Steve Spencer wrote:
That said thinking about costs it should be noted that total cost of ownership of Leica M lenses is tricky. If you buy Leica lenses used and are patient and don't over pay, you often can use them for years and sell them for very close to what you paid for them. Buying Voigtlander lenses new and selling them used in contrast will cost you a couple hundred dollars. I just recently sold my 28 Ultron Asph II that I bought for $800 new and the cost of a couple of years ownership was almost $250. That isn't bad, but I am not at all sure it would have been higher if I would have bought a Leica 28 Summicron Asph and resold it. Certainly buying Leica lenses new is going to cost you a lot, but buying them used I am less sure is such a bad deal.
I agree to an extent, that if you buy a well priced Leica lens, you will likely lose little on resale. That could be as short as a month or two if you find you don't like the lens, or after many years. Leica pretty consistently raises retail prices, so over years, the replacement cost of the lens will increase a fair amount, which theoretically will also lift used prices. An unknown variable is how much a lens like the VM 28/1.5 will affect 28 Lux resale pricing. Prior to this, there wasn't a 'real' alternative to the Lux for the M system that will appeal to a broad range of M users (unlike the 7A release a few years ago). One could imagine that being considerably cheaper, it will significantly reduce demand for used Lux copies because potential buyers can save a huge amount of money buying a new VM instead. But we're dealing with Leica and the aura of the brand will have relevance. Some will simply only consider the Lux and some subset of those, who are more cost sensitive, will have to opt for used copies.
Another consideration is while cost of ownership may be quite low on an annual basis, one still has to tie up >$5k for that duration. For some this is irrelevant. As the other Steve has mentioned before about buying Leica, it could be considered a form of asset reallocation. But it's worth asking what else could one do with the money saved buying the VM instead. I.e. invest the savings in something that will pay a return instead of depreciating.
Part of asset allocation is the time/money/opportunity calculation.
In the case of us more senior photgraphers:
Time is calculated in number of days left to enjoy things.
Money is calculated as a ratio of the time.
So, if number of days < money in bank then make the frivolous allocation. Enjoyment is the most valuable asset you have at that point.
At a certain age, opportunity has shrunk to near zero so can be ignored in the calculation. It is only relevant to the estate. Who cares about what price a piece of camera gear will bring at the inevitable garage sale rum by people who know nothing about cameras.
Maybe I will be buried with my Leica. Maybe the reason that we know so little about the afterlife is that no one ever took a camera with them. The Instagram will for sure go viral big.
