Wow..that much for a Takumar lens?

[daniirwan]

<p>I'm not really sure if it's okay to post this, but I just HAD to share this with someone.</p>

<p>Look here:<br>

<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/Pentax-SM-35-3-5-Super-Takumar-Jack-Pot-no-777777_W0QQitemZ280326514242QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item4144c32642&_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116#ht_1094wt_1166">http://cgi.ebay.com/Pentax-SM-35-3-5-Super-Takumar-Jack-Pot-no-777777_W0QQitemZ280326514242QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item4144c32642&_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116#ht_1094wt_1166</a></p>

<p>Seriously, I couldn't believe how much he's asking for it either. I could buy a Hasselblad 500 C/M with that kind of money, I think...</p>

[andylynn]

<p>That seller sells a lot of exotic/rare/collectible stuff. Noct Nikkors, Minolta VFC lenses, etc. I guess this one's special because its serial number is 777777 - which is pretty weak, but I guess to the right collector...</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>I found Kevin has some unique, fantastically clean examples of some wonderful vintage gear. I'm guessing his business model is aimed at those to whom money is no object or who don't want to deal with iffy gear and just want the best....<strong>now</strong>. Something is worth whatever someone is willing to pay. An interesting model that perhaps works for him. Plain folk, like myself, I'm afraid, have to continue to hunt for bargains.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I wants the one with 666! Ha.... haaaaaaaa..... ha... =:}</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>The 35mm f/3.5 screw-mount Takumar isn't a rare lens and isn't a particularly good lens optically. Additionally, looking at the photos, the lens isn't in particularly pristine shape. If this lens were to come into my store, I'd offer the seller $10, assuming the aperture blades were functioning properly.</p>

<p>The serial number 777777 is lucky? It wasn't lucky for this lens, which became obsolete in 1975, when Pentax introduced the K mount.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>You might ask the seller if he would consider dividing and listing that piece as 2 separate "buy-it-now" items: as item #1, the little wafer-thin, screw-off "beauty ring" with a magical serial number, for $815; and as item #2, the rest of the lens for $40.</p>

<p>Total price of the two listings would be the same, but clarity would be greatly increased.</p>

<p> </p>

[steven_moseley1]

<p>There have always been sellers attempting to 'take the mickey' (take the p*ss) with prices, just in case some fool with too much money and little sense comes along, which they sometimes do.</p>

[edthened]

<p>Och wit ar yoo complanin aboot..........................he only wants $45 tae post it tae yoo (in a gold lined box a wood hope) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>

[daniirwan]

<p>@Andrew: Yup, I had a look through his items for sale just now, and indeed, he has a lot of good rare stuff. Unfortunately, it's a case of "So many goodies, so li'l money!" for me, I'm afraid...</p>

<p>@Louis: Haha, same here Louis...I'm a bottom of the barrel bargain hunter =) Money is definitely an object for me.</p>

<p>@JDM: 6666666? That would cost you approx $9999999 bucks, me thinks! =)</p>

<p>@Eric: I just bought this lens for 40 bucks! Darn it...</p>

<p>@Ernest: Good idea, heheh! Even then, I think someone would come along and buy that 'beauty ring' =)</p>

<p>@Steven: Indeed...from his feedback score, it seems that there's a lot of folks willing to be mickied with.</p>

<p>@Edwin: Hahaha =)</p>

[CosteaM]

<p>If he sells this not-so-special lens for over $800 he will damn sure hit the jackpot.<br>

At least he is honest.</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>Dani, the 35mm f/3.5 is selling for as much $60 on eBay, so $40 wouldn't be a bad price. If I were purchasing the lens in a retail store- as opposed to being behind the counter and taking the lens in on trade- I'd be more comfortable paying $30.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>I have a 38mm f2.8 Zuiko E enlarging lens with the serial# 101000, but alas without it's original plastic bubble case. No bother really, I still use it for my half frame darkroom printing.</p>

[david_f._stein]

<p>My question: how much does it cost each month to have 6,000 listings!</p>

[User_502260]

<p>The 35/3.5 Takumars are very decent performers. I have two different versions in my collection. I don't agree that it became obsolete in 1975. A K mount version of the same lens was introduced in 1975 along with the KX, KM and K2 cameras. In K mount, this lens is a sought after collectible. When the M lenses came out a few years later the 35/3.5 was finally replaced by the 35/2.8. My 35mm M lens is an f/2 model. I still sometimes use one of the 35/3.5 Takumars on other cameras with adapters. This eBay sellers has many rare and odd items but not all of them sell for the high opening bid prices shown.</p>

[dave_green5]

<p>JDM, you devil, you are.</p>

[john_liberty]

<p>That particular seller is well known for prices that are, to put it mildly, WAY out of line. The only dealings I've had w/ him was when I emailed him about a particular lens he had for sale that appeared to have a cleaning mark on it. He replied back, but said that the pictures showed the condition (they didn't) and was rude as can be. I wouldn't buy from him if he had rock bottom prices.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>My God, does he ever sell anything!? I suppose he only has to sell one item per year.</p>

[marc_rochkind]

I think some of you have misunderstood this eBay listing. It is a "best offer" listing, and the $855 means nothing. I have bought items listed this way (from other sellers) with an offer less than half of the so-called "price". If anyone actually wants this lens, all one has to do is make an offer. The $855 number can be ignored. Of course, the seller may or may not accept a lower offer.

 

I think this is a reasonable method where the seller isn't sure what the market will bear. (Everyone knows that eBay is only for those comfortable with what I call "life in the big city", right? ;-) )

 

I am speaking in general here, as I know nothing about this seller. From what John L. says, he doesn't sound like someone I would want to deal with.

 

--Marc

[John Smullen]

<p>It's either a misplaced decimal point or someone fishing for a sucker. The 35 3.5 lens is certainly a compact decent performer but it is quite common.</p>