From: Michael Benveniste on
"Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008(a)aol.com> wrote:

> What do you expect, it's a Nikkor? Classic Nikkors are such a great
> investment that they yield better returns and are safer than the stock
> market.

I would be quite surprised if the seller gets his asking price for
this beast. $6000-$8000 would be a more reasonable estimate, at which
"investing" in this lens new wouldn't have kept up with inflation.

"Investing" in more common classic Nikkors was almost as good a way
to lose money as penny stocks. Adjusted for inflation, a lens like
the 80-200mm f/4 AI-S sells for about 1/8th of it's original street
price.

Of course, if you actually want to take _photographs_ today, the
Sigma 12-24mm yields superior results at about 1/20th of the asking
price.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb(a)murkyether.com (Clarification required)
Legalize Updoc.

From: N on
"Paul J Gans" <gans(a)panix.com> wrote in message
news:g5rmeg$8ia$15(a)reader1.panix.com...
>
> Yup. Most of us regard photography as a means to producing
> pictures, not as an investment or a sales opportunity.
>
> --
> --- Paul J. Gans


Lots of people think of houses as a place to live, while others see them as
an investment and way to make money.


From: C J Campbell on
On 2008-07-18 05:18:59 -0700, "Michael Benveniste" <mhb(a)murkyether.com> said:

>
> Of course, if you actually want to take _photographs_ today, the Sigma
> 12-24mm yields superior results at about 1/20th of the asking
> price.

Really? Have you ever even seen the 13mm, let alone used one? I highly
doubt it. Nikon only made something like 500 of them, each to special
order. The lens is unique for its characteristic of having absolutely
no distortion. None. You can lay a ruler on any straight line in an
image taken with this lens and it will be straight, whether center,
side, corner, or wherever. Bet the Sigma 12-24 doesn't do that. Neither
is the Sigma a professional quality lens. Maybe those features aren't
important to you and that is fine. But if you need it, you need it. And
only the 13mm delivers. Bet you don't get your Sigma lens blessed by a
Shinto priest when it is personally delivered to you at the factory,
either. But the 13mm f/5.6 AIS was.

They say both the Sigma 12-24 and the Nikon 14-24 are sharper than the
Nikon 13mm. I wouldn't know. I have never used the 13mm, either. Too
rich for me (says the guy who has spent more than $20,000 on lenses and
bodies in the last year and a half). The 13mm's thing was no
distortion, not just minimal distortion or small distortion, but none.

One can only wonder what wonders in specialized lenses like this that
Nikon could produce today if they put their minds to it. But the Nikon
of today would never take risks like that, though their line of PC
lenses does make you wonder if the old days are coming back. With the
return of the FX format, how long before we see something like a
full-circle fish-eye again?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

From: Ray Fischer on
Rita Berkowitz <ritaberk2008(a)aol.com> wrote:
>What do you expect, it's a Nikkor? Classic Nikkors are such a great
>investment that they yield better returns and are safer than the stock
>market.

Drunk again?

>--
>Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time.

Then why are you such an idiot?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Michael Benveniste on
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:48:37 -0700, C J Campbell
<christophercampbell(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 2008-07-18 05:18:59 -0700, "Michael Benveniste" <mhb(a)murkyether.com> said:

>Really? Have you ever even seen the 13mm, let alone used one? I highly
>doubt it. Nikon only made something like 500 of them, each to special
>order. The lens is unique for its characteristic of having absolutely
>no distortion. None.

Is Ken Rockwell your source for the "zero distortion" and "Shinto
priest" claims? If so, Ken himself states: "While often inspired by
actual products and events, just like any other good news organization,
I like to make things up when they make the site more fun."

Nikon made fewer than 300, and yes, I have handled one. And not even
Nikon claims "no distortion" for the 13mm:

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n09_e.htm

>Bet the Sigma 12-24 doesn't do that. Neither is the Sigma a professional
>quality lens.

Have you tried the Sigma? It does surprisingly well in terms of
distortion.

As for "professional quality," it's a term I find more amusing than
useful. Could a pro use a Sigma 12-24mm and produce salable work? The
answer is clearly yes, but as Galen Rowell and others showed, the same
is true of cheap "kit" lenses. Is it an f/2.8 lens? No, but it's
faster than the 13mm. Does the Sigma 12-24mm use plastic? Sure, but
because it doesn't have the huge front element of the 13mm f/5.6, I'm
willing to bet it's less fragile.

>Bet you don't get your Sigma lens blessed by a Shinto priest when it
>is personally delivered to you at the factory, either. But the 13mm
>f/5.6 AIS was.

If I wanted a lens blessed by a religious leader, I'm sure I could
arrange it, but I've never felt the need. How does it help the optical
characteristics?

The 13mm f/5.6 was quite an accomplishment for its time. But the
designers chose not to use either ED glass nor aspherical elements in
the design. Given the tools available to them, perhaps the design
was too complex, or they couldn't reliably produce ED glass of the
required shape.

Sigma had the advantage of more than 25 years of advances in computer
aided design. It uses seven "exotic" lens elements. The aspherical
elements are either molded or hybrid, neither of which were available
techniques in 1975. Custom-ground asphericals could, in theory, do even
better, but they are so expensive that Nikon discontinued all F-mount
lenses which used them.

>One can only wonder what wonders in specialized lenses like this that
>Nikon could produce today if they put their minds to it.

Indeed. I have zero doubt that Nikon could produce a substantially
better 13mm FX-format lens today. The 14-24mm f/2.8 shows just how far
the state of the practice has advanced.

Look past the mystique and the rarity for the moment. From a marketing
standpoint, lenses like the 6mm f/2.8, 13mm f/5.6, and 360-1200mm f/11
were "brand aura" lenses. They sent the message, "no matter what your
photographic needs, at Nikon we're ready to go one better." They were
made first to attract customers to the product line and as photographic
tools second.

Did it work? At the time Nikon adopted this strategy, they were the
dominant brand in professional 35mm gear. By the time they discontinued
it, they were a distant second to Canon. Myself, I'd rather Nikon skip
the sideshow and spend its efforts making products I'll buy and use.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb(a)murkyether.com (Clarification required)
"The hippies wanted peace and love. We wanted Ferraris, blondes and
switchblades." Alice Cooper