robsteve wrote:
One point lost in all this discusssion is that the Leica lenses drop less in value. If you ever plan to sell, your cost of ownership is less.
Boy, I sure wish I could have convinced the camera store of that, when I sold my M stuff, back in the mid nineties, before the Internet was going. I really took it in the shorts, but there wasn't a really good way to sell used stuff back then. Maybe it will be different now, but I have a feeling, buying new, that sub 1K RF lenses will hold their value still better than sub 4K RF lenses, Specially if you buy new. Simply because they don't have as far to drop. For example a Nokton 35 1.2, is probably always going to be worth at least 500 bucks, which would only be a three hundred dollar loss. A Summilux 35 1.4 at 3400 bucks ( if someone ended up paying full B@H prices), probably is going to take close to a thousand dollar hit after a year. In my mind, that would make the Nokton a way better investment.
You are right, before the proliferation of internet forums/eBay, etc., you were under the mercy of a single buyer, and camera stores did not show much affection when it came down to determining trade-in values. Well, they are there to make money and not much changed since then. But now you can practically sell anything on that auction page and let the actual market dictate the real value.
Leica somewhere mentioned that their newer ASPH lenses will perform very well on the M8. The used market values of those lenses have gone up after Photokina. A 50mm lux ASPH just sold for $2,000 and you can buy a brand new one, albeit an international copy, for about $2,200.00. If you buy it used and not the full retail price, the resale value is not bad. Watch out if the M8 performs as well as or better as anticipated......
cactusclay wrote:
Boy, I sure wish I could have convinced the camera store of that, when I sold my M stuff, back in the mid nineties, before the Internet was going. I really took it in the shorts, but there wasn't a really good way to sell used stuff back then. .
For those of us that kept our M gear and lenses, they have actually changed very little in value since we bought them. I just sold a 21mm ASPH and 50mm Summicron to AGeoJO and didn't take a loss on either.
I guess the real secret is to buy used Leica to begin with. In the case of AGeoJO's purchase from me, if he doesn't need the lenses in a few years time, he could probably still sell them for what he paid or more. If the M8 performs as well or better than the DMR, he could probably make a good return on his lenses in a months time.
With new lenses, you take much more of a hit. The good thing about the Leica lenses is they stay in like new condition much longer than the CV or Zeiss lenses, so when you either buy or sell them used, they are in much better shape.
I was not suggesting to buy these lenses as an investment. I will say the Leica M lenses I have bought in the last ten years has gone up more in value than the DOW or S&P 500, plus I got the enjoyment of their use. I have some lenses that have probably gone up 30% in the used market from what I paid for them, the Noctilux being a case in point.
We're very used to "toys" coming down in price over time as technology makes like easier for the manufacturers but Leica lenses are put together by highly skilled people, not machines. Their lenses go up in price over time and the message is clear. If you want a lens, buy it now because they are not going to get any cheaper. That's why I bought a new Nocti just recently. I paid a lot less than dealer price but much more than robsteve paid. The secondhand market is tightening because of the M8 effect.
AGeoJO wrote:
georgl,
Now. that is the voice of a die-hard Leica fan alright. Hypothetically speaking - if you could get 99% of the quality using "generic" Zeiss or 98% using CV lenses and in order to get 100% you have to fork out 2X-3X the price for Leica or real Zeiss lenses. To some the price difference to get the very best is worth it and they are willing to spend that kind of money but to some the difference is not. Your money reaches the point of diminished return.....If I could afford it, I would go for all Leicas although the Zeiss offering is not to be overlooked, in my opinion. But that's me, others may think differently.
Edited by AGeoJO on Oct 21, 2006 at 08:37 AM GMT...Show more →
The relationship between cost and quality is non-linear!!!
cactusclay wrote:
Boy, I sure wish I could have convinced the camera store of that, when I sold my M stuff, back in the mid nineties, before the Internet was going. I really took it in the shorts, but there wasn't a really good way to sell used stuff back then. Maybe it will be different now, but I have a feeling, buying new, that sub 1K RF lenses will hold their value still better than sub 4K RF lenses, Specially if you buy new. Simply because they don't have as far to drop. For example a Nokton 35 1.2, is probably always going to be worth at least 500 bucks, which would only be a three hundred dollar loss. A Summilux 35 1.4 at 3400 bucks ( if someone ended up paying full B@H prices), probably is going to take close to a thousand dollar hit after a year. In my mind, that would make the Nokton a way better investment....Show more →
Leica items tend to hold their value over the long term. Inflation helps to keep values up too. It is selling something relatively new that often hurts. How much does your new car drop in value as soon as you drive it out of the showroom?
There are exceptions too, a few Leica lenses are shunned and so are cheap. Compare the going rate for a 135mm lens with the original cost - quite a bit less. Contemporary lenses to the 135’s OTOH generally sell for more than the original cost.
cactusclay wrote:
I agree with the first part as lenses not being an investment,
They're not an investment, but are expensive enough that it's necessary to figure out the capital cost. We make money over time, so need to deamortize (break up over time) our major expenses. A $2000 item that lasts 10 years is far more expensive than one than lasts 25 years. If after five years your interests change the latter will have 4/5 of its useful life left, the former will be down to 1/2. This will be reflected in the resale price, so in one case you can almost trade it straight up for something else that now suits your needs or interests, in the other case you take a bath. That's not to say one or the other is always right, the important thing is to be aware of the actual cost, in advance, and make informed and intelligent decisions. Much as some folks might like to make fun of some of us (including ourselves), we're not really quite that dumb. (Or rich. We just avoid the baths.)
ClubShooter wrote:
They're not an investment, but are expensive enough that it's necessary to figure out the capital cost. We make money over time, so need to deamortize (break up over time) our major expenses. A $2000 item that lasts 10 years is far more expensive than one than lasts 25 years. If after five years your interests change the latter will have 4/5 of its useful life left, the former will be down to 1/2. This will be reflected in the resale price, so in one case you can almost trade it straight up for something else that now suits your needs or interests, in the other case you take a bath. That's not to say one or the other is always right, the important thing is to be aware of the actual cost, in advance, and make informed and intelligent decisions. Much as some folks might like to make fun of some of us (including ourselves), we're not really quite that dumb. (Or rich. We just avoid the baths.)
I wrote this about six pages back and reprint here since economics, not just cost or price is the real issue.
In the end I look at the economics this way. I bought the Leicas at roughly half the new price. I have used most of them already for over 10 years and if the lord gives me another 10 good years til i am 80 I will have been using them for 20 years. Unless something drastic changes the liklihood is that I will end up finally selling them for not too much less than I paid. Whatever that difference ends up to be, divided by 20 years represents the annual rental rate for the lenses. Not too shabby is my opinion.
Analysing this from the annual cost of ownership, or from total cost of ownership is the only way to justify why you would pay two to three times the first cost of competing products from Zeiss or Cosina/Voightlander. If you get what you paid for these lenses after 20 years of using the world's most perfect rangefinder lenses (or perhaps most perfect lenses for any 135 system) the only thing lost is the time value of the capital costs you incurred. In today's low interest world, this is very cheap indeed.
All this talking about costs is like Pope Julius II and Michelangelo arguing over the payments for the Sistene Chapel and forgetting about the beauty above their heads.
I care more about the beauty it can help me create.
johnastovall wrote:
All this talking about costs is like Pope Julius II and Michelangelo arguing over the payments for the Sistene Chapel and forgetting about the beauty above their heads.
I care more about the beauty it can help me create.
John
I don't think that beauty has anything to do with this discussion. People have finite resources and want to know if the higher price for the Leica's are worth. I haven't seen or heard anyone who doesn' t understand the beauty of leica images. As you may have read from post above I am trying to establish that not only can you finally have the Leica beauty but when looked at from a cost of ownership perspective a bargain as well. Didn't know that was going to offend you!
I know that as a non-pro my cost considerations are not relevant to the many pros here. For me, the cost of the equipment I decide to spend money on is in terms of the results I can get to satisfy my own personal photographic goals. Also, and not unimportantly, I take a certain pleasure out of using certain pieces of equipment.
For me, it's a very personal enjoyment. When I'm out with my cameras, 99.99% of people I encounter have no idea of the relative value of my Leica lenses, and I daresay would be amused to hear how much I had spent on them.
And the availability of the internet to buy and sell used stuff also makes it easier for non-pros like me to play around with different tools (or should I say toys ).
Would anyone think I make better pictures because I use a Leica lens instead of a less expensive but possibly equivalent lens? I certainly don't think I'm making better pictures because of a Leica lens. But I'm having fun. Can I afford the Leica lens? Well, yes I guess so, but there are certainly people with good sense and more money to spend that would say that they can't afford them.
johnastovall wrote:
All this talking about costs is like Pope Julius II and Michelangelo arguing over the payments for the Sistene Chapel and forgetting about the beauty above their heads.
It's probably an irrelevant discussion if you have the means of the Medici... but for the rest of us...
I was just out and shot a bit with the M6 and Summicron 75, CV 28/1.9; what an excellent combo! This is going to be a perfect pair for me on the M8! The 75 will have the reach of a 100, the 28 will be a perfect 35 low light lens. I found I could fit the unused lens in my right pants pocket, a couple of rolls of film in the left, and the cap in my shirt pocket. Went through about 3 rolls of TMX (bulk loaded, 40 frames each) in less than an hour. Can't wait to get my M8!!! The new Elmarit 28A also is beckoning... But I want to see some samples from it first, especially with regard to highlight contrast and overall rendition. I'm so stoked, the 75/2 is such a nice tool to work with. I'm witholding the final judgement on both until I've developed the film though.
By the way, this is a dumb question, but I assume a Summicron-C 40 will fit on an M mount body? Which framelines will it bring up?
Also, my 135 takes Series 7 filters (thanks for pointing it out!), and I use filters in 46 and 67... Will 67mm filters thread onto a Series 8 holder cleanly? Thinking of getting a Series 7-to-8 adapter. Series 8 is spec'ed as 67mm, but I don't know if the thread spacing is a match...
I'm witholding the final judgement on both until I've developed the film though.