Quote:I just don't see the positive side of "lenses becoming outdated" 
Buying them S/H for a song?
If a lens is outdated and cheap, then it's probably
- broken
- very old
- with fungus inside
- damaged and the damage is hidden (decentered, automatic diaphragm doesn't work properly anymore)
- with a mount not fitting to any current camera body
- part of a heritage when the heir doesn't know about the value
- difficult to focus manually with a modern DSLR, less difficult with mirrorless
- difficult to get spareparts, if you forehand manage to find a repairer. (See Toni-A's cable problem)
Everything is just good for the adventurous types saving tons of money in getting a collection of lenses nobody has because nobody wants them [/irony]. In that case, "outdated" to me really meant a thing you need to tear apart bit by bit and clean and eventually fix it and put it back together. The other lenses like the Mark I types when there's a Mark II still have their prices and cost a bit more than a song. Probably there are some outdated lenses around which still are a jewel (and their owners mostly know about), but the cheap majority is mass production. I don't want to get a Revuenon, old Sigma, old Tokina, battered Vivitar and what their names were, they were third best choice at their time and today 5 € is too much for them to pay.
Quote:If a lens is outdated and cheap, then it's probably
- broken
- very old
- with fungus inside
- damaged and the damage is hidden (decentered, automatic diaphragm doesn't work properly anymore)
- with a mount not fitting to any current camera body
- part of a heritage when the heir doesn't know about the value
- difficult to focus manually with a modern DSLR, less difficult with mirrorless
- difficult to get spareparts, if you forehand manage to find a repairer. (See Toni-A's cable problem)
Everything is just good for the adventurous types saving tons of money in getting a collection of lenses nobody has because nobody wants them [/irony]. In that case, "outdated" to me really meant a thing you need to tear apart bit by bit and clean and eventually fix it and put it back together. The other lenses like the Mark I types when there's a Mark II still have their prices and cost a bit more than a song. Probably there are some outdated lenses around which still are a jewel (and their owners mostly know about), but the cheap majority is mass production. I don't want to get a Revuenon, old Sigma, old Tokina, battered Vivitar and what their names were, they were third best choice at their time and today 5 € is too much for them to pay.
You certainly see the bright side of the S/H market JoJu.......
It's certain that some will be broken...I have bought a couple of those......I have however returned them.......... actually never had a fungused one (just luck)........... lenses needing spares tend to be modern ones (focus motors and VR units) and the price of spares usually is as much as the lens is worth, as in my AF-S 70-300mm Nikor, they want 300€ + postage for a new VR unit, I could buy another for less!..........decentered lenses seem most common new.....but it's true that you can return them.
......But how you knew that I have a Revuenon MF lens up for sale I don't know!... 28mm F2.8, all metal and as perfect as new......
Even my next sort after lens can now be found S/H, the Sigma 150-600mm sport....let's hope it doesn't turn
out to be like one on your list........  
I think, Revuenons were mostly of russian or GDR origin. A friend of me was a big fan of Zeiss Jena at the time when GDR was a country and lots of Russian or Eastern country photographers made masterpieces without any CaNikon, japanese or western tech. So, from this aspect there's really nothing to say about those vintage glass - I just don't see them as better because they are made of metal.
After my 35 mm Sigma falling down with the camera from 1.5 m tripod to wooden floor, the floor was damaged. Camera and lens worked and to my huge surprise, not even the filter thread was bent - I had the same experience with the NIkon 24/1.4 and the metal filter thread had to be changed. But "metal is better than plastic" will remain in most heads in our generation because all of us knew some samples when metal WAS better than crappy cheapo plastic. It's only, that contemporary plastics are neither worse nor cheaper than metal 
I think Revue were a company who re-branded many makes camera including Pentacon, Chinon, Mamiya, Yashica...etc..
The Revuenon lens I have is marked Japan MC and from what I've gathered is a Chinon lens....I also had a nice Revue rangefinder camera, sort of Yashica style also Japanese..... I wasn't suggesting it was anything special optically but it was a typical decent average lens of that era.....and I see no reason why it shouldn't last for another thirty years though, I certainly prefer metal, but they are becoming a rarer breed.
Try not to drop the Sigma sport though..... :o
Indeed, most Revuenon lenses were of Chinon design/origin. And back then, Tomioka (Chinon/ Yashica) was one of the top lens designers/producers of Japan.
Revue was the German brand of cameras sold via warehouse-catalogues, at the beginning only and later in their own "Quelle"-shops or shop-in-shop segments of big supermarkets. Like Photo-Porst had their very own shops, they just labelled "cheap-to-get" gear for other unknown brands. Gear as well as films as well as an own printing lab. When Quelle collapsed, Revue disappeared as well. they were the ones selling M42 until the very end.
I don't recall they have ever rebranded Yashica, at least not after there was a Yashica/Contax mount. But the M42 models, maybe.
Quote:Revue was the German brand of cameras sold via warehouse-catalogues, at the beginning only and later in their own "Quelle"-shops or shop-in-shop segments of big supermarkets. Like Photo-Porst had their very own shops, they just labelled "cheap-to-get" gear for other unknown brands. Gear as well as films as well as an own printing lab. When Quelle collapsed, Revue disappeared as well. they were the ones selling M42 until the very end.
I don't recall they have ever rebranded Yashica, at least not after there was a Yashica/Contax mount. But the M42 models, maybe.
The lens is a Pentax PK baynet mount BTW.
02-01-2016, 12:37 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2016, 12:42 PM by Rover.)
I guess we may be speaking of two different types of "old"... The mid-20th century mechanical lenses sold under countless brands (some of which were cheap and some not so much), and the obsolete AF lenses like, say, Canon 16-35/2.8 non-II or the vaunted 50/1.0 L. The first category I don't know a whole lot about, the second, well... lack of spare parts is a known risk, but otherwise, some of those lenses are pretty decent. I had a Canon 17-35/2.8 L for over two years, and apart from a very conservative MFD (1.5 times that of its modern successors) and lack of weather sealing, that unit from 1996 was surprisingly modern and well-heeled. As a rule, of course, these lenses had been updated for a good reason...
|
