Nikon F2AS in black: is it really highly collectible?

[darkosaric]

I never had big love for F2, I have F and F3, and sold my first F2. But recently I won auction where I finally got long desired Nikkor 180mm f2.8 ED, and I got F2A with the couple of more lenses as well.

I was planning to use F2, to give it another chance, maybe to use it with old F prism, but I see that is considered highly collectible in black? It has working prism for Ai lenses, and it is in a good condition... is it really highly collectible?

Thanks!

 

[BMbikerider]

If it is in, what could be described as 'mint' then yes it will be collectable, very collectable and in fact attract a premium price. Even ones with a bit of use will certainly be snapped up if it is mechanically sound and has had a recent service.

I have had 2 or was it 3 F2a's I cannot recall exactly because it was some time ago, but they were good, solid and totally dependable and can be repaired unlike the F3 if the electronics fail

 

[BradS]

It would seem a shame to let an F2, any F2 languish, loved but unused on a collector's shelf.
These are fantastic cameras and the F2AS is the most usable of the lot.
Use it, enjoy it and be happy.

 

[Pieter12]

While there are plenty of F2's around at reasonable prices, the AS meter prism cameras (and just the prism) sell for a premium. They are the last model and they can easily be used with more of the modern Nikon lenses. As far as collectible goes, I don't think they are any more collectible than other Nikon F models. But I'm not a collector, just an accumulator.

 

[mshchem]

It's not mint. Even if you had original boxes, and packaging and it's perfect, there's a very limited market. That's a nice survivor, it's certainly a very desirable camera, selling it to a friend for 350 bucks or so you would both come out ahead. The S models had pretty lame LED meter display, used up the batteries, really intended to be used with the truly bizarre auto aperture control.
F2 is still my favorite manual focus 35mm SLR, totally mechanical tank. I love my F and F3 examples as well.
One important thing to remember is a person can buy a really nice F5 for 350 to 400 bucks.

 

[BradS]

....
One important thing to remember is a person can buy a really nice F5 for 350 to 400 bucks.

I saw a nice looking one in excellent working condition last weekend for $289 !!!!
I couldn't believe that, other than a few scuffs in all the usual places, there was nothing wrong with it!
What an amazing time we live in.

 

[blockend]

The plain prism models attract a premium because Nikon's metered "photomic" heads are a lump. A plain prism F2 in good condition is still a desirable camera. I don't follow Nikon prices but a few years ago a clean, black, plain prism F2 was selling for around £800. Prices could have gone either way since then.

 

[BMbikerider]

It would seem a shame to let an F2, any F2 languish, loved but unused on a collector's shelf.
These are fantastic cameras and the F2AS is the most usable of the lot.
Use it, enjoy it and be happy.

I didn't say for the equipment to sit on a shelf as a quite expensive ornament, F2 cameras of whatever model are fully usable and if I was in the market for another camera they would be close to the top of the list with an F2a as a fore runner.

 

[Dennis-B]

I have a couple of F2's, both came with the original Photomic prisms. However, one of the prisms bellied up, so I've since acquired both the A and AS prisms, keeping one of the Photomics as a "spare". Both newer prisms are great, in that I can use my AI lenses, although I do have a single 50mm f/1.4 non-AI lens. Both bodies are great performers, and the AS works nicely, although it is a battery hog, and the meter gets a bit erratic when the power gets low.

A local dealer had a black AS model last week on eBay, for around $300. I almost bought it, but it had a dent in the top plate near the film counter, and a couple of dents in the bottom plate. Had those defects not been present, it likely would have sold for over $400, maybe closer to $500, since it had the box with it.

 

[4season]

I think it's mildly collectable, but prices hardly seem to have changed since I sold mine many years ago.

 

[Dennis-B]

I think it's mildly collectable, but prices hardly seem to have changed since I sold mine many years ago.

Whether we like it, or not, eBay is the de rigeur "market" for price setting. However, I see dealers at local shows who "believe" their F2's are the exception, rather than the rule. They have asking prices of over $500 in many instances. I don't know if that's because they're really only interested in "show and tell", or it they really believe in their asking prices. I've offered what I believed to be a fair price, and have always gotten a glare, or "no".

 

[BradS]

I didn't say for the equipment to sit on a shelf as a quite expensive ornament, F2 cameras of whatever model are fully usable and if I was in the market for another camera they would be close to the top of the list with an F2a as a fore runner.

...but I was replying only to the OP. I completely agree with what you wrote - factual and accurate.
Clearly the market is willing to pay much more for an F2AS in excellent cosmetic condition with the original box and accessories.
Sorry.


On further reflection, however, I'm not sure what it even means for something to be "Highly Collectible"...
I guess everything is collectible, my son had a collection of found on the ground bottle caps when he was a kid.
I guess "Highly Collectible" is just a figure of speech....and even the ordinary, run of the mill, objects can seem worthy of collecting....even is they are utterly without any monetary value.

Back to the Nikon F2 - I'm sure there are plenty languishing on collectors' shelves. On one hand, it seems a sad and ignoble fate for such a fine instrument but on the other hand, these are being preserved and we cannot know what purpose they may yet serve!
Color me hopeful.

 

[BradS]

back again to the OP's question...is it highly collectible?

Why does it matter? If you like it use it or clean it up, set it on display and enjoy it.
If you'd prefer to have some extra cash...test it thoroughly, photograph it well and sell it.
For sure, it will sell for what it is worth....whatever that is.

 

[darkosaric]

I ordered FTN prism from original nikon F, that I will use on F2. I simply find FTN prism beautiful, and light meter is not so important to me, shooting B&W mainly.
After thinking a bit - I think better is not to sell too quickly, I have sold my CL and Summicron-C, so "gear budget" is ok. I will use it on my next trip to Manila, so I will see how does F2 feel in my hands now, after couple of years when I have used it last time.
Eventually later I can sell DP12 prism, and teleconverter that I got with (and don't use).

 

[__Brian]

Desirable for someone using an all-manual, all mechanical, Nikon body.

Collectible? Not really, you could interchange the prisms and move to a black body.

The F2 Titanium get a premium, collectible. Practical- not really, the brass body cameras are likely to remain working as the softer metal absorbs the shock of a drop. Titanium looks good, passes the shock to the inner components. That's what the Nikon Rep told me 40 years ago.

 

[BMbikerider]

Desirable for someone using an all-manual, all mechanical, Nikon body.

Collectible? Not really, you could interchange the prisms and move to a black body.

The F2 Titanium get a premium, collectible. Practical- not really, the brass body cameras are likely to remain working as the softer metal absorbs the shock of a drop. Titanium looks good, passes the shock to the inner components. That's what the Nikon Rep told me 40 years ago.

I wonder if that Nikon rep remained on Nikon's payroll for very long???

Brass, Titanium, or any other metal of substance will not absorb shocks if dropped from a distance. Metal be it brass or Titanium in a cast form does not 'absorb' anything - it dents. Having said that the F2 of whatever model is as strong as they come, but the delicate meter circuits and mirror pivots may well suffer (but repairable) but precious little else, but that is also relevant with any other camera, but the F2 will probably survive better.

 

[__Brian]

It's the same concept as a metal bumper and hood on a '72 Mustang running into the side of a bridge at 100mph. The metal absorbs a lot of the energy as it is crushed, buffers the blow to the driver. I do not recommend repeating this experiment. A plastic car, I'd be dead. A Titanium car- not sure I want to repeat the experiment, knowing how it rattled the insides of the F2T that the salesman told me about.

 

[Alan Gales]

I remember when Nikon used to charge a little more for their black cameras. I never understood that. People wanted black because it was considered the "professional" color.

My Contax 139 was black and it was Contax's least expensive camera. You couldn't even buy it in silver.

 

[Huss]

It's the same concept as a metal bumper and hood on a '72 Mustang running into the side of a bridge at 100mph. The metal absorbs a lot of the energy as it is crushed, buffers the blow to the driver. I do not recommend repeating this experiment. A plastic car, I'd be dead. A Titanium car- not sure I want to repeat the experiment, knowing how it rattled the insides of the F2T that the salesman told me about.

Actually the plastic car has far higher modern crash test requirements than anything from 1972 so you have that backwards. At least the analogy.

 

[blockend]

I remember when Nikon used to charge a little more for their black cameras. I never understood that. People wanted black because it was considered the "professional" color.

My Contax 139 was black and it was Contax's least expensive camera. You couldn't even buy it in silver.

Metal bodied cameras had another production stage, they were sprayed and enamelled. How much enamelling added to the true cost, and what was a "pro" premium is debatable. When plastic bodied cameras became popular in the late 1970s with models like the Canon A-1, black became the new normal.

 

[__Brian]

Actually the plastic car has far higher modern crash test requirements than anything from 1972 so you have that backwards. At least the analogy.

Not for 1974 I didn't, unless you have a time machine that really works. Great thing- I walked out of the car with a few bruises, and the car was rebuilt to run another 150,000 miles. The radiator had to be replaced, as it was ripped out of the car.

The point is, choice of materials is important for damping an impact. Some metals absorb energy, deform, and lessen the impact on the rest of the structure.

 

[swchris]

...running into the side of a bridge at 100mph.

Were you allowed to drive that fast? (Posting from Germany where speed limits are mostly a non-issue on the Autobahn.)

But I agree. The deforming of metal on a crash reduces the energy which the driver has to sustain. Therefore I prefer cars with more "headroom" than like "Smart" or similar cars.

 

[Alan Gales]

Metal bodied cameras had another production stage, they were sprayed and enamelled. How much enamelling added to the true cost, and what was a "pro" premium is debatable. When plastic bodied cameras became popular in the late 1970s with models like the Canon A-1, black became the new normal.

It would have made more sense to me to just paint all the metal Nikons black since that seemed to be the color that most people preferred. Maybe I'm wrong but everyone I knew wanted a black camera.

 

[BradS]

It would have made more sense to me to just paint all the metal Nikons black since that seemed to be the color that most people preferred. Maybe I'm wrong but everyone I knew wanted a black camera.

I don't know. I've always slightly prefered chrome because it wears better. I guess I always assumed that Nikon charged slightly more for a black than for chrome becuase the black one somehow cost more to make.
I remember that when I bought an FM3a in 2003-ish, the chrome body was $569 the black body was a whopping $20 more...so, really, not even much of a premium.

In hindsight, it does seem that, whereas Leica and Pentax (for example) produced far more chrome than black, Nikon produced black and chrome in fairly equal numbers...but this is just my perception.

 

[__Brian]

Black cameras were associated with professionals as they often used studio lights and the chrome on cameras could produce reflections.
Chrome wears better.
But there is something about black lacquer over brass that seems to make a camera body better looking.

 

[Alan Gales]

I don't know. I've always slightly prefered chrome because it wears better. I guess I always assumed that Nikon charged slightly more for a black than for chrome becuase the black one somehow cost more to make.
I remember that when I bought an FM3a in 2003-ish, the chrome body was $569 the black body was a whopping $20 more...so, really, not even much of a premium.

In hindsight, it does seem that, whereas Leica and Pentax (for example) produced far more chrome than black, Nikon produced black and chrome in fairly equal numbers...but this is just my perception.

I normally prefer black over chrome but there are some exceptions. I love the look of a Sinar Norma with it's chrome and green.