Leica M lens Value and A7R camera

[eleskin]

I have the feeling that cameras like the Sony A7R WILL make legacy lenses more desirable due to their unique optical signatures for the fine art photographer, and photography in general. In fact, I believe Leica M lenses in the future will continue to INCREASE in value. We have a limited supply and more cameras capable of using M lenses as they were intended. There only so many F1.0 Noctilux lenses made (as well as other lenses) and there will be pressure on the used market for price increases. I am very glad I bought my Noctilux 4 years ago for $4,700 on Ebay. I am also glad I held off on the M240!

 

[swoop]

This happened six years ago when the M8 was released. A Jupiter-3 went from $40 to $300. The Canon screw mount lenses f.95 and f1.5 which were around $150 jumped to about $800-$1000. I bought my 75 Summilux for $1500 in 2006. Sold it two years ago for $2500. Now you can't find one for under $3500.

 

[f16sunshine]

This happened six years ago when the M8 was released. A Jupiter-3 went from $40 to $300. The Canon screw mount lenses f.95 and f1.5 which were around $150 jumped to about $800-$1000. I bought my 75 Summilux for $1500 in 2006. Sold it two years ago for $2500. Now you can't find one for under $3500.

Yes this what happened. I would say things are more stable now.
The big price jump is already done for M mount.

Some other so called legacy mounts will go up.
The retro- focus wides from Zeiss Contax and OM Zuiko for example.

These new mirror-less sensors generally perform much better with retro-focus lenses compared to M mount. Nothing to argue about there.
How high folks are willing to pay fio a "legacy" lens over a modern native mount is still disputable.
I bet Zeiss and sony fill a stable with excellent glass within the next year or two.

 

[burancap]

In my case, after the novelty of trying oddball adapted mounts wears off, the simple reality that the native mounts return better results becomes obvious. Sure, I still try something every once in a while, but they are sort of like using inbuilt creative filters. I think this tends to get drowned out by all the flurried excitement over these new releases.

 

[goamules]

All I've ever shot on m4/3 was legacy lenses, LTM and Pen-F mounts. I've never even owned a native lens for my m4/3 cameras. Same with LF really, I've only shot pre WWII, and often 1800s lenses ONLY. There are a lot of people out there like me, and more to come with this new camera.

 

[rbelyell]

i think their are enough folks who, like me, have ergonomic issues with the 'small camera big (native) lens' theory. its just awkward, unbalanced and, imo, not fun. and not fun typically doesnt lead to the best results in any endeavor.

i much prefer being--and really the excitement and fun of it--to be able to choose the lenses i want based on a variety of factors from a pretty much limitless pool, and not be confined to the half dozen options of any given manufacturer.

 

[burancap]

Oh, I understand and agree with both of you. It is fun and I still do it.

But, the natives simply work and work better.

Big native... can I have an example? I am trying to think of one.
As far as size, have you held a Sigma 19 or 30 or a Panny 20 for that matter? Compare the handling of the native Sigma 30 with an adapted Zeiss 50/4.

 

[burancap]

Sorry, I had not realized how far this had drifted off topic!

I think we will see a small rise in M/LTM values, but nothing crazy like the huge leap with the launch of the M digitals. My reasoning, as I was trying to express -is that the natives are better, IMHO. In my experiences, I think that the new a7(r) will be good with adapted lenses, but will be truly great with natives.

I think we should all be excited, adaptees or natives.

 

[jsrockit]

In my case, after the novelty of trying oddball adapted mounts wears off, the simple reality that the native mounts return better results becomes obvious.

I agree completely.

 

[willie_901]

In my case, after the novelty of trying oddball adapted mounts wears off, the simple reality that the native mounts return better results becomes obvious....

This statement mirrors my experience. When m4/3 bodies were first introduced there was a ground swell of interest in adaptable CCTV and other odd-ball lenses which has faded. But it did spike lens prices for a bit. If I feel compelled to use M/LTM lenses I would buy what works best with these lenses.

It remains to be seen which M/LTM lenses have optical designs that work well with the the A7R color-filter-array micro-lenses. It remains to be seen if SONY will support in-camera M lens artifact correction. Color artifacts with shorter focal lengths are trivial to remove during post processing. Smearing at the frame edges can not be removed. I suspect M/LTM lens prices may increase for lenses that turn out to enjoy a good reputation with the A7R. By spring (at the latest) we should know which lenses are worth owning.

Fast M lenses are larger and heavier and may not be enjoyable to use with such a small, lightweight body.

One thing is certain. People who prefer wide-angles of view will have more options compared to APS-C bodies and cameras with even smaller sensors.

 

[sc_rufctr]

The A7R has a fantastic extended handgrip that stores two batteries. It should improve the handling of this smaller body.

 

[raid]

One of the main reasons for using Leica cameras is the fact that Leica lenses are matched with such cameras. No SONY or other can replace the perfect match of Leica lenses on Leica cameras.

 

[Takkun]

I'll be interested to see what comes of the older 90 and 135 lenses--I own one of each, and they go for nothing these days. It makes sense that the wider lengths got popular with the M43 cameras.

 

[daveywaugh]

In my case, after the novelty of trying oddball adapted mounts wears off, the simple reality that the native mounts return better results becomes obvious.

I sort of agree, but for the small minority (of which a lot of those people are here), I really value investing in M-mount. I shoot a Leica M2 for fun, personal stuff and it's always my go to camera.

For work I have an XE-1 with the 14/18-55/35 and it's great but I won't buy other X mount lenses (and if the CV15mm worked well on it I would have bought that instead of the 14). For longer stuff I am looking for a nice M mount 90 with an adapter.

I can imagine a lot of people (admittedly a small number in the grand scheme of things) will be analogue Leica users who would like a more affordable digital alternative. They might buy one native lens - say the Zeiss 35 - and use legacy lenses for the balance. This just makes economic sense and also allows for a great lightweight kit. Tri-X in the Leica and the digi for colour.

Lastly, I can say from a fair amount of experience that anyone wanting to shoot semi-serious video.... the older manual lenses are SO much nicer to use than newer stuff. Quality and ergonomics.

 

[TheGodParticle]

One of the main reasons for using Leica cameras is the fact that Leica lenses are matched with such cameras. No SONY or other can replace the perfect match of Leica lenses on Leica cameras.

I see your point but perhaps in the film days, it didn't really matter except for ergonomics.

In the digital days, Leica bodies also wave Italian flags with some lenses and have issues with RF calibration where it works well with a few lenses but not with some other lenses.

I still love my M9 after 3 years. Actually more and more as time passes by. But, I will be using a FF mirrorless digital with my 50/1, 75/1.4 and the likes where critical focusing wide open can make or break the image

 

[uhoh7]

One of the main reasons for using Leica cameras is the fact that Leica lenses are matched with such cameras. No SONY or other can replace the perfect match of Leica lenses on Leica cameras.

True also for film cameras? 😀

However, basically I agree. The M8 jump is unlikely to be seen again.

There will be exceptions---one user implies the Noctilux is one.

Raid states his premise as some sort of law, which of course is pretty silly. We might quite easily see a FF camera equal or exceed Leica Bodies with M lenses.

In fact, it's almost certain, some day we will. Do you really think the obsession with RF glass across all boards is going unnoticed?

The A7r is looking a bit more quirky. It's going to exceed the Leicas in form factor and resoultion without any question, but with native zeiss glass and native lenses---with a few exceptions--another possibly the cv 35/1.2

If Leica has any brains, they will begin producing lenses for the A7r themselves, lol. They're bringing new factories online, no?

The A7r is the first camera I've seen which has some giving up on a Leica body.

By the same token, the A7r will also make shooters more aware of the M8-240 and what they can do. So it might even boost sales of new and used digital bodies.

But the precise short term landscape will be unclear until xmass, by which time all sorts of Leica glass will meet the A7r in the hands of dedicated shooters with finalized firmware. We'll see results galore.

No matter how confident a current assessment may be, until then it's all speculation.

Above: Stephen Gandy Lens if I'm not mistaken 🙂