Want to know what old lenses would cost now?

Hej Jim
I have got a list of prices from the winter 74 with a huge amount of prices from just about every brand - Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Petri etc.
If you are interested, then I can scan them in and send them to you.
Jacques.

If digital photography did not exist then the value of these lenses would probably be higher. The manual focus 35mm SLR's period of popularity went from about 1965 to about 1985. The auto focus 35mm SLR's periodo od popularity went from 1985 with the Minolta Maxxum 7000 to about 2005 when DSLRs came down enough in price so that more people could afford them. With the exception of the more exotic models, manual focus lenses have been going down in value for a long time. Off brand manual focus lenses need to be even more special to hold their value. If we are talking about equipment in good condition then a 135/2.3 Vivitar Series 1 in Nikon AI mount is worth a lot more than a 135/2.8 Vivitar Fixed Mount for Minolta. The Series 1 lens is faster, has closer focusing and can be used on some DSLRs. The Fixed Mount lens could be adapted or use on a 4/3 or Micro 4/3 digital camera but is not practical for use on A mount Minolta film SLRs or DSLRs. Some other interesting off brand lenses which are worth something: Vivitar 135/2.8 Close Focusing, Tamron 90/2.5 SP, Vivitar 90/2.5 Series 1, Tokina 90/2.5 AT-X, 135/2.8 Sigma Pantel, 55/2.8 Vivitar Foxed Mount macro, 35-70/2.5-3.5 Soligor C/D.
A spreadsheet will not show you any trend. You need to consider what's special about each lens and what cameras the lens would work on today. The off brand manual focus lenses which have no special features and which are in unpopular mounts are mostly worth very little.

Jeff, I agree with all your points. I didn't intend to expose a current trend with this old glass and brass sampling. My spreadsheet exercise just helped me to put in perspective how even the "also-ran" lenses of years ago would be selling today at fairly high dollar amounts (relative to other things such as phones, computers, etc.). I'm glad most vintage photo equipment continues to drop in value. It helps me to grow my collection for less money.

I suppose that in another 33 years, someone else might do an inflationary current value comparison on all those hopelessly out-of-date Canon EOS and Nikon DSLRs from the turn of the century laying around in thrift shops (online, of course). Though probably pretty useless for image-making in 2042, I hope someone will appreciate just exactly how willing people were to invest good money in capturing memories.

I don't completely believe "dollar calculators". Inflation is not the only factor in considering what money means. It's also important to consider that many of those lenses made in 1976 are still going today and ask yourself how well those new Canon and Nikon "digital lenses" will hold up in 33 years, or if there will even be a camera around that is capable of using them! Interestingly, I've noticed that in the used market many lenses cost the same today that they did when brand new... ignoring "inflation calculators". I think if you want to know what something is "worth" then you probably also need to know what the profit margin was on it. Higher profit margin items typically loose their value quicker... because that profit margin was usually made on cheap production. Brand value is another factor and those cheap lens kits from the 70's were probably overpriced when they came out, and due to lack of a brand value, are worth virtually nothing today.

I appreciate what you did. It brought back some memories of when I first got into photography, and how excited I was to buy a decent zoom lens -- brand new! -- for my bought-used Canon FT-QL. What a great bunch of photos I shot with that camera; drove me nuts at the time (in a good way).

I actually think that the First-Class-Mail conversion actually works about as well, and in some cases better, as the "converters" Jim has linked to frequently. If you look at prices of comparable goods in old catalogs and compare them to each other and today, first-class postage has tracked costs reasonably well, especially since ca. 1939. Regardless, when you realize what photo equipment really cost back in the old days, it can be staggering. Not to mention a very hefty excise tax that made matters even worse.

Jeez, Cliff, when you stick to photography you usually (often?, sometimes?) make sense. Why do you have to inject your views of the economic process into every thread? Obsession or is there a darker reason? In any case, I have to call you on it just for the record. Lots of people, even on this site, don't agree with you.

Granted, I have to confess, sometimes even paranoids are right, ;)

JDM, The topic was how much these cameras and lenses would cost now. That is directly related to the purchacing power of the dollar. Everyone who has a dollar in their pocket should know that the Federal Reserve is the governing force of what the dollar is worth, just look at one. It says Federal Reserve Note. I can't imagine anyone that could possibly disagree with me on that. Maybe they don't know, but not disagree. Here is a graph of what the dollar is worth put out by the Department of Labor, showing the value of the dollar since 1913 when the Federal Reserve took over.You can easily look at it and convert what anything would be worth today. No spreadsheet needed.

Inflaltion calculation is complicated and involves many factors. Even current inflation calculation by the DOL is full of inconsistencies. Some of these show up when GDP figures are produced. If the price of a car goes up from one year to the next you might be able to achieve the same dollar volume of sales from a smaller number of cars. Is this an increase in sales or a decrease? In 1913 there were no personal computers, electronic calculators, cell phones, human heart transplants, MRI scans, cruise missiles or DNA tests. We have no way of knowing how much these things might have cost if they had been available in 1913. We can look back and see what eggs and bread and milk cost in 1913 but knowing those prices alone will not tell us very much. Bovine growth hormone is given to cows to increase milk production. Wheat for bread is grown more efficiently and is baked using large commercial assembly lines. More is known about egg production and selective breeding gives us hens which lay more eggs. For these reasons inflation figures tell us more if we look back a few years than if we look back to 1913.
I bought a Konica Autoreflex T2 with a 57/1.4 Hexanon lens in 1971 for about $220. I was too young then to appreciate or understand how much money that was. I did not know how long someone would have to work to get $220 or how much food or clothing or medcial care or gasoline could be purchased with $220. The Konica had manual focusing, manual film advance, manual rewind, a CdS meter and shutter priority automation. By 2003 or 2004 I could have bought a 35mm AF SLR for the same $220. That camera would have had auto focus, shutter priority, aperture priority, a program mode, a built in flash, auto film advance, auto rewind, a more sensitive meter, a higher top shutter speed, electronically timed slow speeds, a zoom lens and a matrix type of metering. The features of the newer camera were not available in 1971 so it's hard to know which camera was more "expensive."
While we can figure out how many eggs a dollar bought in 1913 and compare that to 2009 we also have to take into acount that in 2009 people earn a lot more. People also have different expectations than they did in 1913. Camera lenses from the 1960s and 1970s were made with a lot more metal. Even when Canon introduced the AE-1 in 1976 it still used the breech lock mounting system for its FD lenses. Canon needed to find a way to make its lenses more inexpensively. The breech lock system gave way to the New FD bayonet system and the barrels of the lenses were made of a variety of plastic materials. I get the same results with a 100/2.8 New FD as I do with a 100/2.8 FD SSC so in that example, Canon was successful. Looking at graphs and spreadshets can sometimes give us useful information but we need to interpret these sources of information and not just take them at face value. In the original Star Trek series Mr. Spock once said "Computers make excellent tools but I have no desire to serve under them." That's how I feel about raw inflation data.

I'm not complaining at all about the declining costs of old film cameras and lenses. When I was young, pretty much any camera was expensive, and 35mm SLR gear was far beyond my means. It was difficult enough for me to come up with gas money in high school and university, let alone buy a decent camera. I now own many of the cameras and lenses which were once on my dream list, and though I have expected the price of this old gear to eventually turn around and begin to appreciate in value, that so far hasn't been the case. The prices still seem to be decreasing.
As for inflation, it is a problem. The Federal Reserve has not been very wise managing the nation's currency over the last decades, and have manipulated the system in order to micro-manage the economy, instead of letting nature take it's course (common capitalism). The current high prices of gold and silver have nothing to do with demand, they reflect the lack of confidence in the dollar. The Fed has added over $10 trillion in "liquidity" to the economy in an attempt to give banks and such the money which they need to continue doing business. Unfortunately, most of this $10 trillion was printed out of thin air, in a practice similar to that used in 3rd World countries.
I don't live in America, but America's financial policies affect me indirectly. At the moment, I'm living in Japan, where the yen is now near record high values against the dollar (and other currencies, America is not the only industrialized nation which is printing money out of thin air right now). When I travel to America and other places, it's like I have a 25% off coupon for everything I wish to buy. I used to complain about the high prices of used gear on Ebay, but when I pay for it with Japanese yen, the prices are no longer so bad. But this is only for the moment. The weak dollar decreases American buying power for things like Japanese cars, televisions, and the like, so many companies in Japan are in difficulty at the moment. It won't be long until the yen is also affected.
In the meantime, I continue to pick up used gear when I find a good deal on it. I buy something at least once a month, sometimes a camera, or sometimes a lens. My apartment is getting a little cluttered now, but I enjoy using the things I buy. Yesterday was a long bike ride and a hike around a remote lake carrying my large format gear, which was purchased for a good price with my high-value yen. I'll get the film developed in Tokyo next week when I go into town to pick up an Olympus OM kit that I've had my eyes on for awhile. What will cost me about 15000 yen in Japan would run closer to $200 American, 3 years ago it would have been 20000 yen to $150 American.

Good work Jim. I'd like to see the Canon prices of the day. In 1986 I bought a Canon FD 85mm f/1.2L for $360, new. I was aghast to see that lens rocket in price over the next few years. Completed listings show one sold recently on the auction site for $850. The same lens in EF mount is nearly $2000! I am definitely keeping my olde FD gear.

Bought my C330 and the other mamiya TLR equipment from Cambridge sometime in the early to mid 70's . Wonder how much I paid for it? Bought most of my equipment from them. Might have bought a couple items from 47th Street.

In Los Angeles I bought a used C3 with 105mm and 180mm and sheetfilm; 120 and 220 back; plus poro meter prism for about 450 bucks 25 years ago in the used market; a fellow co worker.