Why is this Leica lens expensive ?

<p>I had a Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron chrome # 11816. I paid $850 for it about 5 years ago, used but mint. I put it up for sale on amazon last December for $2795 and it sold right away. My price was the lowest ask ! Can someone tell me why this lens is worth this kind of money now or was I just incredibly lucky ? TIA.</p>

<p>Increasing Leica prices are part of it, of course (Ex. the new f1.4 wide angles at $5000 plus and the f0.95 at $10,000), perhaps chrome is somewhat rarer than black, the difficulty of Leica Germany to meet the demand (slow supply of Leica optics to the stores), caused in part by the full frame Leica digital camera, and a demand that has been accentuated by the desire of non-Leica system users to use Leica lenses. You had a good deal 5 years ago; bravo for your realisation of a profit. </p>

<p>You made out like a bandit !</p>

<p>The desire for love is misplaced.</p>

<p>Several of the "<strong>correct prediction</strong>" economist's: <a href=" Rogers</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw&feature=related">Peter Schiff</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8atIaedf5R0&feature=related">Robert Prechter</a> (<em><<< Click on each name)</em> have stated that much of the current rise in stock market and commodity prices (Gold, Oil & Leica's) are a direct result of "Fiat Currency" (Non-backed printed money) weakness. <strong>(Inflation)</strong></p>

<p>I bought a 50 Summilux (non-A black) two years ago for $900. I recently sold it for $2000, and the buyer was happy to pay such a low price.</p>

<p>A few years ago, I got Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f/2 lenses for around $30. Today they sell for between $100 and $200. Do the math, that's a higher % increase than your Leica lenses. :)</p>

<p>B&H has the lens in black ( 11826 ) for $2295, Temporarily out of stock. That's why I asked.</p>

<p>Gold's value of $635 on last day of 2006 - Carl's Leica lens bought for $850 ; a 1.34 Gold ratio<br>

Gold's value of $1,580 on last day of 2011 - Carl sold lens for $2,795 ; a 1.77 Gold ratio<br>

In terms of Gold's buying power, only <strong>a 32% increase </strong>in the five years Carl speaks of.</p>

<p>In that time period, the lens in US dollars inflated to $2,795, which equals a 4.40 price ratio.<br>

That's a whopping<strong> 340% increase !</strong></p>

<p>As with other commodities, this isn't a coincidence.<br>

The demand to dump the weaker dollars for the tangible "Leica commodity" is pretty clear. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's pretty crazy, but I think it's because so many cameras can use these great lenses, using adapters. My understanding is the market is way hot right now for M lenses.</p>

<p>Gus, you need to rethink your economics. The US inflation rate from 2006 through 2011 averaged just 2 percent annually. No one is dumping dollars, not even the Chinese. As someone already said, simple supply and demand issues probably explain what's going on with Leica lens prices.</p>

<p>If I was starting out right now, I might have to get all C/V lenses. Glad I got a few good long lenses cheap before and after the M8 and before the M9 showed up when they were seen as paperweights. Well, I don't use them a lot; maybe they are paperweights...</p>

<p>Does the same demand exist for Leitz R lenses? I have 4 of them that are not being used. My 7 M lenses are definitely keepers.</p>

<p>If you exclude some of the Hong Kong sellers and similar over the top prices, eBay is a good source of where the market is with M and R lenses, particularly upon checking the completed sales listings. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"rethink your economics - from 2006 through 2011 averaged just 2 percent annually. No one is dumping dollars, not even the Chinese" <strong><em>Bill Ferensen</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow Bill 2%, <strong>you really believe that?</strong> Is that logical and in line with current Healthcare costs, milk, coffee, Leicas, fuel and precious metals?<br /> Sounds as though you believe the continuously revising government <strong>propaganda</strong>. These genius' believe in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_regression">"hedonic regression"</a>! They manipulate and change all past inflation standards of measure to suit their <em>diabolical</em> means.</p>

<p>The Chinese are finally beginning to see that they're going to be left holding the "paper" bag. Hence the phrase "Cash is Trash" - Why else would among other commodities, gold & oil constantly be pushing record levels? The proof is truly in the pudding Bill. Our discussion here is a classic "<a href="

& Hayek</a>" battle.</p>

<p>Seriously, do yourself a favor and click on the names I provided. These folks<strong> were actually correct</strong> in their predictions. "rethink your economics" This is great advise...</p>

<p>Gus, Schiff is like a broken clock, he's right twice a day. The gold standard babble is wacko economics that had it's last great day back in the day of William Jennings Bryan. Leica lens prices are more a function of supply and demand I would think. Prices were generally falling until the digital Leica M's were produced. You can almost track the rise from that point in time. If Schiff was correct, we'd have the same inflation through out the economy, instead, except for oil prices, we've been hovering around deflation not inflation.</p>

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>Gold's value of $635 on last day of 2006 - Carl's Leica lens bought for $850 ; a 1.34 Gold ratio<br />Gold's value of $1,580 on last day of 2011 - Carl sold lens for $2,795 ; a 1.77 Gold ratio<br />In terms of Gold's buying power, only <strong>a 32% increase </strong>in the five years Carl speaks of.<br>

In that time period, the lens in US dollars inflated to $2,795, which equals a 4.40 price ratio.<br />That's a whopping<strong> 340% increase !</strong><br>

As with other commodities, this isn't a coincidence.<br />The demand to dump the weaker dollars for the tangible "Leica commodity" is pretty clear.</p>

<br />

 

 

</blockquote>

 

That is a fascinating perspective. Viewed in that way, the Leica is being perceived as a safer investment than the dollar. Maybe the country should go on the "Leica standard" as we were once on the gold standard.

 

 

The success of the M9 is, of course, another reason. Leica can't make lenses fast enough to keep up with the demand (at the moment). Once they catch up, we'll see where prices go from there.

<p>Gosh, I hate to hijack this thread but this is going to be fun; I'm the cat and he's the yarn.</p>

<p>Please folks, break the cycle of believing the propaganda. It isn't as complicated or obscure as many want you to believe.</p>

<p>Many things in demand can become bubbles. Leicas are being bought up because they're perceived "cheap" to the <strong>rich and elevating standard</strong> countries. They're buying the worlds resources because they're trading away their diminishing value dollars. (Fiat money) Com'on everybody, 300% in value because of a digital Leica introduction? The gold ratio shows you that the popularity of mirrorless cameras and now the "old lenses" should be up in "<strong>real money</strong>" terms about 30% not 300%. There's certainly something else in play here. </p>

<p>It's true, some sectors of the economy are still in the deflation (before the hyper-inflation) stage. i.e. Another Sears location <strong>closure</strong>; Sears in my area is selling stuff at 50 to 75% <strong>OFF !</strong> </p>

<p>Government reporting of consumer spending last month looked and was reported as "rosy", but they conveniently forgot to mention that it was actually the increased spending in fuels costs by those households! Bill Ferensen's 2% overall inflation in 5 years is simply indefensible.</p>

<p>The reality is that bubbles inflate until something makes them burst, what will be the "prick" that pops this money bubble? You can't do what the Government is doing for so long before <strong>interest rates have to go up</strong>, that may be the "prick". That or maybe a Middle East war.</p>

<p>About stimulus spending: If somebody gives you a credit card with a $100,000 credit limit on it, your household spending sure would look prosperous to observers wouldn't it? Sitting on cash is insanity right now. Inflation is how you're being taxed without them having to pass an unpopular new tax. Those poor retired folks that are relying on cash in the bank, their buying power is draining almost daily.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Schiff is like a broken clock, he's right twice a day" <em><strong>Barry Fisher</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nice way to create a "Straw Man" Barry. Why don't you point out just two items where the evidence went against Peter Schiff's position? You in fact sound like one of those guys who were laughing at him in the YouTube clip I provided earlier. Peter Sciff has been right on Gold and coming bubbles (Dot.com, Real Estate and now Dollar) since 1999, yup that's twice a day broken clock stuff...<br>

In fact many of the naysayers in the <a href="

Schiff</a> <<< (<em>for a quick lesson on economics)</em> clips are now believers. <br>

How about <a href="

Faber</a>? Is he also a broken clock Barry?</p>

<p>Look do as you wish, but as for me and my house, we're preparing for the coming pain of so much fiscal irresponsibility. This by praying, buying farm land, buying trade-able commodities and buying stuff we know about (like camera equipment). I assure you, we won't be up the river without a paddle...</p>

<p>So, then, I should wait for the Leica "bubble" to burst before buying a used lens. Ok. And so when the Leica bubble collapses that will signal the end of civilization?<br>

A lot of people besides Peter Schiff saw bubbles happening, btw. But his "Austrian" economics are discredited and in fact what's happening in Europe right now and in danger of happening in the US is a prime example of the bankruptcy (no pun intended) of that school of thought. Basically when monetary policy of easing of interest rates loses its ability to stimulate the economy in and of it self, like we have now, then drastic government austerity measures in a contracting or close to contracting economy, only cause the economy to contract more and by doing so, stifle recovery, stifle the private sector and further create growing deficits. The austerity does not create "confidence" in the private sector, just the inverse. The best response in countries like this one, is absolutely stimulus. It would bring us out of this by creating real confidence, that is the confidence of demand in the economy which we lack right now. Except in a few areas, like Leica lenses. <br>

So yes, do what you will, grow your own food, get off the grid, and ride a bike. I'll send you a paddle for christmas...if I can afford one.</p>

<p>Let's say my yearly income was $24,000 per year, my yearly spending is $36,000.<br>

Add to that <strong>my debt of $162,000</strong> in arrears. My response to this "problem" ? To cut my spending <strong>$358 a year.</strong><br>

These are the proportional facts and response of the current United States government. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"austerity does not create "confidence" in the private sector," <strong><em>Barry Fisher</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>So someone who finally begins to act responsibly creates "the inverse"?<br>

Know that my kind of austerity doesn't mean firing teachers, police and firefighters. True confidence building austerity is slashing a bloated government and it's top heavy administrative agencies. Now that's a start! One that would not only be applauded my the job providers, but also comfort our creditors by keeping us from credit rating drops.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Austrian" economics are discredited" <em><strong>Barry Fisher</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>That's a new one!</strong> I gave you numbers and video clips that were dated by experts making predictions that came to pass.<br>

What do you offer up as proof of this "discredited" claim Barry ?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"A lot of people besides Peter Schiff saw bubbles happening" <em><strong>Barry Fisher</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No they didn't. Not only does the fact that a Dot.com and Housing bubble was allowed to get so big that it had to burst, but many available video clips, (some I provided) show that Peter Schiff was <strong>lone</strong> voice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"the Leica bubble collapses that will signal the end of civilization?" <em><strong>Barry Fisher</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, not if your in a country exercising fiscal responsibility.<br>

Just take a drink of your "KoolAid" (pun intended), and know that you bought at the top of the market. Ever heard of the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania">Tulip Bubble?</a>"</p>

<p>Gus,</p>

<p>I appreciate your attempt to spread knowledge of Austrian economics to the world, but I've come to realize that economics is even more polarizing than religion and politics. I can't even convince my wife that Keynesian economics have lead us to the current situation. She still believes in Warren Buffet and his myths, and she continues to own Berkshire Hathaway stocks. I've already divested myself of all US equities. We are in the inevitable bust that follows the artificial boom created by credit expansion. Ludwig von Mises wrote that there is no way to avoid it, so we need only be prepared to ride out the storm.</p>

<p>For every person buying, there is someone selling. If I want to get rid of my Federal reserve notes (FRN, so called "US dollar") for a tangible good, there is somebody like Barry who wants to sell his Summilux ASPH to me in exchange for my FRN. So, we do need people like Barry around to provide us the goods in exchange.</p>

<p>In the meantime, I quietly hoard up great lenses that are in fairly limited supply. 35mm Summarons (3.5, and 2.8) in LTM work for me, as well as Summicrons (35 ASPH and 50, both in LTM). Also, I think that cameras such as the Rolleiflex FX are rare, and probably going to go out of production, so I've been looking at them. What do you think?</p>

<p>My latest lens purchase was a 28mm f/2.8 AIS Nikkor. One of the best out there, close focusing, with no distortion. This lens has a rear element that projects out, and is easily damaged. Both of the used ones that I've bought had rear element damage from someone setting them down on a table with the lens focused at infinity. So, I got fed up and bought a brand new one from B&H. I just can't see Nikon continuing to manufacture manual focus Nikkors for much longer. Once the supply is gone, people usually go berserk trying to get a good used copy of a great lens.</p>

 

<p>Gus, your prattle is not worth my time. However, with that last outburst finally I discovered someone who is not only funny but who has literally “bought the farm”. That’s a first and I’m an old guy. I wish you nothing but the best. Pray hard.</p>

<p>Robert ! Finally a voice of reason; thanks for that. FA Hayek and Mises happen to be my favorites.<br /> Berkshire Hathaway stocks huh? Your wife bless her heart, has expensive taste.<br /> <br /><br /> Well, just what I thought. It seems our friend Barry can bring nothing more to the table other than insults.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I quietly hoard up great lenses that are in fairly limited supply" <strong><em>Robert Lai</em></strong><strong><em></em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Smart man.<br /> Now, early high level Rolleiflex as with the best of most quality camera company models are good buys. In fact, I currently love trading my funny money for Nikon F2 units. Good glass of course, is always welcome...</p>

<p>Not so fast my lens hoarding friends!<br>

Paul Krugman saw the bubble, and others. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo4ExWEAl_k.<br>

No Robert, you can go pay 2500 for a Summicron 50 without me, you don't need me around at all. I bought mine for $650 and have just kept it and used it. What a radical idea. Why sell it. After the collapse, it won't be worth anything anyways. But maybe, you could trade gus a few hundred bushels of corn for one. As for the Austrians, how is that austerity working in the Euro zone right now? In not place has austerity worked in Europe, not one, and yet the Euros keep touting those plans. Its because it seems so simple, when a family overspends, it has to cut its spending. The obvious difference that people who don't know what they are talking about miss is that when a family tightens it's belt, it doesn't quit its job. When a nation in a recession tightens its belt, it throws a lot of people out of jobs and that has a further deleterious effect on the economy and on the financial health of the nation that is already contracting. The only people who want austerity in Europe are the Germans and the ECB they control. Why? Because the influx of money into the South of Europe from the North created a differential in prices that createsda trade balance. Germans have to pay more for Spanish and Italian goods than Spanish and Italians pay for German goods. There are two basic paths to normalize currency value in Europe then. The first is for Germany to raise its inflation level slightly and inflate prices in Germany to match Italy and Spain. However the Germans are so paranoid because of the hyper-inflation after WWI that they won't do it. The other way is then to impose currency constriction in the Southern Countries. This may work to deflate the currency, but the cost of it is incredible pain to those countries and a widening and increasing recession. The fact is, even England, which does not have the currency issues that the EU does, went on a forced austerity thinking that it would, as the Eurozone economists and bankers have been wrongly insisting, inspire "confidence" in the economic system and thus the private sector would naturally start growing the economy. Except the confidence fairy has never landed in Europe and the economies are suffering real contraction. And how can they not. The problem, except for Greece which was an overspending government, was not government debt. It was personal debt. Contracting the economy does not help people pay down personal debt. So much for the "Austrian" school of economics. Schiff may have, amongst others, predicted a housing bubble, but every application of Austrian economics in Europe has done nothing but to increase and prolong the recession and continues to fuel a widening recession, even a collapse. The people who tout austerity in the U.S. are the corporatist that want the status quo, and the tax breaks that enriches them. The U.S. is a socialist country. We redistribute wealth from the middle to the top. Ain't it great?<br>

So you two can have your little mad-hatter tea party. Maybe Ron Paul will join you and trade medical services for a lens or two. You can definitely leave me out of it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"tax breaks that enriches them" <em><strong>Barry Fisher</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow, that's pretty revealing of where Barry stands on "property rights" (Yes, money is your property too)<br>

and the government's "<strong>RIGHT to It</strong>"</p>

<p>Reminds me of the liberals vilifying the oil companies for their obscene 2 cents per gallon net profit, yet the truth about the wasteful and ungrateful government making <strong><a href="http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/04/27/gasoline-taxes-vs-exxon-profit-per-gallon/">over 48 cents </a><<< </strong>(Click to see average) on the same gallon in tax revenue, is buried in the back pages...</p>

<p>You're quoting a Nobel prize winning economist that believes we need another bubble. This guy has been wrong on so many issues it's laughable. He basically believes kids that are filling out their own report cards. (Government reports)<br>

I believe his Nobel Prize is as credible as Obama receiving his Nobel Peace Prize.</p>

<p>BTW: <a href="

<<< (Click for his own words) after many invites, refuses to debate Peter Schiff.<br>

Now that would be a debate to sit down and "have a cup of tea" over.</p>