Does it pay to trade Leica lenses?

[edward_steinberg]

After reading some excellent reviews on the Leica Tri-Elmar by Jack Flesher and Jay@infinity, I decided to seriously consider it as a photographic option. Since my life involves a considerable amount of travel the 3E makes sense to me because of its outstanding optics and flexibility. Faster improved film has made the f/4 limitation a viable option when traveling.

 

<p>

 

While in NYC last week I went into Ken Hansen Photographic, B & H and Adorama to check out the Tri-Elmar (both versions). For my taste, I like the newer model of the Tri-elmar. Ken Hansen may be the best Leica dealer I have ever met face to face. I told him the lenses that I currently own (21ASPH, 35ASPH, 50,75,90ASPH) and he pretty much said, "don't sell Leica lenses." Obviously, the choice was mine; however, he really appeared to be against trading any Leica lens based on his experience. Quite interesting. I am still thinking about it. In fact, because of Ken Hansen's candor and the way he attempted to develop a relationship I would absolutely go out of my way to do business with his company.

 

<p>

 

I am wondering that if I buy the 3E (Tri-Elmar), will the 50/2 collect dust? If you have traded a Leica lens, then are you sorry or was it a good move? Does it pay to trade Leica lenses?

 

<p>

 

 

Eddie

[godfrey]

Why should the Summicron 50/2 collect dust? It's 2 stops faster,

smaller and lighter than a 3E. For those occasions when you need the

speed, it's an invaluable part of a Leica kit.

 

<p>

 

Godfrey

[david_smith12]

...and like the stock market, the lens market is always open the next

day. Someone will certainly be interested in your dusty 50 in the

future.

[Rob F.]

In other words, don't sellLeica lenses until you've had a good trial

period with you newer one, and are sure you won't miss it. I

recommend a seven year minimum trial period.

[john_collier5]

Well I would not "trade-in" any Leica lens as the dealer has to

figure in future profit into the price they offer you for it. If you can

swing it financially, buy the 3E and see what happens. My 50/2 is

gathering dust but my daughter is taking some photography

courses and may be borrowing my M2 soon and that is the lens

she will be getting.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

[jackflesher]

Eddie:

 

<p>

 

I think the advice already given is very good, although I'm not sure

I'd go with Bob's seven years -- of course that IS when the honeymoon

is supposed to be over! (sic; earlier thread) I would add that unless

you need the money, it might be wise to view the 3E for a little

while as a convenience and not a replacement for your other lenses.

In time you will know which, if any, lenses you might want to let go.

[jackflesher]

PS: Three weeks ago I sold a 90TE (because I had the 90AA), and I

already regret it -- It and the 3E would make (have made) a very

lighweight and compact travel combo. Oh well :(

[dan_brown4]

I am six months into owning an M and 50 'cron. I have decided

Leica M photogrpahy is for me, and I am going to pare down my

8 lens, 2 body Contax kit and use the money to buy more Leica

lenses (or should I say "a lens"). The 3E is very appealing, and I

pose this question:

 

<p>

 

Have any 3E uses bought this lens, and then regretted the

purchase based on the relatively slow maximum aperture? Do

you always carry a faster lens when shooting with the 3E?

 

<p>

 

I am torn between a kit with a 3E and 35 'lux (which might mean

selling my 50 'cron), or just getting a 35 'lux to compliment my 50

'cron. Consider the following choices:

 

<p>

 

35/1.4; 50/2.0; 90/2.8

 

<p>

 

35/1.4; 3E; 90/2.8

 

<p>

 

Which makes the most sense for a coule of years use? Thanks.

[rob - atlanta, ga usa]

Dan,

 

<p>

 

All I can tell you is that I have your combination number 2 and have

been very pleased. Combination number 2 gives you a 28mm which I

often find useful. Do you take most of your photos indoors or out?

If you want to take photos of a single person indoors, the 50mm f/2

makes the most sense. For people shots, some photographers prefer

the 50mm focal length due to the 35's slight wide angle distortion.

The 35mm would be the better choice if you will be taking pictures of

groups of people or one person with some context. Also, consider a

third option: 3E, 50 'cron, 90 Elmarit-M. IMHO, option number 2 is

still the most versatile of the three options. (I have to give

credit to Jay for coming up with the 3E, 35 f1.4, 90 combo.)

[Robin Smith]

I think that those at Ken Hanson were correct in their suggestion in

the senser that you might well regret it later. Many of us have done

this to our regret later, but of course - if you need the money then

you need the money. Personally, I would hate the idea of being limited

to f4 - to me the Leica M is an available light camera so f2 is great

and f2.8 is bearable f4 is a pain. Mind you I shoot slow 50-100 slide

film so it is always a big issue for me.

[paul_chefurka]

I have to say that since I got my 3E, my 50/2.0 has collected a lot

of dust. This is because if I want a fast lens I almost always grab

the 35/1.4. However, I wouldn't trade in or sell the 50, because a)

it's an inexpensive lens by Leica standards and b) I never know when

I might need it.

 

<p>

 

The only times I've traded in or sold lenses are when I've bought a

newer (read faster or ASPH) one in the same focal length. I've done

this with 28's, 35's, 50's and 90's. The only sale I regret even a

bit is getting rid of a 90 T-E-M when I got the 90 AA, and this was

due to the weight difference.

 

<p>

 

However, it has been a massively expensive game, especially buying

new lenses and then later deciding to upgrade to another new lens.

It's not so bad if you upgrade from a used lens - you don't take as

much of a bath due to depreciation.

 

<p>

 

I wouldn't sell an existing prime to replace it with one of the focal

lengths of a 3E - they serve different purposes.

[paul_chefurka]

And Dan - I agree with Bob: option #2 is by far the most versatile.

I use the 28mm setting of my 3E all the time, and the 35/1.4 ASPH is

THE ONE for available light as far as I'm concerned.

[jay_.]

I have sold 3 recent-generation Leica lenses: 35/2ASPH, 75/1.4 and

90/2 non-APO, and do not regret it at all. The latter two lenses

were too heavy and bulky, and the 75 I needed to stop down to f/2.8

to get enough in focus. The 35/2 was sold for a 35/1.4 which is more

reasonable along with a 3E because of the additional stop. I keep my

50/2(current 11819), though I rarely use it and have both a 11817 and

a collapsible as well. I guess I just think it's sacreligious not to

have a 50 Cron ; )

[dan_brown4]

Thank you for the wisdom of your collective experience. The

answer seems to be option number 2 (35/1.4, 3E, 90/2.8) but

don't sell the 50 'cron. Uhmm, so the real answer is 35/1.4, 50/2.

90/2.8 & 3E. I figured that might happen :-)

[jackflesher]

Dan:

 

<p>

 

>Have any 3E uses bought this lens, and then regretted the purchase

based on the relatively slow maximum aperture?<

 

<p>

 

No, as I use it primarily in daylight.

 

<p>

 

>Do you always carry a faster lens when shooting with the 3E?<

 

<p>

 

Only if I am expecting to be shooting in subdued light.

 

<p>

 

>I am torn between a kit with a 3E and 35 'lux (which might mean

selling my 50 'cron), or just getting a 35 'lux to compliment my

50 'cron. Consider the following choices:

 

<p>

 

35/1.4; 50/2.0; 90/2.8

 

<p>

 

35/1.4; 3E; 90/2.8<

 

<p>

 

I would echo choice #2 for myself. However, if you find your shooting

style demands using the 50 a lot, then perhaps a better choice would

be 35/1.4; 3E; 50/2; 90/2.8... Sorry, I know that really doesn't help

you out much, but keep in mind too, that you will probably only get

$500 - $600 for your 'Cron. It might not be worth it in the long run.

[jackflesher]

PS: We were obviously typing at the same time and you hit submit

before me - sorry for the redundancy!

[tim_k1]

I am also new to Leica and find that one appealing aspect is the

simplified kit when compared to most people's SLR kits. I currently

have the 50/2 and figure that my next purchases will be the 35/2 and

the 90/2.8 and then hopefully I'll be done.

 

<p>

 

In my mind a 35/50/90 plus tri is getting too heavy and too

complicated. Why not just the 50, the 90 and either the 35 or 28

depending upon your taste? When traveling the 28/50 or 35/50 will

meet just about eveything the tri would give you plus you have the

speed. I also find that the 35/90 is a great travel kit (actually

the 35/85 SLR version).

 

<p>

 

To answer the original question I would say don't trade in your

lenses. If you are positive that you don't need some of your kit

post them on the various on-line places. You'll lose too much value

by trading them in.

[dan_brown4]

There was a thread not long ago about the final solution or lens

combination. I think one key to building a system is to think

about where you want to be, ultimately, and to build the kit lens

by lens without planned obsolesence. For me this appears to

be the 35mm Summilux as the next step. But planning can be

tough because Leica seems to be in the mode of upgrading the

whole line of lenses (I'm looking forward to the 50mm

Summmilux ASPH, and dimminutive 75mm Tele-Elmarit ASPH,

same size and weight as 50 'cron if you please :-).

[edward_steinberg]

Hi,

 

<p>

 

What a diverse collection of Leica wisdom. One bit of common thought

that appears to be reasonable is that the 50/2 should not be sold.

The speed, versatility, quality and cost of the 50mm/2 make it a

keeper. That makes complete sense, because it does afford me more

choices and as Godfrey stated, "it is an invaluable part of the Leica

kit."

 

<p>

 

Although I travel quite a bit, ninety percent of my travel is leisure

that can take me anywhere on the globe. I believe that the Leica Tri-

Elmar (3E) needs to be in the bag, especially on long trips where

weight and bulk are considerations. Money is not an issue in my

decision. Utilization and photographic options come in to play in my

thought process.

 

<p>

 

Jay comments are interesting to me. As he said, "I have sold 3

recent-generation Leica lenses: 35/2ASPH, 75/1.4 and 90/2 non-APO,

and do not regret it at all. The latter two lenses were too heavy and

bulky, and the 75 I needed to stop down to f/2.8 to get enough in

focus. The 35/2 was sold for a 35/1.4 which is more reasonable along

with a 3E because of the additional stop." I would not sell my

75/1.4. I enjoy low light photography and consider this to be the

best lens in the Leica line-up, but it is heavy and bulky. There has

been many times that the extra stop made an important difference.

 

<p>

 

However, a 35/1.4 ASPH (as opposed to my 2.0ASPH), with a Tri-Elmar

and a 90 APO would be quite a travel combo. Perhaps this is an

optimal combination. From the posts it appears that Paul Chefurka

changed his 35/2 ASPH for the 35/1.4 ASPH. I believe that the

35/1.4 ASPH, Tri-Elmar and 90 APO/ASPH might be the best way to go

for my needs.

 

<p>

 

With my thoughts re-aligned now I will sell nothing, unless I change

from the 35/2 ASPH to the 35/1.4 ASPH. I am flying up to NYC next

week and will take look at the 35/1.4, but the first priority is to

get the 3E in the bag. I am interested if there are any thoughts on

changing from the 35/2 ASPH to the 35/1.4 ASPH? All of your comments

have been, and are appreciated.

 

<p>

 

 

Eddie