Are you kidding me!?

[Peanuts]

Consider it an $80 book end.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

Yeah, sure and my '53 Chevy is better than anything on the market today. Yeah, sure.

Hey, I resent that. I'm no ludite. I'm not saying that older is automatically better. I'll say it again: hold a vintage lens. Just do it - you have to actually do this or you're just going to keep disagreeing with me.

But this only applies to lenses, not camera bodies. I am very impressed with the build quality and ergonomics of the 40D, the D300, or my K10 over many of the vintage bodies I've been lucky enough to hold. That aspect has improved considerably over the years.

PS Re the comments about there being no modern lenses with 'old-fashioned' build quality: how about current lenses from Zeiss, Leica, Schneider, Rodenstock and Cooke? The quality is there, but you have to pay for it.

I've only had the privilege of handling a couple of Zeiss's and Leicas and work, and they are beautiful pieces of kit, for sure, but even they don't compare. I know this is blasphemy for alot of you guys, sorry.

 

[Socrates]

Hey, I resent that. I'm no ludite. I'm not saying that older is automatically better. I'll say it again: hold a vintage lens. Just do it - you have to actually do this or you're just going to keep disagreeing with me.

Does my 1964 screw-mount Super Takumar multicoated f/1.4 50mm Asahi Pentax lens count? I paid US$100 in 1964 dollars for the lens. Sure, it's a good lens but I still disagree with you.

By the way, I kept the lens and the Spotmatic for emotional reasons. I trashed the rest of my lenses from that system because they can't compare with modern equipment available for less than half the price (after accounting for inflation).

 

[Dubious Drewski]

The capabilities of a modern lens are far better, of course. I'm talking strictly build quality and aesthetics - turning the control rings, etc.

If you still disagree, then I'm not sure what else to say. From my point of view, it's like you're insisting that the earth is flat and the sky is actually green. I just don't know what to say to that!

 

[TamiyaGuy]

I've never seen a modern lens with a high build quality. (And I sell the things.)

Heh, I know what you mean. I'm probably the least knowledgable person on old lenses in the world, but I love my 50mm F1.8 Nikon AI lens, even though I have to manual focus with it. The focusing is so smooth I barely notice, and it delivers incredible images even at F22. And it weighs more than my 18-55, for god's sake!

 

[Socrates]

Heh, I know what you mean. I'm probably the least knowledgable person on old lenses in the world, but I love my 50mm F1.8 Nikon AI lens, even though I have to manual focus with it. The focusing is so smooth I barely notice, and it delivers incredible images even at F22. And it weighs more than my 18-55, for god's sake!

My '53 Chevy weighed more than my '07 Accord but which one would you drive?

 

[Socrates]

The capabilities of a modern lens are far better, of course. I'm talking strictly build quality and aesthetics - turning the control rings, etc.

If you still disagree, then I'm not sure what else to say. From my point of view, it's like you're insisting that the earth is flat and the sky is actually green. I just don't know what to say to that!

Yes, I still disagree. You're completely ignoring price and you're comparing a 1970 Rolls Royce with a 2008 Chevy. If you account for inflation, my 1964 Asahi 50mm lens would cost $1500 today. Please compare apples with apples.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

Ah, now I see why we disagree. I am making my judgements based on what's available today at modern prices, not what something was once worth a long time ago.

(Though to be fair, I'm sure a 1970 rolls Royce would be a sweet ride, eh?)

 

[Southernbelle]

when I got my stuff, I got a special warantee from the dealer that covers my camera and lens from everything but water damages. I asked, so... if my dog chews it?? covered. My daughter steps on it? covered. I drop it? covered. and it allows me to go to any nikon dealer and trade it for brand new equipment. Look into it for your new lens

 

[lucki85]

when I got my stuff, I got a special warantee from the dealer that covers my camera and lens from everything but water damages. I asked, so... if my dog chews it?? covered. My daughter steps on it? covered. I drop it? covered. and it allows me to go to any nikon dealer and trade it for brand new equipment. Look into it for your new lens

Hey thanks for the tip southernbelle! I will definitley ask when I buy my new lens. It's only been what...going on 2 days and I really miss my lens. Some may think its crappy but I loved it. The only other lens I have is a 70-300mm and I have rarley used it, and the pictures don't seem as sharp as the ones I took with my 50mm. I can't wait to buy a new one!

 

[Socrates]

Ah, now I see why we disagree. I am making my judgements based on what's available today at modern prices, not what something was once worth a long time ago.

(Though to be fair, I'm sure a 1970 rolls Royce would be a sweet ride, eh?)

How does your Asahi compare with one of these?

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/v-system/lenses.aspx

 

[Socrates]

Hey thanks for the tip southernbelle! I will definitley ask when I buy my new lens. It's only been what...going on 2 days and I really miss my lens. Some may think its crappy but I loved it. The only other lens I have is a 70-300mm and I have rarley used it, and the pictures don't seem as sharp as the ones I took with my 50mm. I can't wait to buy a new one!

Don't forget to speak with whatever insurance company carries your homeowners/renters insurance. If your parents are still supporting you, then their insurance company might help. I really don't know for certain what's possible but you should check all possible options.

 

[Peanuts]

How does your Asahi compare with one of these?

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/v-system/lenses.aspx

Oh common, Schneider lenses beat those out! Can't we start talking quality

 

[Socrates]

Oh common, Schneider lenses beat those out! Can't we start talking quality

:thumbup:
Now you'll really embarrass DD!

 

[Dubious Drewski]

Haha, no, I'm fine. I would love to have the opportunity to shoot with one of those on the end of my camera! Though that would have a six-figure income as a prerequisite!

I cannot judge these lenses that you're linking for me because they are just photos, but I can probably assume that their aesthetics are far, far nicer than anything you or I have ever held!

But you're guilty of the strawman fallacy here; I never suggested that there didn't exist a modern lens that could beat the vintage. Of course they exist and there are tons of them, I'm sure. I'm comparing lenses that are in the same price point now, in 2008. I'm saying that for $80 today, here and now, you can buy a vintage lens with a more solid contruction than a $1000 modern lens. And I think you are forgetting that I am not making any statements of the overall quality of the lens( IQ, functionality, capability, etc), I am talking strictly and ONLY aesthetics of the materials which make up the physical lens, nothing else. Nothing more. I've already stated this.

Also keep in mind that the lenses I have access to consist of mainly Sigmas, Nikkors, Pentax's, Zeiss's and a handful of L lenses at work.

My judgements are stemming from that.