>>2655172>Get a grip, there is nothing special or desirable about these things that makes them worth paying a premium for.'cept you know, things like 20 blade apertures and shit that aren't so common on modern lenses.
I agree with most of your post in theory, but you're lashing out a little too hard. Not everyone that buys vintage glass does so while simultaneously fellating themselves over it and its apparent mystique. Many do it for mechanical (feel) reasons, or for a preference of a lens design rarely employed in modern optics (Tessars and Triplets are a good example as they are designs with flaws that are readily apparent, yet not always bad to look at. Astigmatism , but often look excellent in use.)
The only people that generally pay "premiums" for vintage lenses are either a) seeking out a specific lens that has value for an actual reason or b) DSLR users, who have an extremely limited range of vintage lenses that they actually can adapt in the first place.
Group b is why you see so much conversation about the Helios, or about the Super Tak. Those optics are much more unique in the context of adapting to a DSLR, whereas with a mirrorless...there are much better examples of each design available.
Don't go to the extremes of thinking your Takumar and Helios are gods gift to photoman. Don't go to the opposite extreme of being angry because people are adapting lenses either, though. You both look autistic as fuck doing that.
