How much is too much for you?

[Krosya]

I keep coming back to this myself. After using some cameras and lenses from different makers - I often am amazed that people pay what they pay for some things. From my experience lenses and cameras made by Cosina and Konica can easily compete with Leica. Does anyone really see any difference in a photo taken with 35 ASPH ULTRON vs 35 ASPH Summilux? I have seen great results from both. All M-Hexanons outperform thier Leica counterpars IMO and at much lower cost. Biogon ZM 21/2.8 is unmatched IMO, in it's class. Many old Russian lenses deliver superb results. So why do we keep buying those more expensive Leicas? Well, I dont anymore. Not that I dont want to - I still lust after Noctilux 1.0 (and I have M-Hexanon 50/1.2) and Summilux 21/1.4 (and I have Biogon ZM 21/2.8). But at $5-6K a pop - I just dont see that. It's way too much. No matter how good the lens is. I draw the line at $2500 for ANY lens.
So, how much is too much for you to pay for a lens? (Collectors excluded of course)

 

[ernstk]

It depends on many things. How much you want it, how much you need it, how much money you have.

I don't think that there is a simple answer. Also, to use your example, there is a quality difference between CV lenses and Leitz lenses. Maybe not always immediately visible optically, but in quality of manufacture.

Ernst

 

[maddoc]

For me it is $1500 so far, the only more expensive lens was my Noctilux. Actually, except for my 35mm Summilux-M, all lenses were cheaper than $1000 and most of them Leica (used).

 

[shyoon]

In my current financial situation, I'm not willing to spend any more than USD$900-$1000 on a lens. Thankfully I don't really desire any lenses that cost much more than that.

 

[rover]

$2,500 is way too much for a lens. I agree, there is a line, different for everyone. I guess if I really wanted one, just one, I would save and get that one, but it wouldn't be much more the @$1,000, maybe $1,500 if I really want that one lens. And I would never buy new, I just couldn't afford to, and I wouldn't have a lot of those lenses. Right now my non aspherical prior to the one just before aspherical one is the most expensive lens I own, and that was much less than $1,000 when I bought it.

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

The question becomes even more relevant if like me you have reached pension age or more!. My days of spending big bucks on gear are long gone, but I'm not complaining, I have some 'top class' items, but am always delighted by the results I get from some of my more modest purchases. About a year ago I picked up some Konica AR lenses ( SLR ) for a song, and they perform as well - and mostly better than anything I've ever had!. Another example - I'm just about to scan some negs from yesterdays outing, taken with a Fed collapsible 50 - I'm sure they will turn out fine!. Yes - it would be nice to be able to spend thousands on exotic gear, but it's not going to happen!.....and do I give a toss? 🙂
Dave.

 

[MCTuomey]

i moved to pretty much all zm lenses last year. no leica glass. i like the zeiss look in the first place, also their consistent ergonomics. i don't miss the few high $ leica lenses i owned - and financially i'm less able to afford them anyway.

i don't agree that leica lenses are outperformed by the other mfgs. i just don't see enough benefit in the photos i take, process, and occasionally print to justify their cost. all the lenses i have are much better than i am, whatever the maker.

 

[arseniii]

Three main reasons:
1. Have money and want to show of(MOST LIKELY)
2. Working photographer who's equipment is partially sponsored by the employer(LESS LIKELY)
3. Perfectionists, just like to have best of the best.

That was easy

 

[sreed2006]

The price of GAS fluctuates.

Usually in inverse proportion to the price of gas, water, and electric.

 

[oftheherd]

I have mentioned before, I don't own Leica and don't anticipate I ever will. I know they are good, I just don't think they are as good as their price.

And as others have said, there is other glass and cameras that perform beautifully as well. In SLR, and I would assume in 35mm RF, Fujica glass is great. So is Konica. 35-40 years ago at least, some professional photographers in asia wouldn't touch anything but Konica.

I also like Zeiss glass. Is it the end of the world? no, not at all. But I like it. My personal favorite is Fujinon. They now command high prices, even used. I can't even afford that now. 🙁

As to what I will pay, having decided that there is good glass to be had at lower prices, I seldom pay more than $200-300 for any lens. I don't remember for sure, but I think the most I have ever paid was about $350 for a 50mm Mamiya lens for my Super Press 23. But then I have a tendency to wait for bargains. I got a Sigma 600mm cat new for $100. I bought a T* 50mm f/1.4 new for $20.00. I am just like that.

 

[kossi008]

Does anyone really see any difference in a photo taken with 35 ASPH ULTRON vs 35 ASPH Summilux?

I guess I would. Not at f/5.6, maybe. But I recently compared my Ultron 35 against the Summarit 35 of a friend, and I was shocked. Shocked by the fact that I did not need a 4000 ppi 100% view to detect any differences. At f/2.8, the difference was plainly visible in full frame view on my computer screen. 😱

So, I'm moving up. I'll grant you, I don't want to go all the way from 90% to 100% optical performance and pay 10x the price. But 99.9 or 100% for 2x to 3x the price suits me just fine. Which is why I'm opting for the ZM lens line...

To answer your question: too much is too much. Meaning that everybody will have their own pain threshold in lens spending, there is no common ground on this, I think.

 

[250swb]

I'd pay plenty for any lens thats going to get regular use if it suits what I want. So all the staple Leica lenses, the Summicron 28mm, 35mm, 50mm etc have the refinement that means not only do they render a superb image, but you aren't handicapped by the foibles of CV design, like aperture related focus shift, poor wide open, etc.

But its not always the case that you have to pay a lot for Leica quality. The CV 75mm is superb throughout its range, so thats the one I chose over a Summarit or Summicron. Common sense should cover most decisions about what is needed and what isn't needed without making rules about it.

Steve

 

[Roger Hicks]

It depends on many things. How much you want it, how much you need it, how much money you have.

Ernst

Dear Ernst,

Seconded. Implicit in what you say, too, is the question of how much you are willing to sacrifice in order to pay for a single expensive interest. Old car restorers are a prize example. They often spend far more time and money on their vehicles than Leica users spend on Leicas -- and surprisingly few of them are rich men.

I know quite a few professionals who use Leicas for most of their personal photography and some of their professional work, and can therefore 'lose' the VAT/TVA/MwSt and write the camera or lens off against the business. Many more, in fact, than rich twits; but I don't (usually) move in rich twit circles. There's also the point that being rich does not automatically make someone a bad photographer, any more than buying a Leica will automatically make you a good photographer.

The most I've ever spent on a lens was $3000 on a 1938 Thambar 90/2.2. These command silly money from collectors but since buying mine I've found that there is a surprisingly big band of users. I borrowed it for an article, expecting to say, "Yes, very nice, very interesting, but not worth the money" -- and then I bought it... I've never seen another lens that gives the same results.

Those who say "Leica buyers have lots of money and want to show off" puzzle me. To whom are they supposed to be showing off? Most people don't know what a Leica is; if you move in circles where a Leica is a plaything, no-one is going to be impressed anyway; and the idea of buying a Leica to impress the local camera club strikes me as pretty weird. Weirder still to try to impress people on the internet, in which case you might as well lie anyway: have I ever mentioned my collection of Leica prototype Noctiluxes...? From the reaction of some people on forums like this, I'd think that the level of bitching, sniping and sour grapes you get from a handful of the disaffected would be a disincentive to buy a Leica.

What's the most I'd spend? Dunno. I hope I haven't spent it yet. But a lens has to be pretty amazing for me to spend anything on it: I've got most of what I want. If the M9 hadn't come out, I might have bought the 24 Summilux, but again, I might not. All counterfactual conditionals are true.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kossi008]

The CV 75mm is superb throughout its range, so thats the one I chose over a Summarit or Summicron. Common sense should cover most decisions about what is needed and what isn't needed without making rules about it.

I'll second both thoughts. The CV 75 is one of the lenses that is surviving my switch to the ZM lenses (the other two being the 21 and 28 Skopars).

And the second sentence above is what I was trying to express, thanks for putting it so much better.

 

[pvdhaar]

- I'm just about to scan some negs from yesterdays outing, taken with a Fed collapsible 50 - I'm sure they will turn out fine!..

I took one with me on my winter holidays this year, and it was the lens that 'brought the best pictures home'. Sharpness and contrast were easily on par with the CV25/4 that I also took along. Of course, using the sweet spot apertures helped a bit..

But all in all, this $15 piece of antiquated glass made me very aware that good photography isn't about what you spend; it's about how you use what you have. From here on, it's bargain basement prices only..

 

[newspaperguy]

I've joined the "just don't need it crowd" after realizing (and it took me 50+ years) that I have a ton of "stuff" that I just don't use. Plus, I can no longer afford to indulge my whims. OK, I will pick up some cheapies - 'cause they're there (just got a 1946 Kodak 35 for $12) - but no serious additions. I'm satisfied with my 5 meg digi, and I'm settled on CV and OM, plus a few old FSUs. Watch for a big "retirement sale" coming soon. (Canons, Nikons, Konicas and more.)

PS - Dave W: Konica used to advertise "The lens alone is worth the price." And it was.

 

[Keith]

I'm a little gob smacked at how many people swooped on the M9 when it was released ... I know it's a unique camera but $7000.00 😱

And I read threads frequently where there are references to posters actually having two of them! 😱 😱 😱

😀

 

[jsrockit]

For some people, buying a $6000 Leica lens is like me buying a pair of sneakers. If you make a lot of money, $6000 may not be a big amount of cash.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm a little gob smacked at how many people swooped on the M9 when it was released ... I know it's a unique camera but $7000.00 😱

And I read threads frequently where there are references to posters actually having two of them! 😱 😱 😱

😀

Dear Keith,

Why not?

I would, if I could afford it.

Alas, I can only afford one, and that only by going without other things.

Bonuses at one of the banks recently averaged over $100,000. Give me a $100,000 bonus and I'll buy another M9 and half a dozen lenses.

Cheers,

R.

 

[NickTrop]

Sold all my extraneous stuff - or most of it. Down to ONE fixed lens rangefinder, which was a gift. I am cured of gas. Why do people pay $$$$$$$$ for imported sports cars, when you can't drive 150mph most places? Expensive watches? The list is endless. Two words:

Conspicuous Consumption...

Which begs the question (at least in the US), is it more important to a society at large that a few are able to afford luxury items to satiate their need for conspicuous consumption at the expense of people starving and/or going homeless and/or a significant chunk going without health care?

My entire collection when I was inflicted with GAS consisted of such cameras as a Konica Auto S3, a fully working Iskra MF folder, assorted Yashicas... none of them left me wanting for better image quality. This entire collection - around 9 cameras at one point, didn't cost me more than a single Leica lens purchased new, probably.