Why is the Lomo 3.5/1.0 Plan less expensive than the Lomo 3.7/0.11?
-
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:10 pm
Why is the Lomo 3.5/1.0 Plan less expensive than the Lomo 3.7/0.11?
Hello!
This seems counter intuitive?
This seems counter intuitive?
Re: Why is the Lomo 3.5/1.0 Plan less expensive than the Lomo 3.7/0.11?
Where do you get those numbers ?
MichaelG.
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
-
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:10 pm
Re: Why is the Lomo 3.5/1.0 Plan less expensive than the Lomo 3.7/0.11?
Ebay, where the 3.5 plan is generally around 40 euros and 3.7 the double
https://www.ebay.fr/itm/334055602769?ha ... SwuVVg2JaF
https://www.ebay.fr/itm/384291847045?ha ... SwL9lg-uN3
I found this curious
https://www.ebay.fr/itm/334055602769?ha ... SwuVVg2JaF
https://www.ebay.fr/itm/384291847045?ha ... SwL9lg-uN3
I found this curious
Re: Why is the Lomo 3.5/1.0 Plan less expensive than the Lomo 3.7/0.11?
I think the Lomo 3,7 is seen as a quite good macro camera objective and for this reason sought after.
-
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:10 pm
Re: Why is the Lomo 3.5/1.0 Plan less expensive than the Lomo 3.7/0.11?
Ooooh. So interesting. What a weird looking setup
Re: Why is the Lomo 3.5/1.0 Plan less expensive than the Lomo 3.7/0.11?
Very true …
That said: My question actually related to the NA quoted in the thread title
MichaelG.
.
Edit: Just to endorse Mr O’Toole’s findings: https://makrodunyasi.com/en/lomo-3-7x-0 ... cope-lens/
Too many 'projects'
-
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:10 pm
Re: Why is the Lomo 3.5/1.0 Plan less expensive than the Lomo 3.7/0.11?
Sorry, my mistake, it is actually 3.5/0.1
Re: Why is the Lomo 3.5/1.0 Plan less expensive than the Lomo 3.7/0.11?
Thanks for confirming that … I was getting all over-excited at the prospect of 3.5x at NA 1.0
[ at any price ! ]
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
-
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Why is the Lomo 3.5/1.0 Plan less expensive than the Lomo 3.7/0.11?
Here's one test comparing them:
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 5x#p259356
The 3,7x is exceptionally good for macro, competing with modern objectives costing thousands of dollars. This has been tested again and again. I've never tested the 3,5x myself, but it seems like it's is okay for the price but not stellar. So I'm not surprised that the 3,7x costs more. I'm actually surprised it hasn't gotten more expensive.
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 5x#p259356
The 3,7x is exceptionally good for macro, competing with modern objectives costing thousands of dollars. This has been tested again and again. I've never tested the 3,5x myself, but it seems like it's is okay for the price but not stellar. So I'm not surprised that the 3,7x costs more. I'm actually surprised it hasn't gotten more expensive.