Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
This is an argument that has sold thousand of CV lenses - to people whose major metric is performance-for-price. But you could apply the same logic to decide that a CV lens on a film body does not provide performance commensurate to the 100-fold price increase over a Fun Saver from the drugstore. The same applies when you plug those lenses into an M8 and compare them to a pocket digital point-and-shoot.
If you want to start with the best and spend your time taking pictures instead of suffering metaphysical doubt and trolling RFF classifieds, you’ll just bite down and buy the Leica lens. Or a 28/1.4 Nikkor on a D3. Or whatever the best optic is for your system. Replace what’s behind it (the body) when necessary.
If you intend to stick with Leica or other M cameras, and you think you will ever want to upgrade, buying two cheaper lenses is much more expensive in the long run. As a practical example, consider the 35/1.4 ASPH. If you bought a new one in 2002, you could have had one for about $1,700. Today, the price is almost $4,000 (and the prices for used ones have jumped similarly). Upgrading involves suffering both the depreciation for the old item and the Leica-flation applicable to the new item.
If you want to start with the best and spend your time taking pictures instead of suffering metaphysical doubt and trolling RFF classifieds, you’ll just bite down and buy the Leica lens. Or a 28/1.4 Nikkor on a D3. Or whatever the best optic is for your system. Replace what’s behind it (the body) when necessary.
If you intend to stick with Leica or other M cameras, and you think you will ever want to upgrade, buying two cheaper lenses is much more expensive in the long run. As a practical example, consider the 35/1.4 ASPH. If you bought a new one in 2002, you could have had one for about $1,700. Today, the price is almost $4,000 (and the prices for used ones have jumped similarly). Upgrading involves suffering both the depreciation for the old item and the Leica-flation applicable to the new item.
ferider
Veteran
Dante, you don't always buy the most costly bottle of wine at a dinner, now, do you ?
It's always performance vs. value. But, of course, lens performance and value are subjective, not absolute.
One might reasonably argue that a Canon 35/1.5 performs better than a 35/2 ASPH, for a given desired outcome.
For example, I carry a CV lens together in the same kit as an 8x more expensive Leica lens. Because they fit together, IMO.
Roland.
It's always performance vs. value. But, of course, lens performance and value are subjective, not absolute.
One might reasonably argue that a Canon 35/1.5 performs better than a 35/2 ASPH, for a given desired outcome.
For example, I carry a CV lens together in the same kit as an 8x more expensive Leica lens. Because they fit together, IMO.
Roland.
Last edited:
kevin m
Veteran
Had it and sold it, thanks. Lovely lens, but too big, especially with the hood, to carry all the time. One of the chief virtues of RF cameras is their compact size, so if I'm gonna carry a lens all day, then it has to use 39mm filters.
And honestly, there's no appreciable difference between the Aspherical lux and, say, the CV 35/2.5 at the same aperture, anyway. A professional lens tester might say otherwise, looking at 100% pixels on a monitor, but in a print, it's tough to spot a difference. And pixel-peeping is, generally speaking, a waste of time as it relates to photography.JWW
Established
I agree with Dante. In my experience I've never regretted buying a Leica lens since all of them (esp the Noctilux) are appreciating faster than the stock market. I've only regretted the selling of a few Leica lenses so I'm now very careful in selling since buying it back in the future is painful. In other words the real cost of ownership is the cost of buying minus what you can sell it for when you're done with it .
Jan
Jan
maddoc
... likes film again.
I had the CV 35/2.5 PII and now have the Summilux 35mm pre-ASPH (german version). While the CV gave some decent results, the pre-ASPH is a class higher ... (I might have had a bad copy of the CV, and a very good copy of the Summilux, though ...)
maddoc
... likes film again.
sanmich
Veteran
I think the price increase in Leica new gear is completely insane and certainly doesn't reflect any market value logic.
I bought two crons (50 and 35) back in 2001, costed me 2k$. There was no concurence back then...
Now the same set is around 5k$ on the catalog. Would I have to bite the bullet again, Zeiss would have my business.
My point is, used prices, espescially Leica ones are quite irrational but they certainly follow a more logic path than the new prices these last years.
See the gap between the price of a new 50 cron and a mint used sample....
I would agree about used Leica lens prices; with careful shopping to find a motivated seller you can do pretty well on the price.
But are you objecting to a 150% appreciation in the value of your lenses over the past 7 years? You wouldn't want to repeat that experience?
My v.1 8-element 35 Summicron cost me $164.50 new at retail. I might be able to sell it for a little more now? Not a bad thing, even aside from all the fun I've had using it over the years. Three years ago I found a "new old stock" 28 Summicron for $1875, and I think I could now move that too at a profit...
Good stuff is always good stuff.