Collecting Third Party Lenses for Fun and Profit

Do you enjoy using an older manual or electronic (non-autofocus) SLR?

Herbert Keppler suggests that you consider taking some steps now to ensure lenses will be available for your SLR in the future! (See March 1997 Popular Photography, Herbert Keppler's SLR Column, p.18).

Keppler warns that manual focus lenses are disappearing from catalogs of both OEMs and third party lens makers.

Prime lenses are also becoming rarer, with zooms displacing even the venerable normal lens.

Many of the newest lens designs are not being offered in non-autofocus mounts at all.

What's the recommended solution? Consider buying some interchangeable Tamron lens mount adapters today, while they are still available and cheap. And if you follow our suggestions below, you can also build up a collection of backup lenses at low cost.

What to do?

Ed Romney suggests that camera lenses are a better investment than even older mechanical cameras in good condition. His reasoning is that collectors and users alike will want to acquire as full a range of lenses as possible. Unfortunately, while many older mechanical cameras came with a normal lens, only a relative handful of owners purchased more than one or two lenses for their cameras. Most of these lenses are in the range of 35mm, 50mm, and 135mm popular in days of olde, but unpopular now. So demand for less common prime lenses and zooms in some mounts will go up faster than the demand for camera bodies. After all, one camera body may be enough for a collection, but not one lens!

I have suggested that interchangeable mount third party lenses represent a major opportunity for users of mechanical and electronic cameras. Using these interchangeable mount lenses, you can enjoy a lot of fun using a wide variety of camera bodies at the minimal expense of a few camera mounts. A few expensive and exotic lenses can be shared among many cameras in such a collection, further extending their use and satisfaction.

Keppler's article suggested that you should stock up on the adaptall mounts and related Tamron lenses now. As these classic camera fixed mount lenses get bought up by collectors, the utility of the Tamron interchangeable lenses will become even more useful.

With a few of the right mounts in hand, you will have a much wider set of Tamron lenses to choose from down the road to mount on your camera. The mounts are even more critical than the lenses, since you only need one or a few mounts to enable use of a large number of Tamron or other interchangeable mount lenses on your cameras.

Complicating this analysis are problems with the longevity of modern electronic cameras. For example, some photo industry figures have issued warnings about the limited life of LCD panels and related components in modern electronic cameras. These parts age and go bad even if they just sit on the shelf. In ten years, we could have a number of modern cameras turning into unusable paperweights due to the lack of replacement parts and chips.

In addition to this unsettling observation, you also have to consider how many new lens mounts and changes have been developed since the introduction of auto-focus camera models. Even in the early 1990s, Keppler at Popular Photography was asking if this rapid obsolescence of camera lens mounts was driven by avarice or necessity. After all, with fewer new in-coming SLR camera buyers, it makes sense to design cameras and their lenses to be obsolete every five years or so. As with American cars, this built-in obsolescence generates continual repeat sales to a captive audience.

What does this mean? I am suggesting that the decline in numbers of photographers means that the market will be smaller. High cost low volume prime lenses will become rarities. Already, you can only get 8mm nikon fisheye lenses on the used market.

As costs spiral upward, these older prime OEM and specialty lenses may appreciate in value due to low production or no production by down-sizing OEMs and third party lens makers. After all, Japan has been planning the sun-setting of their optical industry since the 1980s, and those days are here now!

Recommendations

My recommendations are that you carefully consider your photographic style and interests. Do you enjoy using non-autofocus, all mechanical or dual mechanical/electronic cameras? If the answer is yes, then you should consider buying lenses now, while they are still relatively cheap.

Although these pages focus mainly on third party lenses, I suggest that you look carefully at OEM lenses which are of high quality and still modest cost. If you have the resources, you may want to consider buying some of the better quality prime optics of more exotic focal lengths and speeds.

Similarly, take Keppler's advice and look into picking up those camera adapters and mounts for your favorite camera systems now. The T-4 and TX auto-diaphragm mounts and Tamron's later adaptall and adaptall-2 mounts may be very hard to find in the future.

In another page on backups in photography, I argue that you should have multiple bodies and backup lenses for your cameras. I suggest that third party lenses can provide a low cost way to purchase optics for your camera at today's rock-bottom prices.

If one of your camera bags gets stolen, you can still carry on with the backup camera bag and lens kits.

Since I have 3 nikkormats of similar type and vintage, I am inherently backed up for these cameras and can even use one body as a parts body to keep the others going if needed in the future.

In the last few years, I have focused on interchangeable mount lenses for my more exotic backup lenses (such as 8mm, 12mm fisheyes, 18mm, 21mm, 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, and 2400mm lenses).

I recently bought a used Pentax K-mount camera with four lenses and 2 strobes and a bagful of Cokin filters and accessories (for under $100 US, how could I resist?).

Thanks to my collection of interchangeable mount lenses, I only had to spend $25 for both a used T-mount and TX adapter to provide access to another 10 interchangeable mount lenses. See my point?

You can develop a series of backup lenses by starting with lower cost third party lenses (especially prime lenses). As you find yourself using these lenses, or being limited by their designs (speed, optical quality), then you can consider upgrading. The third party lenses can be retained as low cost backups for your best quality lens rig.

Conversely, you can pick up low cost third party lenses as backups to your current OEM lenses. When I am going on a trip to the (sandy and salty air) beach, I prefer to take the lower cost primes with me. When I am photographing spray paint art in the 'hood, I don't want my best and most stealable camera body and lenses with me either.

If you are certain that you will never add camera brands, let alone switch, then might safely ignore the issue of interchangeable mounts. But even here, if you have a fixed Nikon pre-AI mount, you have to pay $25-35 US to get it converted to AI for use on current cameras. If you have an AI adaptall mount or TX mount, you can just swap it out for the older Nikon mount.

I was struck while reading the Camera Collector book by an example of an older camera mounting a much later mount lens. This approach injected new life into the older camera body, enabling it to live on with the newer and better optics. Will you be able to do the same?

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: tsai@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Finnegan T. Tsai)
[1] Re: Nikon vs Non-Brand Name Lens
Date: Thu Dec 03 1998

Anders Svensson anders.eivor.svensson@swipnet.se wrote:

>A pretty useless remark.
>
>A sensible strategy for a beginning photographer is to look into the
>the future economic position of his expensive gear so he/she will
>maintain as much value therein as possible. Odds are that what you get
>today (especially as a newbie) will be exchanged.
>
>Look at the second hand value of a Tamron/Tokina/Sigma lens and compare
>that with the value when new. One value ("new") reflects what the buyer
>is hoping for, the other ("used") is telling what it really delivers...
>--
>Anders Svensson

A pretty useless remark, too.

The used lens market is a demand&supply; issue. Good lenses have a higher demand hence a better resale value. Overall Tamron/Tokina/Sigma lenses depreciate more because they produce more less quality lenses.

I cant see there is anything wrong to suggest a non-brandname lens to a beginner. As far as the quality is good, I cant see the lens will lose too much value. Even brandname lenses, percentage wise, keep value better. Still, the higher initial purchasement cost will offset the depreciation advantage. At the end, you lose the same amount of money.

For instance, Nikkor 70-210/4-5.6 AF costs about $270 new. Based on the B&H; catalog, a condition 9 used Nikkor 70-210/4-5.6 AF is $170. Tokina 70-210/4-5.6 is $134 new. Condition 9 used is $79. You actually lose less money to sell a Tokina lens! Again it is the quality of the lens which matters.

Another typical example is Tamron's 28-200. It is an Ok lens for the range it covers; however, since it is quite popular, the resale value isnt bad.

Based on your view, everybody should buy Zeiss/Contax lenses. I found out that percentage wise, Zeiss lenses have the best resale value.

-finney

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: ed romney romney@edromney.com
[1] Nikon lenses and the alternatives
Date: Sat Dec 05 1998

What is nice about Nikon lenses is there is no variation in a batch. With other lenses you have to buy several and test and select the best. For info on the Nikon read B Moose Petrerson's Nikon System Handbook ISBN 0929667034. It covers every lens and is quite honest. Get it from Amazon.com. The MF Nikon lenses are about $100 used in stores, a bit more for zooms and fast WA. Locally Nikkormats are $25-$30 in yard sales with lenses. That is a rare bargain.

Other brands of lenses are more variable or worse and it is hard to get truthful ratings of them... Konica or Mamiya DTL or Ricoh for example. Lower resale value too. When Nikon stuff was still very expensive I used E German Zeiss. NY sold the Flektogons, Sonnars and Pancolars for $50 to $100 new about 1968. But they had rather Mickey Mouse diaphragms. I had to work on them and smooth them up. I shot most of my books with these in the 1975-1990 period. I did find a Componon enlarging lens on extension tubes was better and more convenient than any macro lens.

The web page http://www.edromney.com was mostly made with a IIIA Leica I bought for $100 three yrs ago. I replaced the Summar with a Russian Jupiter F2 50mm that cost me nothing. I bought a Zorky for $75 with that` lens and sold it for the same price without lens you see. SM Leica is the most compact camera I know which is really tops. Now that old German Zeiss stuff is worth as much as the Nikon lenses to collectors so I am unloading it. Bargains in MF Nikon today are like $500 Mustangs and Corvettes during the energy crisis..Snap them up. Info like this cannot be published in the controlled photo media.

Yours faithfully, Ed Romney

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001
From: shino@ubspainewebber.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica investments

in my opinion, you should do it because you love it.

it's like collecting cars or coins.

while apparently rising prices may at first blush appear to be indicative of an "investment opportunity," consider that camera trading takes place under the following (interrelated) conditions:

1) wide bid-ask spreads - the price you'll receive for your equipemnt will be much lower than what you would pay for it. in the capital markets, you're typically talking a bid-ask spread of a few percent, and often far less than that.

2) cameras are not fungible instruments, age and condition differ markedly. in the capital markets, you buy or sell standard assets.

3) low transaction volume. you may get a good price, but not necessarily when you need it. in the capital markets, exchanges or market-makers stand ready to make bids or offers on securities.

4) small number of transactors, contributing to the above.

5) prices and other information are not disseminated in a complete, accurate or timely manner.

6) cameras has a high cost of carry, in that they must be given space, proper storage conditions or maintenance to best hold their value.

7) cameras provide no dividends or interest. (unless joy of ownership is counted! :-) ) your only potential profit is capital gains.

one thing my camera buying has in common with financial investment is what warren buffet said: "the ideal holding period is forever!"

- -rei

       

       


From: eromney eromney@zianet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: "Iron Cameras"
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002


This term is used by the sophisticated camera  traders and camera store
owners. It will help you greatly in your buying and selling in the photo
marketplace if you understand this concept.

"Iron Cameras " aren't literally made of iron. They are made of brass
and aluminum with some stainless steel parts and satin chrome plated or
black. They are to be differentiated from recent cameras made of plastic
or polycarbonate with plastic parts. They are worth buying because they
are going up in value every year. They are investment grade. By "Iron
Cameras" we do not just mean classics such as Leica and Rolleiflex. We
mean most any good metal 35mm camera including, Canon Ftb, F1, Minolta
SRT 101, Olympus OM-1 and OM-2, Konica Autoreflex, Nikon FTn, F2,
Nikormat, Pentax Spotmatic and K1000, Kodak Retinas, Exakta, Mamiya DTL
and C330, Bronica, Ricoh Singlex, Zeiss Contaflex, Contarex, Minox
Submiature, Stereo Realist and some Voigtlanders and other similar
cameras of good quality. . Clever camera stores are now placing large
ads to buy this type of camera. The new cameras they sell today are
worth very little if you have to sell them. An example: Last week I
bought in a flea market in Chesnee SC a nice looking, working Canon
Shur-Shot of recent vintage, autofocus , but not zoom, for $10. It cost
nearly $200 a few years ago.

    If you remember  this information, maybe print it out, you will do a
lot better in your camera trading in the photo marketplace, and work
like the big time operators.

Yours faithfully, Ed Romney

End of Page