POLL: Why Did You Sell Your Lens Kit?

[Zack Birlew]

Hey, everybody, just wanted to put up a post to see what the thought process is behind some of the lens sales going on these days. People have been offloading everything from Leica R's to high end Leica Summicron Cine lenses to Contax Zeiss kits, Canon FD, Rokinon Cine, Meike, and various others. I thought getting some kind of consensus might give some insight into not only choosing lenses for projects but also when it might be time to turn a set in for something else. I know I have a pretty wide collection that needs paring down not only just for space but for project considerations and I've personally been leaning more towards the idea of getting a more modern option than some of my more vintage selections.

Aside from the poll results, feel free to share your recent lens changes and/or tests, experiments, and, of course, experiences!

POLL: Why Did You Sell Your Lens Kit?

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

Hey Zack, I think you forgot one option, which I suspect is actually the most common, especially with vintage or backordered lenses ;-)
And that's the huge appreciation (in the economic sense) of most lenses nowadays (like classic cars and art...).
Imagine having a set bought years ago for a couple of thousands and now worth 50k...selling the set is very tempting no? ;-)
Of course due to rarity, demand and the current (and coming) high rates of inflation the same set will be worth double in a matter of a few years (or month????) but the temptation is strong he he

 

[Matt W.]

+1

I think vintage lenses are following the same trend as the housing market.

 

[Zack Birlew]

Hey Zack, I think you forgot one option, which I suspect is actually the most common, especially with vintage or backordered lenses ;-)
And that's the huge appreciation (in the economic sense) of most lenses nowadays (like classic cars and art...).
Imagine having a set bought years ago for a couple of thousands and now worth 50k...selling the set is very tempting no? ;-)
Of course due to rarity, demand and the current (and coming) high rates of inflation the same set will be worth double in a matter of a few years (or month????) but the temptation is strong he he

That's hilarious! I too have some lenses that have recently become quite expensive and I know I went in and got Canon FD and Mamiya 645 lenses at the right time before they blew up. If I could add one more spot on the poll I would, so I modified "Went Anamorphic" since that's perhaps too minor of a reason and most would probably supplement their kit with anamorphics as an option these days instead of going exclusively anamorphic. Thanks for the advice!

 

[Zack Birlew]

+1

I think vintage lenses are following the same trend as the housing market.

I hear you, there's just some vintage glass that became "collector's pieces" and "Rare" overnight within the past year or two that's completely ridiculous compared to their use and actual availability. I regularly check in on Contax lenses and it's funny to watch it like the stock market as one lens could be $600 at one time and then it's down to $400 and then $349 before bouncing back to $799 so it just depends. Hopefully things calm down at some point for me to build a set, I currently have a mint 50mm 1.4 MMJ, previously fungus infested 35mm 2.8 AE (cleaned mint now), and a Yashica 28mm 2.8 with the 2x Contax adapter to round things off so I have a "set" but not quite and that's because it's hard to know when to jump in.

 

[Nick Gardner]

Lenses I have sold and why -

K35s - sold because they were in original housings, and I was afraid my focus puller was going to kill me in my sleep if I kept making him use them on low budget movies. Sold them for what the set of lenses I wanted cost (had I only known...I still made out just fine)

Lomo Super speeds - Sold them because I felt like I didn't need them since I had a set of k35s

Lomo Standard speeds - I honestly can't remember why I sold those. Probably wanted something else that cost money and had too many lenses.

Lomo Square front anamorphics - I felt like maybe the anamorphic craze was at it's peak, I had recently shot 2 big projects anamorphic, and I suspected that cheep chinese anamorphics were on the horizon so wanted to get out while the lomos were still worth something (Currently have the great joys on order, and they look like the perfect lomo square replacements only better)

"Studio" zooms, my cooke 25-250 and 20-100 - as the cameras got smaller and lighter, those lenses just didn't make sense to me. Unless you were sitting on a dolly all day, they were just too big and too heavy. And you needed a 6x6 matte box, so filters were $12 billion dollars each. Going to smaller, more nimble zooms meant that I could use lighter heads, and then lighter sticks, etc.

I have been doing this for a while, cameras change, tastes change - super speeds used to be really important to have for shooting in low light, now cameras ares so fast, you can shoot night exteriors at 5.6 if you want. I try to do the thing where if the thing you have is sitting around not making you money you should sell it, but I have to much love for some of my gear. And I am never ever selling my Panavison 500mm not matter what. Unless someone wants to make me an offer ;-)

Nick

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

And I am never ever selling my Panavison 500mm not matter what. Unless someone wants to make me an offer ;-)

How the hell did you get that!

 

[Luka Sanader]

I have got my first Lomo Square fronts form 500$ a pop in Moscow in 1995. I have sold them for about the double what i paid, in the year 2000 when i was buying Arri SR16II and i needed money. I had set of Ekran ( Lomo Super Speeds) that i have sold in 2010 when i was buying a house. about the same time i have sold my full set of Leica Rs as i felt that VistaVision is dead end and that we wont have professional cameras with that large sensor. Over all i was selling lenses every time i had major investments. Only difference is that that set of Ekrans today is around 50K and I have sold my set for 9000USD. Same with Leica R i have sold entire set with 19mm V2 and Summilux 35 and 50 for the price that Summilux 35 sales today. you cant keep them all

 

[Michael Lindsay]

Does anyone currently or soon (competently) rehouse square fronts (either with baltar or Panchro taking lens) … I know Van D did once but that is no longer a option..

ideas?

 

[Matt W.]

I think White Point Optics has a Lomo/Leica hybrid. Jacek on this forum I think does a mount conversion. I think the taking lens is a Cooke clone so not sure how much you'd gain from replacing it.

What did everyone settle on?

Fwiw I think there's a huge difference mechanically between costly cine and cheap still lenses. Optically? I don't see it as much but some of the sets are nice if you shoot S35 and need consistency.

 

[Michael Lindsay]

I think White Point Optics has a Lomo/Leica hybrid. Jacek on this forum I think does a mount conversion. I think the taking lens is a Cooke clone so not sure how much you'd gain from replacing it.

Thank you I did already see the White Point option... basically quite a few people were left without complete sets after VanD stopped all work entirely... semi completing one of these sets with one lens is what I wanted to achieve. I am pretty sure we'll have to wait for the right option.

I'd be fascinated to see the WP lenses in action as the square fronts are interesting but I suspect they are looking for the kind of cult success the Meru's have (with the Leitz talking lens formula) but I don't imagine they will achieve that as easily with the SF's as they are just not that kind of lens for me (I could easily be wrong and people really go for this look and its limitations).. Ultimately the optical forumal/approcah of the Meru's is I think more versatile and ultimately more useful... Lenswork (I don't know them at all) seem to have been very clever here.

As for the question over replacing the cooke clone I do probably agree but that is what was done with the rest of the set.. and do think it is a little nicer!

Fwiw I think there's a huge difference mechanically between costly cine and cheap still lenses. Optically? I don't see it as much but some of the sets are nice if you shoot S35 and need consistency.

I agree..

I honestly believe there is only one thing that really defines a cine lens and that is that it is mechanically fit for someone to use it easily in a cine environment. (without the undue use of unseen political leverage - I have leveraged inappropriate optics onto a job and been hated by the FP ;-). So for me it all comes down to mechanical needs and even though there is no completely homogeneous agrement here as priorities differ and needs change but there is far more agreement mechanically than optically! Every single optical artefact or defect is a valid creative option for someone.

 

[Matt W.]

Thank you I did already see the White Point option... basically quite a few people were left without complete sets after VanD stopped all work entirely... semi completing one of these sets with one lens is what I wanted to achieve. I am pretty sure we'll have to wait for the right option.

I'd be fascinated to see the WP lenses in action as the square fronts are interesting but I suspect they are looking for the kind of cult success the Meru's have (with the Leitz talking lens formula) but I don't imagine they will achieve that as easily with the SF's as they are just not that kind of lens for me (I could easily be wrong and people really go for this look and its limitations).. Ultimately the optical forumal/approcah of the Meru's is I think more versatile and ultimately more useful... Lenswork (I don't know them at all) seem to have been very clever here.

As for the question over replacing the cooke clone I do probably agree but that is what was done with the rest of the set.. and do think it is a little nicer!



I agree..

I honestly believe there is only one thing that really defines a cine lens and that is that it is mechanically fit for someone to use it easily in a cine environment. (without the undue use of unseen political leverage - I have leveraged inappropriate optics onto a job and been hated by the FP ;-). So for me it all comes down to mechanical needs and even though there is no completely homogeneous agrement here as priorities differ and needs change but there is far more agreement mechanically than optically! Every single optical artefact or defect is a valid creative option for someone.

Yeah, I worry square fronts are limited because they have so much breathing/mumps, so you'd get fat looking talent (diopters could fix this?) and match moving would be difficult for vfx if there are focus pulls. I could be wrong, just speculating. So I think you can only elevate them to a certain level, but on the other hand that limitation is also a unique look (that I personally like). (I'm not sure about C series or Meru, I think they have mumps too but in a different way?)

I agree that what looks good is subjective. I also think a minimalist high contrast lighting style looks good with older lenses whereas an old school style can look better with sharper ones. So mechanics are the only constant. Except even mechanics aren't always – on a really small set with a Ronin or whatever you might want an A7SIII and Sony GM lenses for autofocus and portability.

I'm kind of in the "worst" of both worlds in that I bought unrehoused cinema lenses cheaply and haven't had them rehoused because this is still primarily a hobby for me. So I've got something like geared focus rings without witness marks and removable lens adapters, the idea being I could get them back into their original condition (with some wear and tear unfortunately) if needed or rehouse them if needed. But is there a middle ground where something like this would be viable? Like student films or personal projects (or spec ads) is what I'm thinking now. Would I be laughed off a set if I had lenses without (visible) witness marks even if it's a student film or something? I was thinking of adding small ones with a label maker to the edge of the focus ring. (These are Arri Standard lenses where the focus marks are hidden when adapted to PL mount. Or on digital is this not such a big deal anymore?)

Back when I worked as a sales associate one of the first things we learned was to ask the customer what his or her needs are, what their budget is, etc. etc. I feel like we go onto a forum like this asking for help but forgetting we have very different needs. For instance, if I'm shooting more as a hobby I wouldn't spend the money replacing a Lomo taking lens with a Cooke. But the Cooke is almost certainly better especially if you have the budget to rehouse.... that said I think the 50mm Lomo is a Cooke clone so if there were an option to rehouse as-is to complete the set it might match okay, not sure. (I think it's a similar story with FD lenses in terms of pricing at least – they went from a hobbyist's alternative to cinema lenses to something the Alexa LF maybe actually made viable and so the pricing went from one extreme to the other very quickly.)

(It's likely I'm just the one with different needs. Most people here are pros and I'm shooting more as a hobby.)

 

[Robert Hart]

+1

I think vintage lenses are following the same trend as the housing market.

The 200mm f2 Nikon got thugged during a house burg. When I checked the value to replace compared to what I had paid for it, I was just about crying like a refugee. Then about four years later, I found it among some junk out on the back verander. The thieves must have had too much of an armful of stuff, hidden it and forgot to come back for it. I was grinning like the cat which stayed away for a week and came back to a bowl of catfood starving. Strangely the Cinema Products Ultra T* 16mm camera lenses seem to have become unobtainium and at a higher price when vended compared to when I built up a set.

 

[Matt W.]

The 200mm f2 Nikon got thugged during a house burg. When I checked the value to replace compared to what I had paid for it, I was just about crying like a refugee. Then about four years later, I found it among some junk out on the back verander. The thieves must have had too much of an armful of stuff, hidden it and forgot to come back for it. I was grinning like the cat which stayed away for a week and came back to a bowl of catfood starving. Strangely the Cinema Products Ultra T* 16mm camera lenses seem to have become unobtainium and at a higher price when vended compared to when I built up a set.

Beautiful lens! Glad you found yours – I sold one (that had a bit of fungus) for $400 or something some years back.

The 16mm Mk1 Zeiss super speeds are still pretty affordable, in part I think because the mechanics are poor relative to Mk2 and Mk3. Maybe not as cool as the Kowas but possibly a viable replacement. Also they're not as rare as the Kowas /Cinema Products line – so more supply regardless of demand.

Do you think the house thieves had an idea you were stashing camera gear? I'm moving back to Los Angeles soon and am a little afraid to bring too many uninsured "treasures" out with me. I called Century up about getting a PL mount added to a lens I own and they told me a story about the same model being stolen and someone trying to sell it back to them years ago. Makes me a little wary.

 

[Robert Hart]

The thieves were opportunists. There were tracks in the yard and tries on windows and doors before they got serious. The higher value gear was stored elsewhere but the stills lenses were here. They are with the other stuff and more secure away from here now and I no longer keep anything like new gear, only two patched up Blackmagic Ursa cameras and a couple of old worthless CP16s which will wrench the shoulder out of any thief who tries to cart them any more than ten metres. But what can you do when you have to go off to work each day whilst some drugged up dole-bludger has little better to do than sit off in an old Corolla waiting for you to depart. A lot of stuff went including a 120 year old heirloom violin and strangely some old kid's toys which were in an old lunch box plus a pair of vintage binoculars. What really stung was a bunch of my late father's wartime letters to my late mother which was essentially a diary of his recovery after war injury. They removed the drawer the letters were in just as a carryall for their loot which included my late mother's jewellery. They left the place in a terrible mess. Checking the hockshops yielded no luck.

 

[Matt W.]

I'm sorry to hear that. I hear horror stories similar to that often. The heirlooms obviously sound worse to lose than the lenses. I do miss my 200mm f2.0 and 35mm f1.4 Nikkors in particular, though.

Were I to start over, I'd travel light.