John,
I´m also not too happy with the OM/Zuiko-Price situation. (in respect to the
German market)
I started with the OM System in 1993 and bought most of my equipment till 1995.
Before the price increase of 1994 the price/value-ratio of the OM-system was
one of the best. But the new prices almost doubled since then. This influenced
also the used prices. Especially the deales-prices based on 'used-price-lists'.
But IMHO, is the marked not willing to pay such a lot of monney, which
led`s to an decrease of offers, when I compare the OM-content of several
show window`s, which I`ve watched over the time.
Two situations as explanation: In my area there is one really large
photo-market.
The offer was a Zuiko 3.5/16 Fisheye. One offered in 1994, the second in 2000.
In 1994 the new price was about 1200.-, the dealer wanted about 650.-. I came
too late 1 hour after opening. There was another men bargaining, but then payed
the price,
Because there were Three other people interested.
This year, I saw the same lens on a display just before the end of the marked.
I asked the
dealer for the price. He sad it is priced 1250.-, but offered me imediatly
1000.-, well
So what are this high prices for?- It was`nt hart to resist, altough Now it is
2200.- new.
This is how things can change.
But compare closely. The MF-Nikkor lenses are today also more expensife than
the AF-version!
So compare Zuiko-prices to MF-Nikon prices. I know, it`s not much comfort.
But goot MF-Equipemt is expensive, since the AF took the mass marked.
I have a price comparison from a CoFo-test of 28mm lenses from 1997:
AF-Nikkor 2.8/28 = 570.-
MF-Nikkor 2.8/28 = 1250.-
Zuiko 2.0/28 =1210.- (o.k price now rised twice to 1500.- /1800.-, don`t now
about Nikon)
Regarding to 2/35-lenses CoFo compared both Nikkor lenses AF +MF and
the Olympus 2/35 (all new). In the result, all of them reach the same
performance. The Nikkor might be a tad sharper wide open, but the Oly, was
contrastier stopped down....nothing to worry about. All fo them are very fine
lenses.
About ebay, Well I think there are two general types of ebay auchtions
(regarding of comon OM-stuff):
1.) Starting price = used catalog-price ==> No bid`s
2.) Starting price = DM 1.- ==> reaches about ½ of catalog price depending
on conditions
Just my 2 cent..... or how was it ....
Frieder Faig
On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 08:41:56PM -0800, jldasch@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> To be honest, I find many Olympus lens prices (used) to be well
> outside what I consider a good value. With the use of OM systems
> limited to the devoted it seems odd that the price of the good optics
> are still so high.
>
> I own three OM bodies (2 OM1, 1 OM2) and around 9 lenses, not all
> Zuiko. I've had these (or family members have and I've inherited) for
> around 30 years, plus more recent optics addtions and replacements for
> stolen bodies. I also have a very well travled XA, and a Leica IIIg.
> More recently I added a T4 and an N70 plus lenses. This brings me to
> my point.
>
> The N70 is a very modern system, lacking in the esthetics of the OM
> cameras but providing some often wanted features like autofocus and
> fill-flash. I don't own a better lens then the 35/f2 Nikor. This
> summer I traveled with the N70 and two OM's, and the highest
> percentage of really good shots come from the N70, mostly with the
> 35.
>
> What is distressing is that if I'm not mistaken, the current Nikor
> fixed lenses are similar in price or cheaper than good used Oly
> optics. I'd like to see a direct comparison, but I suspect that the
> Nikor 35/2, 24/2.8, and 20/2.8 are as good or better than the
> comparable Oly optics, and the new prices are similar to the used Oly
> prices. My SB28 is expensive, but blows away the OM flashes feature
> for feature.
>
> I'm not trying to flame the OM system, I still prefer to use it when
> the conditions favor it, but I'm having trouble justifying addtional
> optics (used) for it when compared with adding to my Nikon set (new or
> used). Even with the IIIg (screw mount) there are some interesting
> Voigtlander lenses, especially wide angles, although the original
> lenses are very expensive. I'm just interested in the economics that
> keep the OM lenses so expensive (e.g. the 28/2 I want [the 28/2.8
> seems inferior optically]).
>
> -John
>
> jldasch@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|