Leica M prices

[luis_rives]

<p>In the 'net I ran across a old issue of Popular Photography from the spring of 1981. In an adv for what used to be Cambridge Camera in NYC they were listing the price of a new Summilux 35/1.4 as $494. I ran that number thru an inflation calculator to arrive at a today's price of about $1300. If one checks the asking prices in the big auction site, the current prices even in completed auctions are well above that. So what gives in the difference? Is it just collector demand? Used prices relative to new prices? I could see prices for pristine samples at the highest levels and then user grade samples close to the inflation adjusted price. However even a well used sample of this lens is at the $2000 level. The similar phenomenon occurs for most Leica equipment.</p>

[henryp]

<p>Not to disparage those now gone, but Cambridge Camera was NEVER a reliable retailer nor a retailer whose posted prices could be considered reliable. Your old PopPhoto should also have ads from B&H and Adorama which were and are more trustworthy.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

[carbon_dragon]

I've noticed that the 50/2 Summicron (late model but not the ASPH) which I bought new for just under $1000 now seems

to sell for double that and is more than I paid even used. What's going on there? Even the film Leicas are holding their

values (which is a little unexpected given that so many Leica users have bought into the digitals). Perhaps this is

suprising only to me.

[SCL]

<p>The demand for Leica lenses (both M & R) has increased dramatically since the introduction of digital Leica M and micro 4/3 bodies, although in the last several months prices for sold ones on the big auction site have abated a little according to the folks on the L-Camera forum. The old adage seems to have come back to life....never sell a Leica lens (I failed that test horribly looking at current prices).</p>

[luis_rives]

<p>Henry, as I write this I am looking at my copy of the receipt from B&H dated 11/4/82, when your store was located on Warren St, for a new Summicron 50/2 for which I paid $389 not including tax. I believe that price was not out of line with the other dealers of the time, but yours was the lowest price. The point of my post was to show that the absurd present cost of Leica equipment has got to be drive by more than mere inflation would indicate.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Wage increases in Germany are much higher than in the world at large. That's part of why prices are going up so. Also "gotta catch them all" Leica collectors are a factor.<br>

Cambridge Camera probably would have charged you another $50 for the lens hood, another $50 for the lens cap, another $50 for the lens case, etc. If you knew their game, you could deal with them, but it was tricky. First Topcon lens I bought from them around 1976 was missing case and strap, second one came with same when I made it very clear when ordering that I expected <strong>everything</strong> that came in the box. Also, the Summilux lens listed might have been grey market, no US Warranty.<br>

But Cambridge could also play "bait and switch" games, and getting a credit card refund out of them was a major fight.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>But, yeah, used Leica lens prices started to take off with the Epson RD-1, and took flight with the Leica M8. I got a mint coated Summitar for $66.01 on eBay in October 2004, that could <em>never</em> happen today. (That was a great deal even then.)</p>

[carbon_dragon]

The mirrorless phenomena probably didn't help. Now you can use Leica lenses on a whole LOT of different cameras.

[nickc1]

<p>Regarding the new prices of Leica lenses I have often tried to calculate today's estimated cost for vintage gear, but without any real success.</p>

<p>Talking to a colleague who teaches business he pointed out that the skills required for any kind of manufacturing are harder to find in employees today and that some engineering workers, described as semi-skilled in the past, are now classed as skilled artisans and paid accordingly.</p>

<p>He intimated that changes in society, in manufacturing processes and in the number and availability of skilled hand craftsmen have made such comparisons unreliable to say the least. </p>

<p>Nick</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>I had a look at the prices of the 35/2 ASPH at London dealer 'The Classic Camera' on the wayback machine at archive.org. From 2001 to 2004, you could pick one up new for £895. Then the price hikes began, mostly between 2005-2010, and the current price is £2090 at the same dealer, 234% of the 2001-2004 price. In 2001, a new Nikon 35/2 AF-D was £279. Today, the price has gone DOWN to £229. To be fair there's a new model, the 35/1.8 AFS, which is £369, 132% of the 2001 AF-D price.</p>

<p>Leica has chosen to be a boutique brand (literally, in their new network of Leica stores) with prices to match, in a market where it only competes with its own secondhand products (the prices of which seem to rise in line with the new gear).</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I agree that Leica, in their quest to regain profitability, have hiked their prices greatly over the last 10 years. The second hand market has also increased as mirrorless have come to fruition. I don't think it really reflects German wages, or extra-expensive materials, but is largely a requirement for them to keep in business. They have repaid these prices with a lot of exceptional new lenses though: although with exceptional prices too.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>I also noticed that Canon's latest 5D (5DS R) is pretty pricey too. Given that the 5D was originally created as an affordable Canon full frame, this is just as much of a price shock. </p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>I think Canon can get away with charging 33% more for the 5DS (and a bit more for the 5DSR) over the 5D MkIII because of the crazy 50MP sensor. This is Canon's answer to the Nikon D8x0 series, and is a bit of a special purpose camera, slower than the MkIII and with a more limited ISO range (the rumour mill thinks there may be a more conventional MkIV with fewer pixels on the way). And it is at least new technology - all the 35/2 ASPH has got to show for more than doubling its price is a barcode for the 6-bit sensor. Otherwise it hasn't changed in nearly 2 decades. The new lenses, of course, start out at the 'exceptional' price level, and then just rise further. Only Leica have the cheek to sell a 50/2.4 for £1,250 (not just one of the most expensive, but perhaps the slowest conventional double-Gauss 50 ever sold, where the design brief must have read 'limit the aperture at the entry level so we can hike the price of the 50/2 even more').</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Canon's latest 5D (5DS R) is pretty pricey too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's too rich for me, but let's face it, the 5Ds is still much less than the current Leica Ms.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

I love my M's but I have to admit that the 5D was (and is) quite a triumph of design for me. I carried it around for a while,

though these days I need one of those waist straps to carry something that size (especially with the 24-105).

 

 

If you step back a pace or two, from a physical, feature/quality standpoint Leica has superb lenses and (from my

standpoint) superb ergnomics and great, easy to understand menus. And despite being pretty dense, they're easier to

carry around as full frame no compromises stills cameras. BUT when you look at the 5Ds R or the Sony A7R II they're

both pretty amazing too and each have their own strengths. It's tough to justify the collossal difference in price. And with

the Sony I don't have to feel so stupid for keeping all those lenses from the various camera systems because hey I could

use them with an adapter.

 

 

That said I was out today with an M (not even my M9, but the M8 messing around with IR) and I like using it better but it

still kind of makes me feel taken advantage of in a small way. Well at least Leica is still around and still seems reasonably

healthy.

[john_kwok]

<p>I think Leica's prices are vastly overpriced now, taking for example, their new updated version of the M2 or M4, which equals the price of two, perhaps, three, used M6s in pristine condition. In stark contrast, the Zeiss ZM lenses are far more reasonably priced and are capable of producing results as good as - and in many instances, better - than their Leica equivalents.</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>Leica prices are what they are. They've always been expensive. I was explaining to a colleague the other day that when you buy Leica stuff you have to think of it as funny-money. The amount of money you have to spend is usually so ridiculous that to try to consider it rational will drive you crazy. Therefore it's funny-money. It just is what it is. I have been buying Leicas since 1966 and still have every one except for a collector lens I had to part with. Everything I buy I use. Pretty hard. I am not a collector, but a user.</p>