Pricing Nikon used manual focus lenses

In an AF and digital world, I am puzzled by the high prices places

like Keh.com charge for used manual focus Nikon lenses.

 

In many cases, used manual focus lenses cost the same, or more, than

new, slightly slower, AF lenses.

 

Are there really so many manual focus users out there who are keeping

prices like the 24mm f2 so high? Why haven't prices deteriorated?

 

Where are the bargains?

 

Thanks....

The manual focus lenses take phenomenal pictures in the hands of a good photographer.

 

They are built to last.

 

Some, still have no equal, in the eyes of many users.

I have an F100 and 80-400 VR for photographing sports and wildlife. However, even though I have the newer AF 17-35 and AF 200 Micro, I always use them in manual focus mode. I didn't know I would do this this when I purchased them, but I could have easily purchased manual focus lenses instead and been very satisfied and saved a lot of money.

Legends like the 35/1.4, 105/2.5 and 75-150/3.5E have no AF equivalents but are still perfectly usable on all current Nikons, including DSLR's. If there was no backward compatibility, I'm sure the prices will be much lower. And like DJ said, these lenses were built to last forever.

Roger; there are some of us who have used Nikon manual focus lenses since the 1960's. We still use MF camera bodies; and like fast lenses. Many of the AF lenses when used on a MF camera seem like "Toys R US" in quality; the plastic helcoids have a real odd focusing feel. The older Nikons such as the F and F2 have many specialized focusing screens that allow for rapid focusing. Many of the new AF cameras have MUCH dimmer viewfinders that are not good for Manual focusing rapid sports objects. That all said; many of the MF lenses are being bought by users who always wanted these lenses; but could not afford to buy them. The prices will not instantly drop in half; because there are still alot of manual focus cameras still making money for photographers.

yep, i luv them too. if you don't need AF, the ai and ais are great.

the pre-ai are good too if you have the F. they are tough and better for

focusing by hand.

 

there's really no AF 35mmf1.4, 24mmf2, 28mmf2 unless you want to spend a $1000 on the 28mmf1.4 the 1002.8, 75-150mmf3.5 are good for around $125. let's see the AF for that price.

In Leica Thread mount; the 10.5cm F2.5 Nikkor seems to fetch easily 300 dollars on E*Bay; while the lesser used 13.5cm F3.5 LTM Nikkor goes for less. The 8.5cm F2 Nikkor in Leica thread mount holds its price well too. These late 1940's (some 8.5cm ) and 1950's lenses have good robust lens coatings; while the Leica lenses have problems sometimes. <BR><BR>With these "manual focus" Leica thread mount lenses; there are many users still using LTM and M series Leicas with adapters. I really doubt these LTM lenses will every be really low cost.

Roger:

 

I recently looked at an MF 24mm 2.8 and the price for a new one floored me, so I bought an excellent used one for about 300 Cdn or 200 US.

 

I guess the lower numbers mean they now can charge more as the market is specialized and perhaps resigned to higher prices. I also am sure that the build quality is better than teh plastic lenses, so do cost more.

 

I also recently got the 45 mm 2.8 pancake for my FM3a and was surprised at the high price, but again-specialized market, smaller production run, so I paid. It seems they are in the same business as Leica comemorative issues without the fancy dragons or other graphics.

 

I also recently bought a new Seagull 24 mm 2.8 in Shanghai for my Seagull DF1(copy of a Minolta MD. That used camera and an excellent 58 mm 2.0 lens with a real leather case was only $40 US in Shanghai) for about $60 US and it is optically indistinguishable -to me so far-from the Nikon, but of course mechanically it is not as solid. Very very good, but not Nikon quality.

 

Where are the bargains I hear you plaintively crying?

 

There are excellent MF Russian lenses for Nikons, made for the Kiev 19, such as the 35mm 2.0 Mir, the 50mm 2.0 Helios and the 10mm 2.5 Kalenar. I don't know where they can be bought new in N America, (try Kiev USA or another result from a Google search) but I got mine used for less than $150 US total for all three.

 

I'm lucky in that they are all good mechanically as well as superb optically. If you don't mind the reverse snob appeal of the Russian lenses, they offer a great alternative to $800 + Nikons.

 

Cheers

It is not just Nikon. Look at all the big name manual lenses and you will see the same thing. It is supply and demand and clearly a lot of people (myself included) prefer them.

In Camera lines that have abandonded their lens mounts; prices will be low; until the collector appeal starts. My friend bought a Canon R body with jammed shutter and good 50mm fast F1.4/1.8? lens for 1 dollar. This was the Canon SLR before EOS, F, FL, etc. It was made in 1959. Since then Canon has changed its lens mounts twice again. Nikon has the same bayonet since 1959; while Canon has had 3 different mounts; Minolta 2?; Olympus 2?; etc etc. Since Nikon has the same lens bayonet since 1959; prices will hold up very well.

The extraordinary longevity of Nikon mount compatability is probably the key. Even the great divide of MF/AF had little effect until quite recently, as newer mid-price bodies and G lenses begin to saw away at the connections between 1959 and the present.Canon and Minolta stranded MF users with few apologies. The only bargains I've found among Nikkors are older non-AI lenses that somehow survived.

<i>Are there really so many manual focus users out there . . . ?</i>

<p>

Yes. I run an e-mail discussion list on the subject of Manual Focus Nikons, and we have 1,700 subscribers.

<p>

Like anything else, it's supply and demand. As others have said, 24/2.0 and 35/1.4 AIS are sought after lenses and are likely to remain high. OTOH, I recently priced out the following kit from my Cousin who has owned it since his tour in Vietnam: Nikon F2 Photomic, 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 105/2.5, 200/4.0 (all pre-AI); I was stunned that this totals up to about $425 at KEH 'Bargain' grade. That's a lot of high quality gear for $425.

About a year ago, I tried to sell my N8008 (F801) and FE2 bodies, both in mint condition. When I bought them new back in the late 1980's, the N8008 cost roughly twice as much. Well, I had a hard time selling the N8008 but there were several buyers for the FE2. I eventually sold the FE2 for like 30% more than the N8008. More interestingly, the guy who bought my FE2 was a Canon user with a decent EOS system, but he somehow wanted to get a manual-focus system and the FE2 was the first item. He also ordered a new AI-S lens from B&H to test the camera with.

 

To me, it didn't make much sense to add Nikon MF on top of Canon EOS. But since he was buying my FE2 at the price I asked for, I didn't think it was wise to ask. Maybe those who really love MF cameras can explain.

I'm also surprised, as you are Roger. The manual focus Nikkor 28 f/2.0 AIs -new- at B&H is $580! Hmm, well that is a lens you almost never see on Ebay.

<p>One other thing to note regarding the digital SLRs: they all will accept the manual focus Nikkors, but only the D1/D1H/D1X will meter with them (center weighted). The D100 and Fuji's S1 and S2 cannot meter with an MF lens. That alone scares me off from the D100.

<p>And here's another vote for the 75-150 3.5 E. I was just looking at some slides last night and thinking, this lens is never going up for sale. It has a pleasant sharpness and it's rugged, and it surprises me just how useful that focal length is. The push-pull zoom, well . . .

<i>

Maybe those who really love MF cameras can explain.

</i>

<p>

With manual focus, the acts of focusing and composing are done fluidly and simultaneously. The entire screen is your 'focus point'. With an AF system, you need to put the focus point on your subject, lock AF, recompose, shoot (not always, but often). AF cameras can of course be used in MF mode, but the 'tooth' of the focus screen on a good MF camera is superior for focusing compared to what you find on an AF camera.

<p>

I use both. I generally settle into the pattern of using an F100 for flash work and where AF is desirable. I use an F2 or F3 mostly with fast prime lenses for available light work.

<p>

For some of us, it may be about using tools that inspire us. There are a lot of folks that enjoy fly-fishing, but we all know it's much more efficient to just toss a stick of dynamite in the stream and get it over with.

Actually, outside of these internet bulletin boards, it's still very much a "manual focus" world. Out in the field, they're very well used and highly regarded; as well as sturdy-built. I always thought that the prices KEH charges were very reasonable, especially the "bargain" lenses.

Actually, I'm surprised that anyone would pay as much for

a cheesy plastic-barrelled AF lens when they could get a

genuine MF lens for approximately the same price, even if

the MF lens is used and the AF lens is new. The used MF lens

has a lot more usable life left in it than the new AF lens,

so it's cheaper in the long run. In addition

to its rugged "lifetime" build quality, the MF lens will have a

usable DoF scale, an easily readable distance scale, all

markings will be engraved and painted, and the feel of the

focusing ring will always be superb. These features are easily

worth a premium price, IMO. And focusing a solid manual focus

lens on a sturdy manual focus camera with a proper manual focus

screen is an aesthetic pleasure. Oh well, to each his own,

I guess...

When Nikon first produced those plastic AF lenses in the late 1980's, people used to dismiss them as plastic junk. Now more than a decade later, as far as I am concerned the plastic lenses are just fine. Optically they are at least the same but frequently superior with newer designs and CPU for additional features. My plastic lenses hold up just as well as my metal lenses over the years. I have already sold some of my early plastic lenses from over 10 years ago (while they are still in mint condition) in favor of newer AF zooms.

 

While there is still a significant number of MF users out there, it is clearly an AF world now. Otherwise, Nikon's market share wouldn't have eroded so much by the C brand, starting from over 10 years ago. Today, zooms lenses are excellent, the aperture ring is becoming obsolete, digital is about to replace film as the primary medium, and Nikon is no longer the only brand like 90% of the pros use. We are well into the 21st Centruy.

 

I know, some people find these changes hard to accept.

Manual focus cameras ares till used by the majority of pro-photographers.(maybe cause they know how to focus?)Except for fast action shooting,I cant think of any reason to own a pro AF camera!

Well said,Edsel.I'm not a pro,but I'm a avid photographer since I was a teenager and I simply can't find any merit or value,name it as you wish,to push a buttom and get a picture.Where is the art of photography if you don't learn and use the simple rules of composition,DOF,what shutter speed to use according to the subject or the film ASA,or the lens maximum aperture?Do you want the backgroud in focus or not?Bracket a bit.Over or under expose for special lighting .....you name it.

The art is on manual focus cameras and lenses.Well,that is my opinnion.Always had manual cameras,always will.

Robert

Quality & relative scarcity keep the price of any item up. Since Nikon isn't building the MF lenses any more and those existing are wearing out, getting lost and damaged so the supply pool is shrinking.

 

In the lands of Canon FD and Rollei SL66 (my lost causes) the more esoteric stuff is holding it's value better than the general stuff. There are the odd bargains but you have to look and be lucky. *bay has sure driven up the prices.

 

I've already seen a downturn in prices generally due to the recession and more & more reductions in KEH's as I suppose they working to reduce stock.

 

To Kelly F., AFAIK, the Japanese camera mounts didn't change that much: I don't believe Olympus changed the OM mount at all during the MF period. Pentax went from screw mount to K mount. Minolta and Canon ditched their MF mounts but before that the lenses & bodies could be mated and operated in stop down mode. The Canon FL, FD & new FD are all based on the 1959 R mount but added various metering and control features just as Nikon did with the F mount & AI, AIS and subsequent AF variations.

 

Cheers,

 

Duane

Some manual focus lenses that have no equal in the AF-line:

 

105 mm f/2.5 AIS (phenomenal portrait lens, without the biting sharpness of the 105 f/2 AF-DC). Beautiful glow to the photos.

 

35 mm f/1.4 AIS (still the fastest, still the best)

 

28 mm f/2 AIS (the best 28 Nikon makes, and a lot lighter than the f/1.4 version)

 

24 f/2 (well, if you want f/2 in a 24, here it is)

 

85 mm f/1.8 "C" or "K" versions: great bokeh, color saturation, about as sharp as current 85, but with good background blur, and lighter than the heavy f/1.4 versions

 

75-150 mm f/3.5 "E" series: great bokeh, very sharp, how could they sell such a beautiful lens so inexpensively

 

45 mm f/2.8 "P" lens: great bokeh, very sharp, if you can live with the speed. This is the current production model, not the old flash compensating version.

 

58 mm f/1.2: $1500, but if you want f/1.2. Well, there is the 50 mm f/1.2 for $1150 less. Still, this is the one.

 

300 mm f/2 AIS. Yes, an f/2. Beast of a lens.

 

1200-1700 mm f/11 zoom. Beast of a lens.

 

200 mm f/2 lens. Heavier than the 300 mm f/2.8.

 

13 mm f/5.6 or 13 mm f/3.5

 

15 mm f/5.6 or 15 mm f/3.5

 

I'm sure this isn't all of them, but it gives you an idea.

 

Also, I find the old 50 mm f/2 AI or 50 mm f/1.8 AI lenses have a much more pleasant focusing feel than the current version of this lens (manual or AF). But unless I'm shooting sports with a big lense like a 300, 400 or 500 mm lens; manual focus suits me just fine.

Excuse me, there is no edit feature.

 

There was no 13 mm f/3.5, only the f/5.6, I believe.

 

Also, the 1200-1700 mm zoom, with the "P" designation, was a f/5.6-f/8, I believe.

My MF Nikkors produce optical quality that is, on average, as good or better than that of my AF Nikkors, and the MF lenses additionally don't feel as if they will fall apart at any moment.

Duane; the original Canon mount of 1959 is different. My friends 1959 Canon R slr and lens will not work with a FD or EOS; thus there are three different mounts. <BR><BR>Before the Olympus OM; there was a FL camera; with a different mount; there is also the Pen F mount too; for half frame.......