica in terms of sharpness, resolution etc. >> > > That would be me. I compared the price of a Pentax FA50/1.4 with a > Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. The Pentax holds up pretty damn > well for a lens that that is priced at less than 8% as much as the > Leica lens. > In what ways? I mean, where you talking about the sharpness, or contrast, or... Or just the performance in general? At any rate, perhaps a comparison with Canon or Nikon would be more relevant. I've noticed that both these producers offer 50s that are considerably less expensive than the FA50/1.4. Yes, they are slower, but Pentax does not seem to offer a slow 50 - besides the 50 macro, i.e. the FA50/1.7 appears to be gone. The Canon EF50 USM 1.4 (or whatever), on the other hand, is definitely more expensive than the Pentax, while the AF Nikkor 50 f1.4 is roughly in the same price range (as the FA50) around here... - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
