peter_ochmann Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 Hello,I have been offered a Hassy 203FE Millenium in very good condition. Would you rate this model as collectible, and what would be a fair price for this (with E12 magazine from same set)? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 God, I hate camera collecting and collector edition cameras. Calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean, ... O.k., now that I've composed myself, let's assume for a moment that this is a collector's edition camera. Given that it is no more than a year old, from a collecting standpoint, there would be no excuse for it not being in perfect, mint, new, in-the-box, with-all-the-papers condition. As the camera is in only "very good condition," I would not pay one dime more for it than an ordinary, year-old 203FE in the same contition. If it was a 1950-something collector's Blad with a few scuffs, this would not detract enormously from its value. But a 2000 collector's Blad with any marks on it at all- not collector material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 BTW, this is a collector's edition: http://www.hasselbladusa.com/about/pr032000.htm "Both millennium cameras have a gold-plated 'MILLENNIUM' sign, and all designation signs on the bodies and magazines are also gold-plated. In addition, the film magazines are provided with a gold-plated release button and an engraved, gold-plated magazine slide."- Jesus-tap-dancing-Christ, you would have thought they stopped making gold-plated s%!# like this after Liberace died. Too bad Hasselblad didn't make the covering out of elephant penis skin. (Of course, then the camera would have enlarged to a 4x5 when you rubbed it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vartan_grigorian Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 Peter, Have you considered one of the B'lads in yellow? I hear it's the new black darling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 Which reminds me of a line from a CBS sitcom: "(People in New York) are just wearing black until something darker comes along." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 "calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean" is this one of the new LE 'blad leather colors??? i have to say that blad missed the boat with the bright colors. specialty hides -- ostrich, emu, pigskin would have been way cooler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 No, Roger, that would be "Cobalt Blue." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron_ertman Posted December 13, 2001 Share Posted December 13, 2001 So...let me get this straight, Blad is still making these Millenium editions that have a very limited market, but real equipment like the 500mm APO that is actually used is being discontinued...someone at Hasselblad needs to give his or her head a shake. Perhaps we need some special Millenium lenses that have been discontinued...at least then they would still be producing them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted December 13, 2001 Share Posted December 13, 2001 Cameron, The answer to this conundrum is that people *are* buying these special issue cameras, but *are not* buying those pieces of "real equipment" that now are being discontinued. I'm sure someone at Hasselblad is shaking his or her head in disbelieve. At us, their costumers. The special issue however is only still in production as the regular 203 FE. Obviously not as Millenium Edition. All that was different after all was its skin and a plaque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted December 13, 2001 Share Posted December 13, 2001 Q.G.- The reason people aren't buying the Hasselblad 500mm f/8.0 CF Zeiss Tele-Apotessar lens is that the lens retails at $6,000. I'll repeat, that is $6,000 for a manual-focus 500mm lens with an f/stop of 8.0!? That is total bull$%!#. Maybe if Hasselblad wasn't trying to rape people by charging such offensive prices for equipment they would sell more stuff. I mean Holy crap you can buy a Nikon 500mm f/4.0-D AF-S ED II lens for $7,500 that uses twice as much high-end glass, is two stops faster and has a significantly greater degree of mechanical difficulty to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted December 13, 2001 Share Posted December 13, 2001 Eric, ... and these lenses cost that much because sales figures are so low. A specialist's item ;-) Should i or shouldn't i point out that the alternative they are proposing to the 500 mm lens is not a mere US$6000, but a snap at US$7200 + US$1000 for the converter? Or even US$17,000 if you want the faster alternative? ;-) The bottom line is that if you would need such a lens, it makes good economic sense to buy one. Good tools aren't cheap, no matter what line of work you're in. And conversely, if you don't need such a thing, don't even think about having one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted December 13, 2001 Share Posted December 13, 2001 Q.G.- "The bottom line is that if you would need such a lens, it makes good economic sense to buy one. Good tools aren't cheap, no matter what line of work you're in. And conversely, if you don't need such a thing, don't even think about having one."- Earnst Hemmingway once said of pheasant hunting; "its worth what you have to pay for it." This attitude was fine for the independently wealthy Hemmingway. And, of course, if I had the business to justify a 500mm Hasselblad lens, I would have to buy one- irrespective of price. This is what Hasselblad counts on. However, I don't think you would be so sanguine if a drug company charged whatever the market would bear for a unique, life-saving product. Let's face it, if there was a pill to cure cancer and you had an otherwise incurable form of cancer, you would give everything you own to save your life. Obviously, obscure Hasselblad lenses aren't a matter of life and death. However, they do illustrate an example of a company charging as much as it possibly can for an item, as opposed to making a reasonable profit. The 500mm CF lens represents an obscene, windfall profit for Hasselblad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vartan_grigorian Posted December 15, 2001 Share Posted December 15, 2001 Peter, Not very subtle considering you said you bought a 203 FE Millenium around August! Caveat Emptor everyone! Vartan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarashnat Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Eric... The Nikon only has to cover a 35mm frame in area. A 6x6 with the current shutters is more difficult to construct at a faster aperture. Now, a focal plane version would not work on all those 5xx series cameras... that would drive the price even higher than the Telephoto Power Pack. And I just got an almost pristine 500mm APO-Tessar on the used market for under 40% of the list price. They can't compete with all those lenses in the used market right now. Taras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Taras: 1. The Hasselblad 500mm f/8.0 CF Tele-Apotessar lens weighs 4 lbs. The Nikon 500mm f/4.0 DIFEDAFSII lens weighs 7.6 pounds, due to it containing almost twice as much expensive optical glass. The Nikkor also contains an expensive focusing motor and sophisticated wiring. Yet, the 500mm Nikkor can be had new for $5,900, while the Hasselblad 500mm retails for $5,950. I repeat that Hasselblad is price-gouging. 2. That you just got an almost pristine 500mm APO-Tessar on the used market for under 40% of the list price is less than stunning. Used prices for many pieces of Blad equipment are a fraction of retail in large part because most pieces of Blad equipment are objectively worth a fraction of their absurd, inflated retail prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond_tai Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I would buy it to use. Given a new standard edition from B&H with three years warranty is $3200 I would pay $2500 for a used Millenium with the E12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarashnat Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Eric, You are comparing apples to oranges here. The Nikkor is a 35mm shutterless lens and the Apotessar is a 6x6 lens with integral leaf shutter. If you compared the Apotessar to another medium format lens, then you may have an argument. I would always expect a 35mm format lens to be less expensive than a medium format lens. There are many factors that go into the pricing of a lens. The main has to be recouping the investment in the design and manufacture of the product. If there isn't a high demand for the lens, the economies of scale don't come into play, and the price needs to remain high to guarantee a return on the investment. Each of these lenses has its niche and is a specialist's tool. That is why they are both expensive. If everyone had the need to use a fast 500mm lens, you would see more of them for a cheaper price. A more apt comparisson would be the 500mm f/5.6 Yupiter (I believe) lens from Ukraine that is for the medium format Kiev cameras, even though it doesn't have a shutter. See "Curing Lens Envy Home Page" http://medfmt.8k.com/ bronlensenvy.html for an interesting discussion on lens prices and popularity. If you think the $6K Zeiss lens is outrageous, then how does the Nikkor 300/2 ED-IF AIS's $29K in 1980s $s grab you. Less than 500 of this lens were made! Now compare that to the $21K of the Telephoto Power Pack for the Hasselblad and the Zeiss glass almost seems like a bargin... Taras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 �The Nikkor is a 35mm shutterless lens and the Apotessar is a 6x6 lens with integral leaf shutter.� I concede that the leaf shutter is a factor that may cancel out the cost of Nikon's in-lens AF motor. However, this raises the question of why Hasselblad sells a 501CM body with an A12 back for $2,443, when you can buy a Nikon F5 body with a cutting edge shutter for $1,930. The 500-series Hasselblads have changed little in the last 50 years, while the F5 is an amazing collection of new technology. Both cameras are of comparable build quality, so why doesn�t the Hasselblad cost less? �If you compared the Apotessar to another medium format lens, then you may have an argument.� Why? By virtue of its aperture, the Nikon 500mm f/4.0 DIFEDAFSII lens is larger and contains almost twice as much optical glass, including specialized ED glass. By all rights, the Nikon lens should cost more than the Hasselblad lens. �There are many factors that go into the pricing of a lens. The main has to be recouping the investment in the design and manufacture of the product.� You don�t say? Nikon has been making the current, unique lens configuration of the 500mm f/4.0 II since April of 2001. Hasselblad has been making the exact same Tessar-design configuration 500mm f/8.0 since the early 1960s. Do you think maybe after 40 years Hasselblad has recouped its design and tooling expenses for the 500mm f/8.0? �If there isn�t a high demand for the lens, the economies of scale don�t come into play, and the price needs to remain high to guarantee a return on the investment.� Conversely, if Hasselblad charged a less ridiculous price for the 500mm f/8.0, there would be more buyers and economies of scale might well come into play. Further, I might lend credence to your argument, but for the fact that Hasselblad gouges buyers on every item it sells. For instance, a Hasselblad lens hood for the 50mm CFi lens is $93. The larger and more intricate Nikon snap-on metal hood, the HS-7 is $24. Such an enormous price difference can�t be attributed to sales disparities. My store is a Nikon Pro Dealer and I can count on one hand the number of HS-7 hoods we�ve sold in the last 20 years. �(H)ow does the Nikkor 300/2 ED-IF AIS�s $29K in 1980s $s grab you. Less than 500 of this lens were made! Now compare that to the $21K of the Telephoto Power Pack for the Hasselblad and the Zeiss glass almost seems like a bargain ...� Arrrgggghhh! �Zeiss glass,� Schmeiss glass! The 300mm f/2.0 AIS Nikkor wasn�t even a production lens and it contained about 15 lbs. of optical glass, including pounds of ED glass, which was rare and hard to manufacture at the time. Only 450 were made. The newish Hasselblad 300mm f/2.8 contains perhaps 7.5 lbs. of optical glass, none of which is ED. At $21K, Hasselblad�s 300mm f/2.8 is more than 5X the price of Nikon�s current 300mm f/2.8, doesn�t contain a leaf shutter and doesn�t have an expensive AF motor. Whether Hasselblad milks this lens design for the next 40 years, is an open question, given the company�s chronic financial difficulties. However, you can bet that if you go to buy a new Hasselblad 300mm f/2.8 in 2044, you�ll pay the 2004 price, plus inflation, plus 40 years of Hasselblad�s inexplicable and capricious yearly price increases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarashnat Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 >�If you compared the Apotessar to another medium format lens, then you may have an argument.� >Why? Because the medium format lens needs to cover an image circle about 80mm in diameter. A 35mm lens needs an image cicle of only about 44mm. That is over 3 times the area. It is easier to design a lens to cover the area of a 35mm film than a 6x6 format film. In general, all things being equal, a medium format lens will be more costly than a 35mm lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now