Olympus OM Zuiko lenses and ridiculous prices?

dugrant153 · Sep 7, 2013

I've been trying to build up an OM system after having some pretty good success shooting a few events with an OM4.

However, I was browsing some of the lenses on Ebay (40mm F2, 24mm F2.8, etc.) and could not believe the asking prices. Perhaps it has to do with less supply than say Nikon or Canon lenses but .... wow. I'm just stunned.

Has the Olympus OM system really made a massive resurgence such that lenses that people couldn't get rid of before are now becoming crazy popular? Is it the mirrorless digital systems?

Or maybe I'm looking at the wrong sellers

erikg · Sep 7, 2013

Smaller pool, canon Dslr video, mirror less cameras, good rep--- all add up to high prices. I don't think it's going to get any better price wise either. I feel your pain.

wiltw · Sep 7, 2013

I think part of the issue is simply that OM lenses are easy to adapt for manual focus digital SLR uses.

mopar_guy · Sep 7, 2013

wiltw said:
I think part of the issue is simply that OM lenses are easy to adapt for manual focus digital SLR uses.

No. Not part of the issue. That is most of the issue.

pdeeh · Sep 7, 2013

I've started using an OM1 this year, and the f/2s certainly all seemed a hell of a price to me, so I abandoned all thoughts of the extra stop; but the f/2.8s seem good value. I picked up my nearly pristine 24/2.8 for a little bit over £100 (from a proper shop too), but they can be got for less, even on expenseBay.

hmm just noticed you're in BC, so perhaps this is one of the few occasions when gear is cheaper in the UK than N.America ...

hdeyong · Sep 7, 2013

I bought 5 Zuikos a year or so ago, 24 f2.8, 2-50's, f1.8, 100, f2.8 and a 135, f2.8. I think some of the reasons they've become so popular, (expensive), is, yes, they do adapt well to DSLR's, (they work beautifully on my 40D as well as on my OM1's), they're small, light, almost all use the same 49mm filters, and they are optically excellent. What more can you ask for? Hence, the prices.

Richard S. (rich815) · Sep 7, 2013

Some of the more rare ones are a little pricey but otherwise I think many are reasonable. KEH has a few 28/2.8 for less than $100 and the awesome 100/2.8 for good prices too. Ignore the high priced BIN eBay auctions. They are usually no indication for what real bidding auctions are finishing at. With patience you can often find things going for less.

Vonder · Sep 7, 2013

I fail to understand the point of posts like these. Nobody here is an industry expert nor do any of us track the prices of lenses on eBay. Just because a lens is going for more that you are willing to pay doesn't mean there is some shortage of lenses nor conspiracy to suck them all up for use with mirrorless cameras. You either pay the price or you do without. Seems pretty simple.

This has to be the 80th post I've read along the lines of "Wah! Whu can't I buy a 70-200mm f2.8 lens for under a hundred bucks? Wah!"

Ed Sawyer · Sep 7, 2013

It is a combination of things. Some of the OM glass is world class, even today. It is also easily adaptable to eos and other bodies. Most of them are the smallest lenses made for their length and speed. And some are rather rare. All this contributes to the high prices. But generally, they are worth it, which is why they are pricey.

jjphoto · Sep 7, 2013

Wolfeye said:
I fail to understand the point of posts like these. Nobody here is an industry expert nor do any of us track the prices of lenses on eBay. ....

Well, some people do, see link below:

Lens Price Database version 25 update, Lens$db-v25, http://tinyurl.com/jcolwell-lensdb

OP, in any case, the 40mm Zuiko is more of a collectors item then anything else so is pointless as an example of high Zuiko prices. Might as well complain about the price of a BMW whilst shopping for a Hyundai.

Many Zuikos have always been expensive, just look at the range of F2 lenses like the 90, 50 macro, any of the F2 wide angles. The 50/1.2 (and to a lesser degree the 55/1.2) has always been expensive, whilst the 50/1.4 has always been cheap, and the 50/1.8 much cheaper. The F2.8 and slower lenses have always been quite cheap. I bought an excellent 28/3.5 for $60 dollars recently, near mint too. Sure prices have been sliding up, that's understandable but no more than any other brand.

f/16 · Sep 7, 2013

I get most of my used gear from KEH. They have fair prices. Not "garage sale/thrift store/Craigslist deal of the year", but much lower than Buy it Now listings on Ebay. Ebay BIN listings are comical.

illumiquest · Sep 7, 2013

Blame the wankers with 4/3rds cameras, I tried building an OM system too but it's impossible because old men who like to write about their lenses bokeh are able to pay massive money for every lens I need and then proceed to take pictures of flowers with them. Same goes for the Leica stuff, and the Nikon stuff, and the Minolta stuff. Basically we're screwed.

elekm · Sep 7, 2013

Does anyone with a Canon use Canon lenses?

jjphoto · Sep 7, 2013

illumiquest said:
Blame the wankers with 4/3rds cameras, I tried building an OM system too but it's impossible because old men who like to write about their lenses bokeh are able to pay massive money for every lens I need and then proceed to take pictures of flowers with them...

I don't think that's correct. You really need to blame all digital users, including the cine guys who regularly destroy (de-click) the apertures in manual focus lenses. The demand for many Alt lenses was high prior to 4/3rds cameras as long as the lens worked on a Nikon/Canon body, ie most Leica, Contax, Olympus, Nikon and many others. 4/3rds and APSc mirrorless cameras did create a demand for all the lenses that simply couldn't be used on Canon/Nikon due to a very short register or small image circle, ie rangefinder lenses, cine, Minolta, Canon FD/FL etc etc. But the demand was always there, and it will always wax and wane, but yeah, it is greater now than ever.

And I'll have you know I haven't taken a single photo of a flower for the whole day. Thank you. But the day is young

And here's a bokeh comparison for you:

illumiquest said:
... Same goes for the Leica stuff, and the Nikon stuff, and the Minolta stuff. Basically we're screwed.

"Game over Man!", (Bill Paxton, Aliens)

elekm said:
Does anyone with a Canon use Canon lenses?

No. That's just crazy talk.

In practice, being able to use your existing lenses but on digital bodies has been a great benefit in many ways. I'm sure many will agree.

wiltw · Sep 7, 2013

mopar_guy said:
No. Not part of the issue. That is most of the issue.

No, part. The other part is that those now interested in buying film cameras often seek used OM-1, OM-2 and OM-4T bodies, making the OM lenses in demand by traditionalists, too.

The 24mm PC lens pictured in my avatar was once valued at 3X (the new price) on the used market, after Olympus ended the film OM line and dSLR shooters had not yet driven up demand. It now goes for only about 2X the new price ($750 new)

mgb74 · Sep 7, 2013

I've lost track. Who do we blame for having to pay $100 - instead of $50 - for a $200 lens?

kitanikon · Sep 7, 2013

elekm said:
Does anyone with a Canon use Canon lenses?

HaHa! I have a nice kit of Canon EF (the mid-level consumer grade) series of lenses, some zooms, some primes...but...
I tend to grab my Nikkors before I put a Canon on Canon...
I have a few lenses other than Nikkors...including a few Olys....
...including a 24/2.8 Oly (much better than the Nikon version) that I was lucky to find within my budget...
...and I have a couple of Oly 50s...the 1.4 and 1.8 that I'm "toying with" to see if I have any preference for them over the Nikkor 50s I have (1.4ais and F2-H)...

There are many lenses I've wanted that are regularly available and reasonably priced though more than I'd LIKE to spend...rather than stalk ebay for the rare "deal" and bemoan those who would outbid me at the last, I just wait to find them when I do at thrifts and pawns...and so in the end (is there ever an end?), I've a nice kit of interesting lenses....within my budget...

pdeeh · Sep 8, 2013

just remember everyone - once you've got your OM lenses, no flower pictures and for God's sake don't be old ...

clayne · Sep 8, 2013

illumiquest said:
Blame the wankers with 4/3rds cameras, I tried building an OM system too but it's impossible because old men who like to write about their lenses bokeh are able to pay massive money for every lens I need and then proceed to take pictures of flowers with them. Same goes for the Leica stuff, and the Nikon stuff, and the Minolta stuff. Basically we're screwed.

Pretty much this - but yeah as others have pointed out there's a bit more complexity.

illumiquest · Sep 8, 2013

I'm fine with video guys using old lenses to shoot with, but while a few of those may be using OM lenses, most use Zeiss or Nikon. What really bothers me is the people who out price me on the Leica stuff and then stick those lenses on a tiny sensor. I've tried shooting my one and only Leica lens on a point and shoot and it was the most frustrating shooting experience of my life. But yes, the bokeh was lovely. And of course I photographed a flower with it because that's the only thing you can photograph since anything else will move before you can finish fiddling around with the 12 buttons you need to take a bloody picture.

I'm not upset though, I'll just keep shooting my Kenko's.

Xmas · Sep 8, 2013

more people are using conversion to digital is altering the wides mainly

more people going to om1 for serious photos

lots of lenses stored in lofts and out houses eaten by fungus the bogey man

there were not many non standard lenses compared to Nikon

bad news if you are buying

gone · Sep 8, 2013

You really have to scratch your head about internet forums. Someone posts a thread on lens prices, and someone else replies that it's a result of a photographer's age and flower photos.

No one has to grow old, you know. That prerogative is in everyone's hands, and what w/ the world being already overcrowded and everything....

I AM looking forward to more photos of Martian rock bokeh though.

pdeeh · Sep 8, 2013

hmmm I just had a leaf through some old Camera magazines from 1980. In the back there are private "classifieds", amongst which I found a OM Zuiko 85mm f/2 for sale for £120.

A quick scan of recent eBay "sold" items (worldwide) for that lens shows the most expensive at around £350, the least expensive about £100.

Using one of the online "inflation calculators", I found that a price of £120 in 1980 equates to the best part of £440 today.

The magazines also featured some nice pictures of flowers, and some of the pro photographers appeared to be over 40 ...

Allan Swindles · Sep 8, 2013

Why does everyone want f1.4 and f2.0, fast lenses? They're bound to be more expensive when compared with the f3.5 and f2.8 versions but not necessarily better.

erikg · Sep 8, 2013

Adjusted for inflation those pros would now be in their 70's.

Olympus OM Zuiko lenses and ridiculous prices?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency