Leica Glass. Depreciating in Value?

[Clark.EE]

Is it me or can you pick up some deals in Leica Glass at the moment?
Cant sell my Summarit 35 for love nor money.
Bought in July 2012 (2nd hand) for £875.00 with Hood.
It is still immaculate.
Seem to be selling for £750.00 ish at the moment.
New price £1365.00.
Half price!

Interestingly The Voigtlander Nokton 35.1.4 just sold for £360.00 with hood. I only paid £300.00 for that!

Did I buy the wrong glass?

 

[jsrockit]

I just don't think the 35mm Summarit is that popular these days... it's a good lens, but doesn't have the history of Leica's other lenses. I also think that CV's 35mm 2.5 being so good for a fraction of the price has something to do with it.

 

[Mcary]

I just don't think the 35mm Summarit is that popular these days... it's a good lens, but doesn't have the history of Leica's other lenses. I also think that CV's 35mm 2.5 being so good for a fraction of the price has something to do with it.

Agree!

Also remember that if both lens are listed for the same or close to the same price a lot of people myself included will choose choose an older version of the Summicron 35mm over the 35mm Summarit even if the Summarit is in better condition. The way I look at it Leica glass is built to last so as long as the elements are clean and clear the fact that a lens is in immaculate condition isn't a big selling point.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I just don't think the 35mm Summarit is that popular these days... it's a good lens, but doesn't have the history of Leica's other lenses. I also think that CV's 35mm 2.5 being so good for a fraction of the price has something to do with it.

Exactly. Give it 20 years...

Besides, prices of newer lenses often drop dramatically (except in the case of some "instant cult" lenses, usually the most expensive/specialized), then recover.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Clark.EE]

Exactly. Give it 20 years...

Besides, prices of newer lenses ofan afford to keep it forten drop dramatically (except in the case of some "instant cult" lenses, usually the most expensive/specialized), then recover.

Cheers,

R.

Sold the M8 now.
Not sure if I can afford to keep it for 20 years.
I am a poor carpenter after all.
Got to realise some cash Roger.
Looks like I will have to take a hit.

 

[DouglasLHagerman]

Maybe some of them are going down, but my ship just came in--unless somebody can point out what is so special about this 35 mm Summilux with cleaning marks and fingerprints that makes it worth $44,000.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/160896290437

 

[swoop]

Prices are insanely high over what they were in 2006 before the M8. I bought my 90 cron for $600. And a 75 lux for $1500. Prices on the used market for both have literally doubled. Remember when you could get a Jupiter-3 for $25? Now they go for more than $100. The M8 made Leica lenses relevant again.

I think the whole mirrorless fad has resulted in a lot of lenses changing hands as people try them just for fun, and with each seller being more comfortable with a selling price slightly below what they paid, it has caused a gradual reduction in asking prices.

I'm not an economist, but that's my theory.

 

[thegman]

It seems to be the fast lenses which sell fast in my experience. Maybe if smaller lenses come into fashion more than the faster ones, it'll sell quicker.

 

[hepcat]

Large aperture glass will always be in demand for photographers who seldom use anything over ISO 800. They have always been the solution for shooting in low light. High ISO sensor bodies are beginning to change that threshold, but old habits are hard to break.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I think some of the double aspherical 35 lux's are fetching 15K used. They didn't make many late 1980s into the early 1990s but usually you wont loose on Leica M glass.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Maybe some of them are going down, but my ship just came in--unless somebody can point out what is so special about this 35 mm Summilux with cleaning marks and fingerprints that makes it worth $44,000.

Did you sell it for $44,000 or are you hoping someone will pay you $44,000 for it?

 

[hepcat]

Since we're talking about depreciation, this is one of the best times in history to buy medium format equipment. In 1980, a new Hasselblad 500 c/m kit was $1474 (adjusted for inflation, that would be about $4479 in 2014 dollars.) That kit can be bought used today for around $800 in 2014 dollars ($263 in 1980 dollars.) It has retained only 17% of its value (or conversely lost 83%.) Performance-wise, high quality medium format equipment is probably the best value in photography today for the dollar.

Mamiya and Bronica probably are even better buys as it appears that Hasselblad still brings more per piece than either of those marques. Rollei may not be quite the value as it has the same collector/cult following as Leica seems to inspire.

 

[Dralowid]

Is it me or can you pick up some deals in Leica Glass at the moment?
Cant sell my Summarit 35 for love nor money.
Bought in July 2012 (2nd hand) for £875.00 with Hood.
It is still immaculate.
Seem to be selling for £750.00 ish at the moment.
New price £1365.00.
Half price!

Interestingly The Voigtlander Nokton 35.1.4 just sold for £360.00 with hood. I only paid £300.00 for that!

Did I buy the wrong glass?

I see we are talking UK.

Have you spoken to Red Dot in London? I used them recently and both lenses sold within a month.

Worth a call.

Michael

 

[Richard G]

Large aperture glass will always be in demand for photographers who seldom use anything over ISO 800. They have always been the solution for shooting in low light. High ISO sensor bodies are beginning to change that threshold, but old habits are hard to break.

Agree. With the digital Ms I go weeks these days with nothing faster than ƒ2.8. Two Summicrons and the C Sonnar 1.5 sit on the shelf, along with a couple of other ƒ2 lenses. Size more than speed is what I favour lately. Then I use the C Sonnar, even at ƒ5.6, and that will stay on for a while and the thought of ever wanting the 50 Summilux ASPH fades further.

 

[goamules]

Prices are insanely high over what they were in 2006 before the M8. I bought my 90 cron for $600. And a 75 lux for $1500. Prices on the used market for both have literally doubled. Remember when you could get a Jupiter-3 for $25? Now they go for more than $100. The M8 made Leica lenses relevant again.

I think the whole mirrorless fad has resulted in a lot of lenses changing hands as people try them just for fun, and with each seller being more comfortable with a selling price slightly below what they paid, it has caused a gradual reduction in asking prices.

I'm not an economist, but that's my theory.

You're last paragraph is spot on. When film had a little resurgence driven by websites like this, and when adapted digital cameras got very good, prices spiked. Now they are heading down as the fad wears off.

I've watched the 35mm rangefinder lens prices closely. Yes, Soviet lenses were very cheap - about 15 years ago. Jupiter 3's peaked at about $300 about 3 years ago. Now they are back down to 150 or so. Nikkor 50/1.4, Canon 50/1.2 and 1.4 and 1.5 are similarly down about 25% or more from 3 years ago. Same with high end adapted C-mount lenses like Angenieux .95s. Down.

I don't buy Leica much, because they are already many more times more expensive than comparable Japanese lenses. But it seems Elmars and Summicrons are down a lot too. The problem with Leica, is if you lose 25% of 2000 dollars it's a lot. I can lose 25% off a $400 Canon or Nikkor and it's not so bad. Speculators and gold seekers just don't seem to realize that things don't always appreciate in value. It depends on fad and popularity.

 

[hepcat]

Agree. With the digital Ms I go weeks these days with nothing faster than ƒ2.8. Two Summicrons and the C Sonnar 1.5 sit on the shelf, along with a couple of other ƒ2 lenses. Size more than speed is what I favour lately. Then I use the C Sonnar, even at ƒ5.6, and that will stay on for a while and the thought of ever wanting the 50 Summilux ASPH fades further.

I use my collapsible Heliar 50mm f/2 when I'm looking to minimize size, but I've gotta tell you that there's something special about images shot with a 50mm f/1.1 wide open or nearly so, or my 35mm f/1.2. And of course, being able to hand-hold and shoot at 1/30th or slower in really dim light is pretty cool.

 

[jip]

Just bought a Leica Summilux-M 50mm ASPH. begin March, its my first lens faster than f/2 and I love it lots! It's basically the only lens i've used since I bought it... but that might be because it's new... But I like the results thus far!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Large aperture glass will always be in demand for photographers who seldom use anything over ISO 800. They have always been the solution for shooting in low light. High ISO sensor bodies are beginning to change that threshold, but old habits are hard to break.

VERY true!

Cheers,

R.

 

[crispy12]

I agree, the trend has very much to do with resurgence of film cameras, digital camera adaptability etc.

However, in Singapore, prices seem to have flipped the other way around. Rangefinder lenses are more and more expensive, especially fast, wide angle lenses for use on mirrorless cameras. Also since the introduction of the Sony A7, prices have risen slightly for certain lenses particular cheaper soviet lenses and Voigtlander as people want to try out manual focus.

My personal experience with summarit lenses is that they don't sell well. In practical use, the 35 seems lacklustre compared to a Summicron or Voigtlander 35 in terms of value. The small size is barely significant compared to the competition, and the slow speed makes subject isolation and low light difficult. Which makes the summarit lenses hard to justify. Only those who really want a Leica but can't quite afford the Cron would buy it. The f2 and f1.4 though seem to be spiralling out of control!!

 

[sanmich]

I don't get it: mirrorless cameras can sport ANY lens via the right adapter, and most, not being full frame, would use the soft spot of the lens.
Why would I pay tons of money to get a leica lens when an orphan system SLR lens can do the job?