Why do people pay so much for Leica Lenses?

My first Leica was a second hand M6 with an old Canadian summicron 50

and a 35mm summilux, that I coughed up $2800 for. The next time

around I paid out $4000 for another M6 (I sold the original outfit,

unable to reconcile myself to the cash tied up in my gear), with a

35mm aspheric 2.0 and a new 50mm summicron and a 90mm elmarit. All

were like new. And again, I sold the bunch, unable to reconcile

myself to the cost. I know the gear is good, but I am curious, do you

guys get the value out of the gear to justify the outlay?

 

I would need to take a huge hell of a lot of pictures to feel like I

was getting my money's worth. My current bag of lenses were all

either around 90(90mm minolta cle) or 150 (50mm Canon 1.4) or 200

bucks (minolta 40mm cle) each, max. I would not feel justifed in

getting some kind of stratospherically expensive lens, unless I was

totally pushing the limits of my current gear. I can't see how

forking up the extra cash is going to make me a better photographer.

 

The only reason I can see is that people are either so good they need

the best, or they are simply connosieurs of good equipment. I think I

would be in the latter category, if I bought a $1000+ lens at this

moment, even if I did have the money.

"Why do people pay so much for Leica Lenses?"

 

Because some mistakenly believe that buying expensive equipment is a substitute for actually learning the craft side of photography.

<i>do you guys get the value out of the gear to justify the outlay?</i>

<br><br>

do you???

I didn't have anything else to spend the money on at the time,

and I can always get it back again with resale value. Until I

decide I'd rather have a different primary box to take pics with,

Leica lenses are the best fit for it, and I know I don't have to worry

about them lacking in any way regarding quality.

I went overboard and simply craved the best when I got my Jupiter 8 in black. I haven't gotten to taking a picture of it yet.

i shoot with a beat up m2 and a cl. cost: under $1000 combined. lenses: 15mm heliar, 35mm 1.7 ultron and 50 cron collapsible. cost: under $1000 combined. is it justified? you betcha!

i also have a small nikon f3 package which i also feel justified. i take pictures and i enjoy using good gear. would i notice a difference if i shot with a fancy new m7 and asph this and that lenses? nope.

oh and life is too short to be worrying about these 'non-issues' - use what you want or what you can afford and have fun.

 

if any of you are thiking about plunging $3000+ into a fancy leica kit, consider an old user cam and a cv lens. then spend the rest of the dough and go on an overseas adventure and shoot some cool pics!

"Why do people pay so much for Leica Lenses?"

 

Because, unfortunately, unless someone gives you one, it's the only legal way to get them.

Actually, long term, Leica cameras and lenses have been quite inexpensive, if not damned near free. I have an M2 body I picked up used for $100 in 1972, a fair amount of money back then. It's seen periodic maintanance, and last year I replaced the vulcanite with new vinyl from Cameraleather. I've put thousands of rolls of film through it and made tons of money with it. An M2-R body I bought new in the same era came with a 50/2 Dual Range Summicron for a total investment of $375. It's still shooting film and making money. The same is true of my other Leica M cameras. Same thing with the lenses ~ first edition 28/2.8 Elmarit, one of the few made in Germany, I recently swapped even for another mint M2 body and 21/3.4 Super Angulon. My 35/2 Summicron cost me $125 when I bought it used 30 odd years ago and I paid about the same for a 90/2.8 Elmarit. I recently sold a 135/4 Tele-Elmar for over $400 that I'd bought second hand for $100 years ago.

 

Sure, you buy a new lens or body now, and you're likely to lose money if you soon decide you want out. Holding it 20 or 30 years has been a money maker.

 

How much was a 27 inch color TV 10 years ago? Today? How about your investment in computer equipment? Leicas are free!

At all times I want the camera I use to be more expensive than the car I drive.

 

Makes me feel less stupid about spending my money on useless things (and it helps my photography somehow as well).

I generally don't buy expensive lenses. The most I have ever spent on a lens was for a schneider 110xl and I sold it precisely because I wasn't using it that much. It was a great lens, but I decided that I could put the money towards something that I use more. (In actuality the wife took the money and bought a dining table and chairs that I dislike, so in hindsight I would rather have the lens). I have two lenses for my leica and neither of them cost much, but they aren't the newer lenses either. I like them both and use the camera quite a bit so I feel I have bought a good deal.

 

For me, the camera equipment isn't that expensive. I have had other hobbies that have cost so much more than photography so I kind of justify it that way. If I was going to shell out a bunch of money for a new leica lens, I would have to justify it by how much I was going to use it. I could see myself shooting with a 35f1.4 a lot, so I think a summilux could be a good purchase for me, but I will probably buy used but in great condition. So in other words, future lens buying will be on a "will I use it enough" basis and if I do, I will buy the best I can afford.

Surely a question you can answer, Claude. Why did YOU pay for Leica glass, not once but twice? If you can answer that, you will have the answer YOU seek grasshopper.

I think that you need to refine what you mean by "getting my money's worth."

 

When I started taking photographs a few years ago I bough a new consumer grade Canon

SLR. I was pleased with it, but it didn't call to me from the closet it was stored in to go take

photographs. I took it with me when I went out, but it didn't call to me. Later I upgraded to

an older, but nicer SLR which handled more nautrally to me. I started to hear that camera

calling me. As I developed as a photographer I learned what it was that I wanted out of a

camera and a lens.

 

So, when I investigated the world of rangefinders I decided to do it the right way. I started

with a Bessa R2 and a couple of CV lenses. I learned how to use the equipment to the best

of my time and abilities. But it didn't call to me. I upgraded to a Leica body and lens in a

focal length that I didn't have once I was sure that I both enjoyed using a rangefinder and

would continue to do so for a long time. I've since sold the Bessa R2, bought another Leica

body, sold the CV lenses, and bought a couple of other Leica lenses. This equipment calls

to me.

 

I'm never going to "get my money's worth" out of this equipment if I try and justify it from

a fiscal point of view. I'd have to sell a lot of photographs and that doesn't interest me

right now. I do get my money's worth everytime I stop my busy life, look through the little

glass window and a take a good picture for myself. For that retreat, I'd pay a mint.

My guess is that, as with every other expensive brand for which there are less costly alternatives, 90% or more of Leica purchases are made by (1) connoisseurs of "good" equipment or (2) people seeking prestige.

yes. it's a lot of money. I get cash for programming from time to time and the money is there to be spent. I buy used stuff. My first purchase was M6 body. I had too many Canon EF lenses so I sold them (20mm,35mm,85mm,50mm) to buy the body. Some programming money got me into 35mmSummicron. It was about 4 months before I got some cash for 50mm Summicron and about 9 months before I got a 90mm Summicron. I got some sentimental family shots with the equipment that keep increasing on value that can not be measured in dollars.

 

The Leica equipment holds it's value pretty well. If there ever is a Digital M then the lenses will keep it's value for sure. The body is a crap shoot.

 

On the other hand I have not upgraded my Canon D30 body as I can't justify buying such quick depreciating toy for picture taking when I already have many cameras (M6, D30, Yashicamat, Konica T1, Canon EOS 650)

This is like asking: "Why do people pay so much for a BMW? After all, a Volkswagen will get you from A to B just as well".

 

Whoever made the rule that purchases must be 'justified' by some supposedly rational, practical argument? If that was truly how the world worked, it would be a very dull place.

One forum member just bought an MP and 35 and 75 Summilux's. He shoots weddings at $3000-$5000. He can write off the gear and if he has enough work can easily recover the $$$$.

 

I have done what you have in the past. I recently went through 30 years of slides and dammit, the ones taken with Leitz glass stand out.

 

My FM2 was subsequently stolen. I bought an MP and older lenses. I will not sell this body. I can't afford the new $$$$ lenses, but they are not needed to make great pics. I just enjoy using RF cameras.

 

Don't feel guilty Claude, lot's of people have jet skis and motorcycles that they never use.

I feel bad for posting the question now. to be honest, I have been trying to avoid going to bed for the last hour, and felt like starting a discussion.

 

There is some measure of truth to my point, which was that the gear does not the photographer make, but in rereading my final two lines, I feel like I am simplifying a very complex world, by splitting us into two groups. The truth is, who cares, how much anyone paid for their gear, and why they bought it?

 

I guess in the final analysis, you appreciate what you have and do your best with it.

 

Grant, to be honest with you, I don't. That is kind of the crux of the matter for me. It is using what you've got to the nth degree. I think I will make that my philosophy from now on. I pormise everyone here, that I will use my current equipment and push it to its limits. No new gear, just photography. Kind of my own version of the Dogma film school. With one caveat. I do not have a wideangle, so I permit myself one wideangle, either a zoom or a 24/28mm lens.

what made you go out and spend a shytload of cash on a camera in the first place? and, whats changed from then til now..? sudden enlightenment?

I suppose you're going to get flamed for this question, since it - or at least the way it was asked - could be well interpreted as trolling :)</p>

 

Anyway, Leitz glass is expensive, if you don't count vintage glass - end even that is expensive compared to the prices of similar vintage lens.</p>

 

But, if it's worth to YOU, then it's OK, I guess. There are many fine photographers - both amateurs and pros, who happily shoot away with much cheaper equipment and/or lens. And they often produce very good photos. It's not like anybody is FORCING you to buy expensive gear...</p>

 

If photography is your hobby, and you don't make any money with your equipment, then I agree that it cannot easily be justified, unless you've got money to burn...</p>

 

OTOH, if you are looking for specific quality in lens, and you know that only certain Leitz glass can provide what you're looking for, well - who's to say that you're wrong shelling out loads of cash in order to get what you want, if it makes you happy. </p>

 

<i>I would need to take a huge hell of a lot of pictures to feel like I was getting my money's worth.</i></p>

 

If you're an amateur, and if you're happy with cheaper lens, then I don't see what's the problem here... Buy cheaper lens and shoot away. </p>

 

And, besides, what does it mean "getting my money's worth"? You want prize-winning shots just because you're using expensive equipment? </p>

 

What exactly is the "worth" you want from your equipment? </p>

 

Let me propose an analogy: we all use computers (obviously)... If your business/boss/whatever FORCES you to use MS Windows, although you'd prefer using another (better, cheaper, etc.) OS, you could scream bloody murder and blame everything on Microsoft and its predatory business practices. But, I don't see anybody forcing you to use Leicas... </p>

 

Or, to put it another way - you're buying a Ferrari in order to drive kids to school and back home... Did you really buy it for the purpose of taking kids to school and back and doing the weekend shopping, or just because you want to show off and say you drive a Ferrari? Maybe you'd be better off with a more spacious and practical family wagon or something. And it would also be cheaper... Don't blame Ferrari for being expensive. </p>

 

So, in short, if it's too expensive, and you're not getting your money's worth, the obvious solution is to sell it and buy something cheaper. And you're doing precisely that, as you say. So, what's all the complaining about? </p>

 

Those who buy Leica gear probably know why they do it - one way or another. The gear is too expensive to be justified as an "impulse buy". I know why I bought what I did. Do you?

Well, kind of stepping laterally for a minute. I understand that Cartier Bresson used a 50mm for most of his shots, and he used, what, an M2? For me, I am more interested in producing images that will stand out in 100 years. That is the true judge of whether what we are producing is art or not. Will it stand the test of time. Cartier Bresson, Capa, and others were able to create images that stood the test of time. When we take pictures, should we aim for anything less?

 

What are your thoughts?

 

My M4 and Canon 50mm are at least equal to what Capa and Bresson were using, so I have no need to be concerned about owning the latest summicron or whatever.

Claude,

 

Here is something you can feel guilty about. After reading you post about the Bessa R3A, I ordered one. Thanks for the post.

 

I'm sure I will enjoy using it too.

now youre just being an egotistical greedy fool..

Sounds like you made having high-price gear an issue. And now you're

making having low-priced gear an issue. Neither is an issue. <p>

I've found this forum fantastic for finding how I can get small, handy cameras

with lenses that seem to make nice pix for not too much money, and I always

enjoy looking at people's work. Plus I enjoy some of the senseless arguments.

But there comes a point when you gotta stop rationalising and start taking

photos. And not ones of the paint job on your latest acquisition!

You didn't mention the M4 before. Why do you own that instead of a less expensive Bessa or Hexar?