Silly money for 90 Angulon...

[Christopher Perez]

I'm blown away... maybe I should sell my newer 90Angulon... if I could get this much money (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=015&item=250036071397&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1)... Hmmm... with this much silly money laying around... I wonder how much I could get for a really nice recently CLA'd 21cm Heliar...

[Sheldon N]

Wow, $390 is indeed a good price for an Angulon. It is a Linhof select in mint condition and came with a Tech board so that helps explain a little bit of it. Your comparison article with the 110mm SSXL also probably didn't hurt Angulon values either. :)

I sold my Angulon for $125, but it wasn't nearly as pretty.

Now don't tell me you're thinking of ditching the 21cm Heliar! I know you have a collection of 210mm lenses, but I think that's one sale you'd regret.

Loaning it to me on the other hand, sounds much more reasonable.... ;)

[Frank Petronio]

That is a clean one with a late serial number. And I got $375 for mine with a 8 million # and a nice recessed Linhof board with a Gepe release adaptor (it was the best 90 Angulon of all time IMHO).

But I would only PAY $200 or so for one ;-)

[Christopher Perez]

Well, don't smack me silly for saying this but these commonly go for less than $125, mint or nearly mint. You should see mine (and I won't tell you what I paid for it), it's a real 'beaut in recent Compur shutter.

I must be a money pinching cheapskate. Or something. :)


... I would only PAY $200 or so for one ;-)

[Joseph O'Neil]

Ouch. I had trouble selling my Angulon this past year for $200 Cdn, and it was a later model Lindhof one too, and the shutter had been CLA'd only three years before hand. Go figure?

joe

[Alan Davenport]

It may seem like a lot of money for that lens, but the same buyer recently also bought a Linhof Super Technika that was described as, "In like-new condition, clean as a pin, all original and apparently barely used." Maybe he/she is trying to assemble a museum-quality kit? He/she has also bought several prints from other photographers; maybe it really is for a museum? The point I'm trying to make, is that there are sometimes good reasons for paying more than the going rate.

I try not to get too excited about how much other folks are willing to pay. I might be the seller someday. In fact, I have been. I once bought a filter for the going price of around $30, which I later ebay'ed for over $150. BTW, the buyer was delighted to have that filter at that price. Win-win. Woo hoo.

A wise man once told me, "When you buy something at an auction, you'll always have the satisfaction of knowing that you paid more for it than anyone else thought it was worth."

[walter23]

Ouch. I had trouble selling my Angulon this past year for $200 Cdn, and it was a later model Lindhof one too, and the shutter had been CLA'd only three years before hand. Go figure?

joe

I haven't had much luck on ebay either. Maybe people don't trust Canadian sellers (afraid of all that dripping whale fat from the lamps we use to light and heat our homes I guess).

[Jack Flesher]

Well, don't smack me silly for saying this but these commonly go for less than $125, mint or nearly mint. You should see mine (and I won't tell you what I paid for it), it's a real 'beaut in recent Compur shutter.

I must be a money pinching cheapskate. Or something. :)

Hi Chris:

At my age there is one thing I can tell you for sure -- and that is that things change ;)

You can get reasonable copies for $125-ish, but not really clean ones -- and Linhoff-badged versions are almost double the regular copies. I recently paid $239 for a very clean Linhoff-branded copy. I had watched for one for about 6 months, had been bidding ~ $200 on snipes for coated, very clean, Linhoff-badged versions, chrome or black shutter; I bid on 6 and never won one! Finally, out of frustration, I bit the bullet and bought my last one -- chrome Linhoff shutter -- at $239 on a Buy-It-Now. FWIW, the black shutter versions seem to go for ~ 30% more! Yes, I overpaid by maybe 20-25%, but at least I got lucky and did get a really sharp one with mint glass. Even more surprisingly, the color-cast is almost identical to my other Schneider lenses(!)

Have you priced what Gold Dot or Gold Rim Dagors are going for lately???

FWIW,

[Steve Hamley]

Have you priced what Gold Dot or Gold Rim Dagors are going for lately???



Jack,

Interesting comment that reflects what many of us think given the recent Asian interest in Heliars and late Dagors. I recently picked up a 10-3/4" Golden Dagor from a dealer and yes, I had to pay a high price for it. But it is an uncommon focal length (one I really like) and was in uncommonly good condition.

But I've also figured out from 1950s-1960s price lists that a 12" Golden Dagor or Gold Dot Dagor would be selling for north of $4,000 in todays money. A 14" Trigor would be a bit over $5,000 and no shutter. So sure you can't have your choice of these lenses for $300 any more, but I'm unsure if the $1,000 - $1,500 range most of these lenses now sell for is really out of line given any reasonable level of demand. Most modern used equipment will sell for about 40%-50% of new value.

BTW, I think new Apo Ronars sold for about the same high price when they were still in the catalog, and Schneider's website lists 240mm and 270mm G-Clarons new in shutter for about $1,500. So you could make the argument that a mint Golden or Gold Dot Dagor of equivalent focal length would not be unreasonably priced at a $750- 1 grand. But certainly considerably more than we've been used to in recent years.

Steve

[Frank Petronio]

FWIW, the late Linhof Angulon I had was as sharp as anything -- including a 90/4.5 Grandagon -- the only price you pay is image circle and performance at open apertures (you got to shoot it at F/16-22).

So for $239 you got a bargain ;-) Sure beats those long Canon primes doesn't it?

[Jim Rice]

Once I had purchased Margret (the magnesium C-1) the vintage (old) lenses were going for as much as the modern multi-coated stuff. Makes for an easy decision in my book.

[Jack Flesher]

Steve: I hear you -- and in fact am not complaining at all about what I spent, but only because I got a good one... And as Frank says, coming from the long Canon prime fold OR Leica lens fold, used LF lenses are a relative bargain!

~~

But I also see Chris' point: It is ridiculous to pay $250-ish for an old 90 Angulon when you can buy a practically new f8 90 SA XL -- an excellent and much more versitile lens -- for around twice that.

FWIW, in my case, I only use the 90 occasionally -- and then most of the time with my Betterlight scanning back which has a 3x4" capture area -- so the limited IC for 4x5 was not as much of an issue for me as the size/weight was when considering a stable of lenses that actually get into the bag... Thus I was willing to pay a bit extra to save the weight.

Cheers,

[Christopher Perez]

Makes recent used/mint Schneider Super Symmars look affordable, don't it? :)

For some reason I'm on this kick with Schneider Convertibles. Just had two solid days of studio work. It was all done with a 150mm Symmar Convert on 4x5 and 240 Symmar Convert on 8x10 and 5x8. Yikes, some of that stuff is sharp!

Then I did something really stupid. I took my $165 like new Xenar f/6.1 and worked an ancient Linhof Tech I 5x7. I'm smitten. There's not other word for it. No amount of money spent on more or supposedly better tools will ever make the experience more enjoyable or the results any nicer than they are.

I guess that's what facinates me these days. I feel like I'm watching humans pay HUGE sums of money for tools (for that's all lenses and cameras are) that won't cover for (in some? many? cases) lack of creativity.


Have you priced what Gold Dot or Gold Rim Dagors are going for lately???

[Jack Flesher]

LOL, Yes it does!

Like you, I am 'experimenting' with older glass and finding some true jewels -- one's with qualities I hope my limited creativity can actually exploit ;)

[Dan Fromm]

Jack, relatively poor amateurs like me have to make do with used gear bought, ideally, somewhat below market. Welcome to the club.

I have several reasons for not feeling too sorry for myself because I can't justify buying the latest most best lenses.

One is the very interesting set of lens tests published by the very Chris Perez who started this thread and his pal Kerry Thalmann. Those dangerous subversives found that not all lenses of the same make and model perform identically. Name doesn't guarantee that a lens isn't a clinker. And I read their results as saying that at the apertures most of us use most lenses made for LF deliver on-film resolution that's better than good enough. Big exceptions are modern ultrawides and telephoto lenses, which are usefully better than ancient really wide or long lenses.

Another is that most of the cheap oldies I've acquired shoot better than well enough for me. Most, not all. A few of them are just astonishing.

So, Chris, I'm astonished that you don't appreciate the results you and Terry worked so hard to get. Why do you lack faith in your work?

Cheers,

Dan

[Frank Petronio]

Money aside, although I know I can't afford to buy the best of the best modern LF lenses, is that it is just cool as hell to shoot something beautiful with an older lens -- and whether it is based on the len's sharpness, or bokeh, or speed, or smooth, lower contrast, or whatever quality -- gives you a result that is at least as good, if not better than the most expensive glass.

And that is what makes photography so cool to begin with. If you are a good photographer, a modest couple thousand dollar investment gives you quality tools that are just as capable as those used by the greatest photographers. You can use the same tools -- or better -- than Ansel Adams or Helmut Newton or just about anyone (short of long lens sports/wildlife/specialist photographers who need $$$ gear.) It's a very democratic medium, even low class people like myself can participate.

And being so damed democratic means we argue about lenses rather than saying "your work sucks"... true? ;)

[Dan Fromm]

Well, Frank, it depends. I expect that you'd poke me in the eye whether I told you that your work sucks because you used the wrong lens or that your work sucks, no explanation offered.

Cheers,

Dan

[Frank Petronio]

Well that is just it -- you can tell me that my old Wollensak is a crappy lens and I won't get offended. In fact, I'd be rather proud of it!

But tell me that the pictures I did of my daughter are no good and thems fightin words!

[Christopher Perez]

Ever one to hone a fine point to death (mixed metaphor, I know)...

Au Contraire. I do appreciate all the testing Kerry and I have done over the years. It's what showed me that good old lenses are the match for new multi-coated super wonders.

I play a little game with local photographers. I show them images I make and ask them which lens was used. I do this with both enlarged and contact prints. OK, so I work in B&W and color variations might give hints as to which lens is which. But I doubt even that is possible. :)

What sealed this for me was when I did that "real world" test between a pair of old B&L Protar V's with massive coverage and compared them against a Nikkor 200M. The coated Protar was so good that it took 160x magnification to detect any difference between it and the newer lens.

Granted, old lenses can be slow and some are darker on the groundglass than newer lenses. But a good lens is a good lens, right? :)

As several people have pointed out, new lenses many times give modern coatings, larger useable image areas, and mostly reliable shutters. All good things.

Given the choice between a lens of any kind (cheap or expensive) and making a wonderful image... there is no substitute for "vision" and "craft" and all the other things that go into outstanding image making.

/rant


...So, Chris, I'm astonished that you don't appreciate the results you and Terry worked so hard to get. Why do you lack faith in your work?

[Kirk Keyes]

OK, so I work in B&W and color variations might give hints as to which lens is which. But I doubt even that is possible. :)

Chris - I've got some Fujichrome Quickloads that we can use to test out this hypothesis sometime... We'll see if me and Jack are right after all...

[Christopher Perez]

TRUTH!

You said in a simple sentence everything I was trying to wrangle through in several paragraphs. :) :)



... And being so damned democratic means we argue about lenses rather than saying "your work sucks"... true? ;)

[Christopher Perez]

You're on! :)


Chris - I've got some Fujichrome Quickloads that we can use to test out this hypothesis sometime... We'll see if me and Jack are right after all...

[Kirk Keyes]

OK, Buddy - name a time and place!

[Dan Fromm]

Chris Perez wrote "I play a little game with local photographers. I show them images I make and ask them which lens was used. I do this with both enlarged and contact prints. OK, so I work in B&W and color variations might give hints as to which lens is which. But I doubt even that is possible."

Chris, I've already done the exercise with entirely too many lenses and Ektachrome. Short answer, as long as veiling glare is reasonably well controlled and exposure is timed accurately all of my lenses render colors the same, as I can discern looking at all of the slides on the same light table.

Two sets of exercises. One, poorly controlled, with relatively few lenses on 2x3. Lenses in shutter or on a Speed Graphic, same subjects, more or less the same light. No differences not clearly due to overexposure. The other, better controlled, with all of the lenses hung out in front of a Nikon N8008S set on aperture priority autoexposure. Several subjects, reasonably consistent ambient light within subject. No differences except blue casts when the sun was behind a cloud, and these disappeared on retest. A few of the lenses are perceptibly less sharp than the others.

There's no need to tell me that I'm blind to subtle differences or that I'm an insensitive clod. I plead guilty to both.

If you're interested I'd be happy to send you the 35 mm slides and a spreadsheet listing the lenses. Each slide has a code that identifies the lens used to take it, the spreadsheet won't have the codes. Your job will be to match slide to lens. I can't do it. Charlie Barringer couldn't do it. And when you've decided which lens took which shot, I'll send you the full spreadsheet, lens codes included.

Can't send you the 2x3 trannies, they're chez Emmanuel Bigler.

Cheers,

Dan

[Sheldon N]

I play a little game with local photographers. I show them images I make and ask them which lens was used. I do this with both enlarged and contact prints. OK, so I work in B&W and color variations might give hints as to which lens is which. But I doubt even that is possible. :)

I've been a victim of this silly game. I couldn't even separate the shots that were taken by a Mamiya 7 and a 4x5 with the 110mm SSXL. To be fair, the prints were only around 11x14, but still!

I'd be interested in your test of different lenses on color film. I did that once with three different 150mm lenses on Provia 4x5, and found the results interesting. I could see some differences in color rendition and contrast, which my wife stated were too subtle to be of any real importance.

I think I have to agree with her, at least the difference was subtle enough that I don't spend any more money doing lens tests on color film! :)