Why do people pay so much for Leica Lenses?

[Uhooru]

"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. " and. . ."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."

 

So don't :) Thanx for sharing..confession is good for the soul.

[lex_jenkins]

I could easily have justified the cost. But I'm afraid I'm not a rangefinder kinda guy, at least not naturally.

 

I really wanted some kinda M and a couple of lenses. The only gripe I have about my Nikons (F3HP, FM2N) and even my OM-1 is they're just not quiet enough for some places. (Try a hospital room with all tiled or otherwise noise reflective surfaces.) And my Canonet isn't sharp enough.

 

Yeh, I'd consider a decent M body in the $1,000-$1,800 range, depending on condition, warranty, etc., and a Summicron in the $400-$800 range (ditto) to be reasonable for what you get in return: a top quality camera and lens that's also discrete, relatively compact and quiet. A good tool costs money.

 

Unfortunately I just can't get the hang of the rangefinder focusing. I spent quite a bit of time in the shop fondling a NIB M6 with a late model Summicron and really nice M3 with some kinda 90mm (I'm not familiar enough with the Leica lens lineup).

 

Disappointing to want a nice toy and find out that you can afford it but it doesn't fit. Like being too fat to squeeze my butt into a Lotus.

[jean_.]

I remember, after I got my leica, I felt almost guilty for it, like

carrying a gold bar, and hated to admit to anyone how much I paid (it

was a used m6). <br><br>I found out that the reason for this is that

the average person considers it an obscene amount of money for a

simple camera. While of course I could pretend to be indefferent to

what the average person thinks, truth was that it took me a while to

get used to the shock and awe that my new toy produced.<br><br>

The average person, however, is full of crap himself, and considers

it perfectly resonable to mortgage whatever is available to buy a

car. He considers it perfectly reasonable that that car (he's drowned

in debt now) becomes obsolete in 12 months, and is ready to sell it

at huge loss and get the new one. Everybody does this in germany, and

no one would consider this insane or at least unreasonable.<br><br>

And btw, a set of tires cost more than my leica, and a mandatory

check at the garage equals all my lenses.<br><br>

So, in the end, it's only a matter of your value system. In the

consumer

world it's normal to spend a years salary for a car, and a camera is

considered to be very expensive at $1000, but should have a huge zoom

and all bells and whistles then.<br><br>

Who cares.. If I could afford it I certainly would drive a classic

280SL and enjoy my trip to the grocery. But I could afford that

leica, made a lot of pics, and now I really give crap if anybody

considers it unappropriate ;-)

[jerry cabluck]

Yes, And most all of the above. Investment in business and in pleasure.

[edmo]

<i>"The average person, however, is full of crap himself,..."</i>

<p>

Interesting thought.

[michael_kastner]

Simple question ==> simple answer. Today, almost everything (especially cameras) are so programmed that everything is automatically automatic. Portrait, sport, action, and all that sh*t. So if I (like almost all of us here) want to be the boss, and not the camera, you still have to pay for it. If Leica gets even more expensive, I'll always buy it just for that reason. And chuck all of that "usual" sh*t out of the window. Even -- or, again, especially -- since it is always offered as an "bargain". I am not sorry here, but this is a really old story. The cheapest sh*t is often the worst sh*t.

[bill_marshall1]

>"What's a CV lens?"

 

Cosina Voigtlander

[brambor]

Edmo - It is safe to assssume that all of us are full of crap at least every two days.

[edmo]

<i>"So if I (like almost all of us here) want to be the boss, and not the camera, you still have to pay for it."</i>

<p>

Pure BS but if that's how you have too justify it then it's fine. People use what they want or need too and that's fine too. Actually the way it should be. They also have the right to pay what they want and it shouldn't matter to anyone else.

<p>

To say that a Leica is the only cam that gives you full control is a load of crap. Especially if your goal is a final image for viewing. Two prints hanging on the wall one shot with a Leica and the other shot with something else, whose going to know the difference and what does it matter? I've never looked at an image and wondered what they used.

[edmo]

Rene, if we are talking about bowel movements absolutely.

[ka_ho_wong]

Because they can afford them, you would do the same thing when you get there.

[edmo]

<i> "...you would do the same thing when you get there."</i>

<p>

More crap...

[Spearhead]

I'm with Edmo on this. It's nonsense to think that an all manual camera makes better photos or gives more control. Virtually everything other than a point-and-shoot gives full manual control, and the vast majority of photographers I know and have workied with use the full control capabilities of their cameras. It's time to get over this ridiculous justification for choices that you get more control with a non-automatic camera.

[aricmayer]

People pay the money for Leica lenses because of the incredible way that they "draw"

space. If you can't see what that is about, then you probably don't need the lenses. The

same picture taken with five different lenses is going to look different. Period.

 

As far as the economics go, it all depends on the photographer. I have a friend who is a PJ

who carries three M7's with him. He trashes them, loses them, drops them and gets them

stolen. They are all with insurance. He wins awards shooting with them. Everyone is happy.

[lee_shively]

Why does it come down to putting a dollar value on everything and having to justify spending the money you spent?

 

Every camera and lens I own was bought to use to take pictures. I didn't buy a Leica for ego-boosting or bragging rights, I bought the damn thing to use. And it works fine. I'm not into the "Leica mystique" of the lenses--they just fit the cameras. I bought all of them used and none of them cost nearly as much as some of the Canon EF lenses I own.

 

There seems to be two warring camps on this forum. Camp One believes Leicas were forged on the throne of heaven by God's own chosen camera makers and are, therefore, God's gift to photography--absolute perfection. Camp Two believes anyone who owns a Leica is a member of Camp One and should be ridiculed. I'm in Camp Three with the lepers and other outcasts, befuddled by the whole affair.

[edmo]

<i>People pay the money for Leica lenses because of the incredible way that they "draw" space. </i>

<p>

Aric, got any examples?

<p>

Also, if you don't mind could you look through my pics here at PNet and differentiate which lenses were used for which shots. Too make it easier (or harder) all the pics were shot with either Leica, Contax, Konica and Canon glass.

[michael s.]

I think I understand. This whole conversation can be reduced to two comments, both made earlier by wise men:

 

" ...if we are talking about bowel movements ...."

 

then

 

"...Leicas were forged on the throne."

[michael_kastner]

Edmo, Jeff and others here: it is what YOU say that is bulltweed: I never said that Leica cameras make better photos or

give more control. All I said (and still say) is that I myself prefer the possibility that a Leica M allows me to make more decisions myself. Many other cameras today try to do all the decision making themselves, and I don't like that type of manufacture. You understand??

[Brad_]

<I>People pay the money for Leica lenses because of the incredible way that they "draw"

space. If you can't see what that is about, then you probably don't need the lenses.

</I><P>

 

OK, I'll bite - what's that about? Please explain. You are right about the last part.

[adrian_nasti]

If owning a Leica represents your only one, "expensive" hobby, then in my view it is cheap relative to some other pursuits; golf can end up being more expensive when you factor in membership prices and clubs; cars are more expensive (owning a vintage car for example).

 

Notwithstanding the above, I do think Leica products are marginally overpriced, and this may be a function of paying for the Brand Name rather than the product being instrinsically better than say, a Zeiss lense or even a Nikkor. I will say however that my Leica gives me more pleasure to use than any other camera I have owned.

[kevin m.]

Seems we have one side saying the lens 'makes' the image, and the other side saying the lens doesn't matter. Seems to me both sides are wrong to a degree.

 

I like Peter's attitude. But then, Aussies take their beers to the dance floor, don't they.

[Spearhead]

<i> I myself prefer the possibility that a Leica M allows me to make more decisions myself.</i><p>

 

What decisions can you make with a Leica M that you can't make with any dSLR?

[michael s.]

Jeff asks: "What decisions can you make with a Leica M that you can't make with any dSLR?"

 

Or, for that matter, with any camera, film or digital, slr or rangefinder, capable of being used in manual mode?

[richard s.]

Last night I had supper with my wife and sister in law at a small Russian restaurant here in Tokyo. Starters, main, dessert and a cheap bottle of wine came to about $100. Two hours of good company and happiness. (And no, I don't usually spend that much on supper.)

 

In light of that a Leica doesn't seem so bad does it? I'm not suggesting dividing the price of the gear by the number of hours of use and comparing it to other forms of entertainment/hobbies, just adding to the voices here that have pointed out that we tend not to need to justify the cost of certain things like cars etc, so why worry the need to justify a Leica. If you derive pleasure from using one why not. Its not that expensive in the scheme of things (assuming you buy second hand).

[kevin m.]

Well, you could 'decide' to capture the image on a 'full-frame' sensor and not worry about the bloody 1.6 crop factor...