I Was Outbid!!! [Archive] - Rangefinderforum.com

JeremyLangford

11-14-2007, 17:43

I have been watching this Minolta MD 16mm f/2.8 fisheye all week but was outbid just now. Me and my dad bid $291 and it sold for $297. But i thought that $291 was too high anyways.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Minolta-MD-fish-eye-Rokkor-16mm-f-2-8-lens_W0QQitemZ280170237433QQihZ018QQcategoryZ48554 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Ill keep looking for minolta fisheyes for a while, and if I cant find one before Christmas for $275 or under than I'll get a Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 with adapter for $225.

Steve Bellayr

11-14-2007, 18:06

Often searching all the dealers you will come up with the same item as ebay for less money. I have paid less with reputable dealers than bidding on ebay for that desireable item. For example I do not see the Leica M6's selling much cheaper on ebay than with dealers. (With the dealer you have the insurance of returing the item.)

Steve Bellayr

11-14-2007, 18:08

Right now KEH lists 2 lenses of that model in your price range. They are bargain. I have bought bargain and it worked just fine.

JeremyLangford

11-14-2007, 18:11

thank you. I was looking at that site the other day and then forgot the url.

peterm1

11-14-2007, 18:11

I have often had the exerience where I bid on something till I get to the point where I am in front but think I am paying more than I want. Then when I am outbid at the last moment I can breathe a sigh of relief and know that I am not having to suffer buyers remorse. Is this perverse?

JeremyLangford

11-14-2007, 18:13

thats exactly what happened to me.

JeremyLangford

11-14-2007, 18:13

how can I trust something like this with no real picture?

http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?groupsku=MI06999015535N&brandcategoryname=35MM&Mode=&item=0&ActivateTOC2=&ID=20&BC=MI&BCC=1&CC=6&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=

plummerl

11-14-2007, 18:18

Trust us, in saying that you can trust KEH! :)

colyn

11-14-2007, 18:18

how can I trust something like this with no real picture?

I've bought many BGN items from KEH where no photo was posted and had no problems.

JeremyLangford

11-14-2007, 18:27

O wait. That link I posted is an MC. I thought it was MD.

For some reason I feel like the Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 with a Minolta adapter would be better than a lot older MC Minolta 16mm f/2.8.

Joe Brugger

11-14-2007, 18:35

I've bought many BGN items from KEH where no photo was posted and had no problems.

The photos that KEH posts are not of the exact item for sale anyway, simply of that type of lens or body or whatever. I've had good results buying 'bargain' grade from KEH.

colyn

11-14-2007, 18:42

For some reason I feel like the Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 with a Minolta adapter would be better than a lot older MC Minolta 16mm f/2.8.

I would have to disagree. I've used both and find the Minolta far better. The Zenitar is poorly constructed and suffers badly from distortion..

JeremyLangford

11-14-2007, 18:48

Well I want the distortion. Thats the main reason I want this lens.

JeremyLangford

11-14-2007, 18:49

I know the Minolta has to be made better, but it worries me to buy a lens so old (The MCs were first made in 1966) when I can buy a brand new Zenitar.

rogue_designer

11-14-2007, 18:57

rich815

11-14-2007, 19:00

I'd get the Minolta from KEH if I were you. As others have stated they are very conservative in their ratings and they have a 14-day no-questions return policy and a 60-daywarranty. How can you go wrong? Worse case you get to try and use it for a couple weeks and it only costs a small amount for shipping should you decide not to keep it.

The Zenit build quality cannot come close to matching the Minolta.

JeremyLangford

11-14-2007, 19:10

Old + Good build quality vs. New + Shoddy build quality.

My 50+ year old cameras are still plugging along great. My newer ones are perpetually in the shop, or scrapped altogether.

But if you think newer is automatically better, that's your call.

I never said that newer is automatically better. Of course I dont think that, or else I wouldn't be shooting film or own a SRT-101.

I said.......

For some reason I feel like the Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 with a Minolta adapter would be better than a lot older MC Minolta 16mm f/2.8.

I know I am inexpierenced compared to you guys. Im 16.

And thats why I am on this forum, to learn.

And I just now learned that you guys favor an old Minolta fisheye over a brand new Zenitar fisheye, so I will probably try to find another Minolta.

dlove5

11-14-2007, 19:12

Newer lenses may be better optically, but I'll take the build quality of my older lenses any day.

photobizzz

11-14-2007, 19:22

I bought a bargain Leitz 90/4 from KEH and when I got it it was in what I would call excellent condition. No dust, cleaning marks, or scratches, and only a bit of black paint was missing and this lens was from 1937.

Nokton48

11-14-2007, 19:22

I've used both, and the MC Rokkor 16mm blows away the Zenitar. No contest.

Actually I prefer the older MC lenses to the newer MD's. They have a very solid feel to them, and of course, the MC Rokkor Fisheye is one of the original lenses for your SRT101. It matches perfectly. I own one. It's great.

Call KEH and order one, and if you don't like it, send it back. Worst that will happen is you're only out shipping back.

dlove5

11-14-2007, 19:23

I remember when I was 16 and a couple of my friends on the school newspaper had Minolta SRT systems. I was jealous - all I had was my grandfather's Leica IIIa with a 50mm Summicron.

Enjoy your SRT. Its a darn good camera.

This is a great forum. I haven't posted much, but I learn a lot from reading those that do.

rxmd

11-14-2007, 19:27

Hi Colyn,

I would have to disagree. I've used both and find the Minolta far better. The Zenitar is poorly constructed and suffers badly from distortion..
I wonder if one should really worry about distortion when using a fisheye. The whole point of using a fisheye is getting a distorted image.

Philipp

jlw

11-14-2007, 20:01

I wonder if one should really worry about distortion when using a fisheye.

Yeah, well, I once owned a poorly-designed fisheye that had so much pincushion distortion that the images came out looking normal, so I had to send it back.

Same thing happened with a soft-focus lens I bought; it was so defective in manufacture that it resolved 90 lp/mm across the full field, making it completely useless.

rover

11-15-2007, 02:26

J, buy that KEH Rokkor before I do!!!!

Like mentioned, money back no questions asked return policy. I bought a BGN 50 Summilux from KEH, was paranoid the entire time waiting for it to arrive. I opened the box, the lens barrel is brassed, but the glass is perfect. No guarantee that this lens is the same, but it is a safe bet, not a gamble.

JeremyLangford

11-15-2007, 10:04

So any item bought from KEH can be sent back no matter what for a full refund? And I would just pay shipping?

rich815

11-15-2007, 10:15

So any item bought from KEH can be sent back no matter what for a full refund? And I would just pay shipping?

From:

http://www.keh.com/onlinestore/AboutUs.aspx

"What We Offer
Outstanding customer service. We strive to make your experience with KEH one which will leave you feeling as if you were the most important and appreciated customer on the planet. As the 1994 national winner of Inc. magazine and MCI’s Positive Performer award for superior customer service, we look forward to continuing to fulfill our service ideals and practices in the 21st century. Our 14 day no-hassle return policy and 60 day warranty on all used equipment allows you to buy with confidence. Your satisfaction is our primary goal."

Call them to confirm and fully understand how the policy works: (404) 892-5522

crawdiddy

11-15-2007, 11:22

Hi jeremy,

I purchased a Canon 50mm f/1.2 BGN lens from KEH. I've been very impressed. It's much better than I expected, based on the rating. On the oather hand, their prices aren't the best. If you keep trying on ebay, you will likely get a better "deal" than you will at KEH. But I don't necessarily find this to be true for all products. I've seen some of their camera bodies priced competetively with ebay. I'd say one of the primary advantages of KEH is when you get tired of waiting on your item to come upj on ebay. You just want to buy the thing, even if it isn't the best deal.

I also recommend the Rokkor lens over Zenitar.

feenej

11-15-2007, 11:40

That's funny about "only having a Leica III".

I just bought some Minolta lenses from Keh and the lenses are fantastic. One was an older model MC Rokkor 135 f2.8. I just love it! The grease must be a little dry 'cause it makes a whisper of a sound when you turn it. Probably has the original grease from the '60s, so I am not complaining.

One thing about these lenses from Keh was that they arrived with the glass incredibly clean. Amazingly clean. I wish I knew how they cleaned the glass at Keh.

dee

11-15-2007, 12:32

It's a shame that no modern DSLR will accept my old mc Rokkors - lovely lenses .
dee

rich815

11-15-2007, 13:42

Hi jeremy,

I purchased a Canon 50mm f/1.2 BGN lens from KEH. I've been very impressed. It's much better than I expected, based on the rating. On the oather hand, their prices aren't the best. If you keep trying on ebay, you will likely get a better "deal" than you will at KEH.

I'd disagree. Based on the 14-day return and 60-day warranty? My adage is, and a few others I know, if you can't get it for 20% less expensive at least on eBay then get it at KEH. It's reputation, warranty and return are EASILY worth it.

rover

11-15-2007, 14:16

The 16mm won't go cheaply on ebay either. It is not a common lens and holds a pretty consistent value. There are not too many 16mm lenses out there.

JeremyLangford

11-15-2007, 17:38

Ok. Id like to clear this up.

One of the main reasons that I though a new Zenitar might be better than an old MC Rokkor fisheye is because of this chart comparing all the Minolta 16mms.

http://members.aol.com/xkaes/1628.htm

As you can see, year after year Minolta kept changing their design, and the weight and size kept going down pretty dramatically. When I saw that chart, I figured that this meant that the lens was going through some important improvements. And that made me start to think that maybe the newer model fisheyes must be better.

Besides that, I am just worried that the grease and stuff might start to go bad and dry up or something.

rover

11-16-2007, 02:09

According to that page the 16 Rokkor when through the same changes all MC and MD lenses went through in the 1970s. You will note that their was only one optical change in the lens, and that the first optical design was borrowed by Leitz for the Leica R 16 Elmarit, pretty good certification of it's quality. Minolta, like all of the manufactures, continually improved the coating on their lenses in the 1970s. Most of the small changes noted on this page simply are the result of a new coating being used. The later lens will be less flare prone, but that doesn't change the optical quality of the lens. As with any superwide you will have to be careful with placing very bright lights in you frame. By the late 1970s, with the change to the MD line of lenses Minolta began a process of making their lenses smaller and lighter. This resulted in some optical formula changes. It is not necessarily true that these optical changes resulted in better performance (some did, some didn't), just that they accomplished the goal, smaller and lighter. They also changed from using a very solid all metal construction to using more modern materials, plastics.

You can call to find out what the writing on the front ring of the lens is and that will help determine what version of the lens it is. I wouldn't worry though. If it is a first version then it is the same vintage as your 101, 1966, the year all good things, including me, were born.

rover

11-16-2007, 02:12

Have you seen this?

http://www.rokkorfiles.com/16mm.html

rover

11-16-2007, 02:20

Besides that, I am just worried that the grease and stuff might start to go bad and dry up or something.

Hey, and be careful about saying old things drying up around here. Our membership isn't getting any younger you know. ;)

My youngest M or LTM mount 50mm lens is my summilux from 1966. It will need a CLA some day, but I won't be trading it.

kshapero

11-16-2007, 03:41

feenej

11-16-2007, 04:11

Not really a shame dee with all the wonderful old Minolta camera bodies around. They're so cheap too. Collect them all. Garry's Camera will do a CLA on a Minolta body for only $50. Looks like you are in the UK tho.

JeremyLangford

11-16-2007, 10:01

Im worried that a month after I buy an very old MC 16mm f/2.8, the grease or any other thing used to make a lens will go bad. Or maybe there might be dust inside the glass.

These are the things I would't have to worry about with a brand new Zenitar.

But I really have no idea if those things are real problems with MCs. Im just trying to make the best investment.

rich815

11-16-2007, 10:06

Im worried that a month after I buy an very old MC 16mm f/2.8, the grease or any other thing used to make a lens will go bad.

So, after 35 years you'll buy it JUST before it binds up, eh?

Firstly, as we've been mentioning, there's a 60-day warranty from KEH so in the highly unlikely event that a month after you buy it there's a problem they will either refund your money or fix it.

Second, this a possible concern of buying any older equipment though I must say with over 40 cameras and even more lenses myself, most over 20 years old, some as old as 70 years, the benefits far outweigh the possible negatives.

But maybe older cameras and lenses are not for you if this truly bothers you. Though I'd say you have a better chance of the Zenit having some mechanical problem in the first few years than you would the internal lubricants "going bad" on the Minolta lens....

You seem to be searching for reasons to buy a new Zenit. I'd go with that then.

rich815

11-16-2007, 10:14

>>>>>Or maybe there might be dust inside the glass.

Do a google search on dust in lenses. Unless it's really heavy it will likely not the images in any way that you'd notice.

Heck, I'd even bet a new Zenit has a few specks in there.

Joe Brugger

11-16-2007, 13:25

Im worried that a month after I buy an very old MC 16mm f/2.8, the grease or any other thing used to make a lens will go bad. Or maybe there might be dust inside the glass..

Bad grease is more an artifact of the '60s and a couple of later third-party brands. There are a few specific lenses of different brands here and there that have problems, but the MC and MD Minolta lenses are excellent products. Most fisheyes you find won't have had a lot of use but if you're concerned you can go up one grade. A little internal dust doesn't hurt anything.

If you want something you can use for years get the Minolta; if you just want to see how a fisheye/superwide looks and shoot a handful of rolls, go with the cheaper alternatives.

I'm still regularly using lenses from the '70s with no problems.

JeremyLangford

11-16-2007, 17:48

Is there any way of replacing the grease or completely getting a complete clean up and restoration of older lens such as Minolta MCs?

I know I sound like I'm worrying to much, but what if my lenses start degrading and I am unable to buy a newer SRT-101 mount lens, and I have to invest into an autofocus body, and new autofocus mount lenses?

The reason I am worrying about this is because I can already feel some rubbing on my Rokkor MD 50mm f/1.4 when I twist the focus ring.

Joe Brugger

11-16-2007, 17:59

I know this is a lot of money for you to put out, but yes, you are worrying far too much.
Fix the problems when they occur and don't spoil your fun beforehand.
IF an MC lens needs cleaning or regreasing, there are plenty of technicians who can handle the job. But it's not a chronic problem.
IF the ring on the 50 hangs up a little at one spot, it probably got bumped and is a little bit egg-shaped. Sometimes working it back and forth a bit will smooth out the action. No big deal. I have a Nikkor 24 like that and it works fine.
There are thousands of excellent MD and MC lenses and bodies on the used market; they are absolute bargains priced far below their true value for shooting photos.
Find a body and a couple lenses you like and go shoot pictures.

Is there any way of replacing the grease or completely getting a complete clean up and restoration of older lens such as Minolta MCs?

I know I sound like I'm worrying to much, but what if my lenses start degrading and I am unable to buy a newer SRT-101 mount lens, and I have to invest into an autofocus body, and new autofocus mount lenses?

The reason I am worrying about this is because I can already feel some rubbing on my Rokkor MD 50mm f/1.4 when I twist the focus ring.

Nokton48

11-18-2007, 15:55

JeremyLangford

11-18-2007, 17:33

Here's a nice one 8) comin' up.......

http://cgi.ebay.com/ORIGINAL-MINOLTA-MC-FISH-EYE-ROKKOR-1-2-8-f-16mm-LENS_W0QQitemZ170168459645QQihZ007QQcategoryZ48554 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Jeremy,

ANY Minolta lens can be cheaply cleaned and regreased by a good camera shop. Not something you want to do, myself.

I JUST WON THAT LENS FOR $241..............YES!!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ORIGINAL-MINOLTA-MC-FISH-EYE-ROKKOR-1-2-8-f-16mm-LENS_W0QQitemZ170168459645QQihZ007QQcategoryZ48554 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohos ting