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

sper said:
...who are they kidding? They've made their gear only available to the super rich. They've said a big eff you to the artists who would be using their gear. It's sickening what they ask. You do not get what you pay for in this case.
Click to expand...

It's the artist who makes the art, not the tool. It's cliché but true, Leica hasn't cornered the market on a lens that guarantees creativity that I know of.

I say spend whatever you feel you need to on equipment... if it makes you feel great, or makes you take better pictures (or at least makes you think you do) then so be it, there's a different justification for everyone I'm sure.
 
On three occasions over the last dozen years, I've chosen to pay serious money for lenses that highly differentiated from anything else in existence.

The 21mm Summilux was the hardest to swallow, but cost the same in salary terms as the 35mm Summilux did 12 years ago.
The 50mm Summilux was less.

I'm sure that the 21mm will be in regular service many decades from now.
The minor improvements with the new 35mm Summilux - show that lens progress does not move at a fast pace.
That 1990's Summilux will easily get another dozen years use before it starts looking outmoded.

All together cost per month for use is fraction of what any car would cost.
And they can still be sold at any time for more than the purchase price :D

The new Noctilux is out of my league though.
That's my point at which to join the cynics over the balance of price and value.

As for spending similar money on a digital camera body : no way .
 
I seem to max out around $1,500 or so - and for that, it must be a lens I am going to use a lot. For me that's whatever my main Leica lens is (right now a 35 pre-asph lux). I also have a 70-200/2.8 VR zoom for my nikon, which i use heavily for portraits.
Everything else in my kit, I prefer not to spend more than $500-$600 on.

Those numbers work for me. I think it covers my needs without feeling like i have to guard museum pieces.
 
I've never gone over $500 for a lens or body. Most expensive lens is for my dslr, and it's a 17-50/2.8.

As far as my Leica gear goes, what I have now cost me about $1700. That includes a M2, an M5 (in beautiful condition), a Bessa R, a CV 35/2.5, CV Ultron 35/1.7, Summarit 50/1.5, 2x Jupiter 8's of different vintages, and a Canon 85/1.9.

When I think that a Summilux would cost twice as much as all of the gear I have, I can't help but think the Summilux is too much to spent, it's not going to give me pictures that are 2x better, and while it might produce more 'pleasing' bokeh in some shots, only photographers really notice bokeh, to regular people it's the content that matters, I can get great content with a $15 sonnar copy.

That being said, I'd love to have a Summilux, but the only way I could merit spending that much would be if I made money off my photography.
 
If you grew up American like me you would have been bombarded with credit cards and marketing slogans that life is short, enjoy it now, worry about it later, you only live once, go for the gusto, only the best will do, etc. Well if you can't pay cash for it then it is probably too expensive for you.
 
Ray - You mean, just say no?!? *Now* you tell me. I have never known any of my HK friends ever to defer gratification when it comes to gear! :) Cheers from your US home town. See you in the fall with my latest lens order.
 
I owned an M-Hex 50/1.2 in the past and when I could not afford to keep it anymore, I sold it. With a profit.

Any other lens I bought, I sold at equal price or with a profit, save for a Summilux some three years back.

Only on cheap or common lenses does one lose money. I buy the more exclusive lenses whenever I can, use them for as long as I like and sell them on when I want to or need to.

There's the idea of having intrest on money in the bank; I'd rather have experience with gear as a profit.

Guess I'm just an optical venture capitalist :D
 
sper said:
I might be alone in this, but I honestly feel like the prices Leica charges for their lenses is immoral. I feel like the M9 is priced right...but when it's close to five grand for a 50mm 1.4...who are they kidding? They've made their gear only available to the super rich. They've said a big eff you to the artists who would be using their gear. It's sickening what they ask. You do not get what you pay for in this case.

In answer to your question, max 2 grand. I just bought the Voigtlander 40mm f2 for canon for $450. I honestly think its better than the 50mm 1.2.

However I will say that when pro studios pay the big bucks for pro medium format systems it's a different thing. Comes down to the job, it's worth it if the work pays for it.
Click to expand...

Maybe you don't, but I do. Then again, it's part of earning a living and I can write it off against tax. Why should MF be different from Leica?

But if I were a rich amateur, I think I'd be getting my money's worth too. Incidentally, why should 'artists' have a automatic right to buy whatever they like at whatever price they want to pay?

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Price is just another variable that gets taken into account when deciding on a lens to buy. No different from focal length, size, maximum aperture, condition, etc..

Philosophically, how heavy is too heavy a lens?
 
'To much' is spending money when driven by peer pressure and not your own style or preference. So it could be $200 on a trendy Russian lens that you'll never use much, or $10,000 on a Noctilux, both are to much money if bought for the wrong reasons.

Steve
 
buzzardkid said:
I owned an M-Hex 50/1.2 in the past and when I could not afford to keep it anymore, I sold it. With a profit. [...] Only on cheap or common lenses does one lose money. I buy the more exclusive lenses whenever I can, use them for as long as I like and sell them on when I want to or need to.

There's the idea of having intrest on money in the bank; I'd rather have experience with gear as a profit.

Guess I'm just an optical venture capitalist :D
Click to expand...
That's right, an optical venture capitalist! Gnawing away at the moral fibre of our society! A Tobin Tax on lens trades must be imposed!
Wait, I sold lenses to you... Free enterprise! Free enterprise! ;-)

Seriously, I agree with the opinion stated above that a lens is too expensive (for you) when you worry too much about damaging it in use.
 
_mark__ said:
Anything over £2000 and you know your being robbed.
Click to expand...
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. What anyone chooses to spend on anything is a personal choice. For example, a Noctilux is far better value than a McDonalds hamburger, if (like me) you don't like McDonalds hamburgers. And far from paying money to see a football game, I'd pay money to be let off having to go and see it.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
You know Roger, the best robberies are done without your knowledge.....

Fair enough, I was forgetting banking... But even then, buying another lens is still a choice I make. Living without a bank account is rather more difficult.

For a example of value for money, I volunteered to pay $3000 for a Leitz 90/2.2 Thambar: a friend was thinking of selling it. This is 74-year-old lens that most people haven't even heard of. I didn't buy it to show off (who'd see it?); I didn't buy it as a collector (I gave up collecting Leica gear in the mid-1970s); I bought it because I REALLY like the results, though I've not used it as much as I expected. It's also a good example of a lens that gives results you cannot get any other way, at any price.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
What banking for you is the same as expensive lenses are for others.

Anyway, I have no problems with people who want to spend their money on expensive stuff. On the other side I have no problems with people who thinks 2000 dollars for a lens is highway robbery.
 
As a hobbyist who collects, you can pay whatever you can afford - its up to you. Just don't claim to need it unless you really do and have the results which prove it. Wanting things because you want them is just fine!

I would not spend $500 on a lens I did not feel I needed, but I did spend nearly $6k on a 24 Summilux because I felt I did and it was for me a very right decision. At time went by I found it was even more right than I had expected with so many shots around F2 and a few important ones at 1.4. The point for me is that I felt this lens would allow me to make things possible that were really important to me - $5.5K important to me - and I feel I was right. Where I have gotten it wrong, I have sold the kit and moved on, but thats by far the most expensive lens I have ever bought. The next most expensive was a 85 1.2L II. Between the two lenses I have shot a very significant portion of my most important recent work and many images could not easily have been shot on anything else or would have demanded significant compromise (like using D3200 at 1200 as standard rather than Neopan 1600 at 640 in low light and sometimes TriX).

If I find that my recent endeavors have come to nothing and I have no future need for the 24 lux I can always sell it. The total cost to me will prob be about $1500 - the same cost as annual car insurance for a prestige car. The difference is I have about 20 exhibition quality images from the 24 lux and many more 'fillers.' And hopefully a book in my future.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom