Philosophically, how much is too much to spend on a lens?

Thanks all for your comments.

The thing with me is regarding the 21/24 Summilux, at over $6K.

To me, that is a lot of money, and if it turns out that I don't like them, reselling that expensive a lens is harder, than reselling a $2K lens. The potential buyers are fewer, and the potential for loss is so much more. At $6K, I'd much rather "rent to rry", than "buy to try".

V
 
Vickko said:
Thanks all for your comments.

The thing with me is regarding the 21/24 Summilux, at over $6K.

To me, that is a lot of money, and if it turns out that I don't like them, reselling that expensive a lens is harder, than reselling a $2K lens. The potential buyers are fewer, and the potential for loss is so much more. At $6K, I'd much rather "rent to rry", than "buy to try".

V
Click to expand...

Yeah: "If I don't like it" is always the problem. Of course I'm unusually lucky here in that I can generally borrow anything I like. The mirror image is that there are then lenses I try, and find that I do really like -- most of which I can't afford. That's why (for example) I have the Thambar, the 75 Summicron and the C-Sonnar but (alas) not the Noctilus or either of the wide Summiluxes.

If the M9 hadn't come out, the 24 Summilux would have become my standard lens on the M8.2, but it made more sense to buy an M9 instead. With full-frame, the 21 looks more attractive, but as I already have two 21mm lenses (f/4 and f/2.8), and as I sold my 21/4.5 because I didn't need three, and as it's hellish expensive, I'll live without. I'd probably buy a WATE before a 21 Summilux, as it suits my sort of photography better (and besides, Frances REALLY wants one).

It's also worth adding that differential focus on a 21 can be hard to get used to, when you're used to everything being in focus with 21s. The way I look at it, though, is that the 21 Summilux outperforms my other 21s at f/2.8 and there's no contest at f/2 and f/1.4...

Cheers,

R.
 
I've never personally spent more than $800, but that may change. I've been seriously considering a Leica 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH, which would be a huge jump in what I've previously paid. The only reason I'm considering it is that I haven't been happy with Voigtlander's 28mm offerings and I don't like that the Zeiss models don't have a focusing tab (a personal preference). Plus, the Leica is tiny! I need a 28mm because I'd like a 35mm equiv on my M8.
 
Philosophically, how much is too much to spend on a lens?

- When you have more lenses then cameras.

About the price, i guess it's all depends on how much you earn per month...
 
Vickko said:
The thing with me is regarding the 21/24 Summilux, at over $6K.

To me, that is a lot of money, and if it turns out that I don't like them, reselling that expensive a lens is harder, than reselling a $2K lens.
The potential buyers are fewer, and the potential for loss is so much more.
Click to expand...

You're right to have doubts, it would certainly be foolhardy to jump in to buying one of these lenses.
Accurate framing with wide lenses especially up close is a bit of art with a rangefinder and external viewfinder.
As well as keeping things in frame and level, you've got parallax and viewfinder blockage to consider.
So unless you've already spent time with more modest 21/24mm lens and decided - yes I really like using that focal length on a RF, but it absolutely must to be faster.
The many other 21/24mm options are easier to use, more compact and better optically, except as Roger pointed out at f/2 and f/1.4.
 
When it costs more than one month's pay, whatever that is for you.

William
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Mark,

Not really. The number of times I've had someone threaten to harm me with a gun or a knife unless I buy a lens costing over £2000 can be counted on the fingers of one ear.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Ah, but there are the daylight robberies that are carried out with nothing more threatening than a chip and pin.

PS. I count the noctilux as the exception to the rule, its glass being more valuable than silver on a weight to weight basis.
 
Tom A said:
These days, i spend if the money is in my pocket and i dont need it for something else.
Click to expand...
This is what I've always done too. I just looked up my most expensive lens purchase and it was $2918.00 for a BP 50/1.4 ASPH in 2008. A wonderful lens that I've kept and taken on my travels. My lens philosophy is to buy and try, then if I don't like it I sell it and move on. Also if you think Leica prices are high take a look at the cost of movie lenses...
 
Nugard said:
Philosophically, how much is too much to spend on a lens?

- When you have more lenses then cameras.

About the price, i guess it's all depends on how much you earn per month...
Click to expand...

Wait a minute... that's normal right? It's supposed to be the other way around... though that's for another topic...:D

Read the past pages and I do agree on two points.

I do agree that the lens should not end up owning you. Lens purchase is no different from other things we buy. It should be made with a sound economical reason.

I also do agree that you should get what you want... simple as that. But be wary of the illusions. You could "want" the lens for a number of reasons and that includes status symbolism, getting along a crowd, elitism; all masked behind the reason of artistic vigor; besides the noble reason of for shooting photos.
 
Last edited:
_mark__ said:
PS. I count the noctilux as the exception to the rule, its glass being more valuable than silver on a weight to weight basis.
Click to expand...

Admittedly I don't know how many elements in the Noctilux are actually made of those rare earth glasses and how much these elements weigh, but at current silver prices of $17.97 per ounce this doesn't strike me as too terrifying pricewise.
 
Philosophically, how much is too much to spend on a lens?

Philosophically, the sky's the limit. Practically, I wouldn't spend more than a grand on a lens. Plenty of nice Leica M lenses even today can be had for that.
 
I'm one of those who will eat Kraft dinner for a year in order to get the lenses I want. Life is short and cruel, and the best glass makes me smile. And if it's attached to a Leica M camera, even better. To me, having my Nikkors and my M glass is worth more than a new car, or a nice watch ...OO. It's all about priorities and balance.

Gregory
 
Last edited:
Nikkor AIS said:
Im one of those that will eat Kraft dinner for a year in order to get the lenses I wnat. Like is short and cruel, and the best glass makes me smile. And if there attached to Leica M camera's even better. To me having my Nikkor's and my M glass is worth more than a new car, or nice watch..OO. Its all about priorities and balance.

Gregory
Click to expand...

Dear Gregory,

Exactly. My wife's 1930s Colt National Match .45 was inherited from her father, who bought a 3-month supply of beans BEFORE he bought the gun as a student at Cornell. And my Leica stereo setup, bought when I was a student in the '70s, meant 3 weeks on muesli.

Cheers,

R.
 
Nikkor AIS said:
Im one of those that will eat Kraft dinner for a year in order to get the lenses I wnat. Like is short and cruel, and the best glass makes me smile. And if there attached to Leica M camera's even better. To me having my Nikkor's and my M glass is worth more than a new car, or nice watch..OO. Its all about priorities and balance.

Gregory
Click to expand...

Agree!

Tell 80% of American's that you've spend $3K on a camera lens and they'll think you're nuts, But those same people don't blink at putting out 20, 25 or 30K every 4-5 years for a new car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom