Taking a "Bath" in glass....

[Kodachrome25]

Well boy do I feel really stupid, as a business owner I usually make more sound decisions than this, but here goes:

When I first started out in LF a bit over a year ago, I did not know how much things really cost. So I sought out what I thought were ideal lenses initial lenses for me and they indeed did turn out to be great. I located and bought a 90 Caltar, 135 Apo Sironar N and 180 Apo Symmar, all have worked great. The 135 was and is the most important focal length for me, it just works. But I made a mistake in getting what I did, mostly in what I paid for it...and now I am fully taking a beating on the re-sale. I hunted high and low for a good used 135mm Apo Sironar N and was finding that ebay auctions were closing at around $400 for a good used one, but none were to be found. So I bought a like new one from KEH for over $600.

The lens turned out to be bitingly sharp, the most impressive lens I have had up to date, even more so than the famed Fuji 240A, etc. And it is tiny too, really nice as a super light lens for hiking. But I got the itch to try out the much heralded fatter sister, the S, talk about a hard lens to find used for a decent price. One finally came up in the classifieds on here so I took the plunge and got it, not a deal by any stretch but not far off what they seem to go for.

So now I am so frustrated, I feel like selling the S before I even get a chance to use it because I can not even get a lousy $350 for my N version, it just sits in the corner of my office unused. I don't need a lens collection, I need a working tool kit.

Anyone want to buy an S? Because no one seems to want to buy the N for even half of what I paid for it...:mad:

[Corran]

Looking at the big picture, that's not much of a loss.
Consider for a moment what new glass costs.
Think of it as a rental fee and move on :)

[vinny]

Yeah, I've bought nearly all of my lenses here for much less than any online retailer sells them for. The only lens I bought new was a schneider 150 when I started out and I lost a couple hundred when I sold it. I've bought used only when steals have showed up here since then.

[Kodachrome25]

It's just frustrating, I am not sure how much I would even get for it now, certainly not less than $300? It's like brand new for pete's sake and if there is any "Sample Variation" going on in this lineup, this one is a surgical scalpel it's so sharp. I should shoot the two side by side, I bet I hardly see a difference.

I'm butt-hurt because I never get burned like this, oh well....

[Ari]

Consider yourself fortunate.
In 1999, I spent $600 on a Polaroid 190, bought P/N film for it, and used it for a few days before it stopped working, shutter included, and I found that I had bought a dud.
Since it was less than a week after the sale, I took it back to the used shop where I bought it.
The guy who sold it to me refused to even consider a partial refund on the broken shutter, and back then I really had no spare cash.

I have several stories like this where I've lost money outright, and had no means of selling the gear or getting a refund.

[Colin Robertson]

Hey, if you want to take a beating buy a new car (automobile). Park it in a garage, never use it, sell it three years later for thousands less than you paid.
I once bought a beautiful Rover saloon, 20 months old, 30K miles, unmarked, for less than half of it's new price. Lucky me, sad Vendor.
Sorry about the loss on your lens but it could be worse. Hell, you could be trying to sell a last generation top flight DSLR . . .

[jeroldharter]

I sold my 135 Caltar for $185 if I recall.

If a particular lens (or camera, etc.) suits you best, paying a premium is fine. But a premium is a premium - you won't recoup the cost by reselling it.

[Kodachrome25]

If I get half of what I paid, I will take it and just move on. But if I can not even get that, then I will sell the S version and just keep it.

[Bruce Watson]

There are many learning curves to LF. This is just one.

Almost anything worth pursuing takes time and money. Plenty of woodworkers have tools laying around that they don't use anymore. I know painters who have thousands of dollars in paints they they aren't using, and whole collections of brushes they now find unsuitable. Potters who build newer better more specialized kilns every year.

Learning curves are a PITA. But it's the price that has to be paid. Pay it, move on, and use that hard won knowledge to make the photographs you want to make.

[John Kasaian]

If I get half of what I paid, I will take it and just move on. But if I can not even get that, then I will sell the S version and just keep it.
Keep the one that performs the best for you. You've already paid your tuition--- when starting out, one lens is plenty---in fact it might be all you really need!

[AtlantaTerry]

K25: keep the lenses. Eventually they will all go up in value. Congratulations, you now have GAS.

(Gear Acquisition Syndrome)

[dionsees]

I have to agree with the others here...once you've paid a premium price for a lens (in regards to the current market value), to get half of that value in later resale (especially in the face of changing market values) is actually pretty darn good. You're not alone in your frustration, I've heard other photogs gripe about how "little" they could get on items they bought at much higher prices, but why assume that your vocation is somehow exempt from the logical rules of supply and demand and changing values you see and acknowledge in virtually any other area. Your car...you lose 20% of value the moment you drive it out of the lot. Your computer...maybe plenty capable several years down the line, but still effectively worthless in ridiculously short time. How about your "top of the line" DSLR from just a couple years ago? We understand why all those things lose value, but our emotional attachment to the things we really love (in this case, our beloved optics) doesn't allow us to see reality. The normal direction of value for any goods is down, not up, and half price is a testament to just how GOOD our lenses hold their value. Join the club...if you don't want the lens sitting there collecting dust, suck it up and take the loss. Seriously, it's the right thing to do.

[lbenac]

You paid a big premium for the Rodenstock branded one either as a conscious choice or not knowing the existance of the Caltar.
Inasmuch as the Clatra is the exact same lens most of the people here would not make the same choice and are very happy with buying the Caltar version.
What you need is some patience and wait for somebody that really wants the Rodenstock brand and not the Caltar equivalent.
Otherwise as you are finding out, you will not get much of a premium over the $200~300 the Caltar fetches.
At this time everybody is enjoying the last weeks of summer and not really looking that much at equipment :-)

Good luck.

[Kodachrome25]

Of course I know better now, at least I can write off the loss......I'll sit on it, maybe it will hatch like an egg..:-)

[vinny]

You paid a big premium for the Rodenstock branded one either as a conscious choice or not knowing the existance of the Caltar.
Inasmuch as the Clatra is the exact same lens most of the people here would not make the same choice and are very happy with buying the Caltar version.
What you need is some patience and wait for somebody that really wants the Rodenstock brand and not the Caltar equivalent.
Otherwise as you are finding out, you will not get much of a premium over the $200~300 the Caltar fetches.
At this time everybody is enjoying the last weeks of summer and not really looking that much at equipment :-)

Good luck.
It is NOT the exact same lens. 1.the Sironar-S has more coverage 2. is sharper, and costs $$$$ because of 1 and 2.

[Kodachrome25]

It is NOT the exact same lens. 1.the Sironar-S has more coverage 2. is sharper, and costs $$$$ because of 1 and 2.

I don't think that is what he meant, the comparison was between the 135 Caltar-II N and the 135 Apo Sironar N, the S you refer to is the one I replaced it with. From what I can tell on the ground glass, both my N and S look the same with no movements. It is when I get to the outer part of the image circle of each that I bet I would see a difference. In the end, I am not sure the upgrade to the S was really worth it, the N is just that out of this world sharp.

[lbenac]

Yes the Sironar-S and the Sironar-N are different as it has been said million of times but if you read carefully what I was writing it is in reference to the Sironar-N and the Caltar-N which are the same lenses.
My point is that if you paid a premium to get a Sironar-N i.e. $600 you might not be able to pass this premium along if people in the know purchase the Caltar-N instead <$300 unless you wait for somebody wanting specifically the Rodenstock branded - N.

cheers,

Luc

[Erik Larsen]

Just keep it and try to sell it in the spring when people are getting out of hibernation and need an excuse to buy more gear. It's a weird market, lenses are getting hard to sell, but try getting 8x10 film holders, people are asking double what they were a couple years ago. It'll swing back your way someday if you can wait and aren't hard up for cash now? Or you're decision to keep it and sell the s version might be a wise move also if you are happy with results of the n?
Erik

[Kodachrome25]

It never fails, as soon as I whine, I dine, it just sold, awaiting payment...

[Erik Larsen]

It never fails, as soon as I whine, I dine, it just sold, awaiting payment...

:-)

[Dan Fromm]

Well boy do I feel really stupid, as a business owner I usually make more sound decisions than this, but here goes:

<snip>

The lens turned out to be bitingly sharp, the most impressive lens I have had up to date, even more so than the famed Fuji 240A, etc. And it is tiny too, really nice as a super light lens for hiking. But I got the itch to try out the much heralded fatter sister, the S, talk about a hard lens to find used for a decent price. One finally came up in the classifieds on here so I took the plunge and got it, not a deal by any stretch but not far off what they seem to go for.

<snip>

You gave up a lens that has more coverage than you can use and a small pot of money for a marginally, if at all, better lens that has more coverage than you can use. What part of "good enough means good enough" don't you understand?

Read this: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html , go here https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=8D71BC33C77D1008!324 and look at the lenses' claimed coverage and MTF curves. Then take a cold shower, stop beating yourself and put it all, regrets included, out of your mind. Focus on improving your technique, not on getting better equipment. The returns will be greater.

[jeroldharter]

The 135 N does not have great coverage for 4x5. That is the main reason I got rid of mine. The 135 S has more room for movements.

[Dan Fromm]

The 135 N does not have great coverage for 4x5. That is the main reason I got rid of mine. The 135 S has more room for movements.

Rodenstock claims 200 mm for the 135-N, 208 mm for the 135-S, both at infinity and f/22. How do you use yours?

[Oren Grad]

Dan, I agree with Jerold on this. It's not that hard to run out of coverage on 4x5 with the 135 N. The S does make a noticeable difference for me. Yes, I own both and I asked them myself. :)

[Dan Fromm]

Oren, how do you use your lenses? I asked after taking a look at coverage claims and MTF curves. The curves give the impression that the two lenses perform similarly at f/22 and that the -S is much better at larger apertures.

[Kodachrome25]

I ran into lack of coverage occasionally while in the California Redwoods, so opting for the generous image circle of the 180 Apo Symmar and the huge image circle of the Fuji 240A, I was able to do a lot. I just picked up a Nikkor M 200mm F8 as a super lightweight pairing to the 135, not a ton of coverage at 210mm but good enough for non-forest work. The 180 is fantastic for trees and architecture at 263mm @22.

I was less concerned about coverage at first, now a few hundred sheets later and I get it. Out of 8 lenses, only one is low on coverage, my 65 Grandagon at a tight 170mm. I hardly use it but I don't see any other alternatives as the XL's all need massive center filters that will not allow add on filters and cost a bundle. At least with the 65, it is still small-ish, lightweight and uses 77mm filters on the center grad.

The 110XL is always tempting, but for a third the price, my Nikkor SW 90mm F8 is just outstanding and has plenty of coverage at 235mm.

[Sal Santamaura]

One significant coverage factor with these two lenses relates to filters. Both of them have bulbous front elements that collide with most filters.

The 135mm Apo Sironar N image circle is substantially decreased when a filter is used. The only 40.5mm filter I've found that doesn't collide is made by Heliopan. However, both it and step-up rings used with larger filters vignette that 200mm coverage significantly.

The 135mm Apo Sironar S is compatible with B+W 49mm Slim filters. Even when screwed all the way in, there's no collision with the front element and no reduction of the 208mm image circle.

It's not difficult for anyone who uses filters and shoots verticals where more than minimal rise is needed to run out of coverage with the N. The S almost eliminates that problem. Whether one is sharper than the other is a separate question. I have both and expect that any sharpness differences between them is no greater than sample-to-sample variation within their respective types.

[TheToadMen]

If you can't get a good price for it, give it away to a poor photography student (or so) and get at least a good feeling :)

It is called "pay it forward" which means he promises you - in due time - to help someone else for free when an opportunity arises.

And he could send you some images the next few years as a thank you.....

[TheToadMen]

Of course I know better now, at least I can write off the loss......I'll sit on it, maybe it will hatch like an egg..:-)

... or crack like an egg ??

[Kodachrome25]

Like I said earlier, it sold yesterday for a good price I can live with.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

The difference in image circle between the Apo Sironar S and APO Sironar N/Caltar IIN is marginal at 135mm. Typical used price differential is so vast (particularly with the Caltar) that you might buy a 210mm N version with the savings for those times when you need extreme moves.