Jennifer Posted January 28, 2015 Share #1 Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) In another thread it's been suggested that now that I've acquired an APO-Summicron 50 my Summilux 50 asph will become little more than an "expensive paperweight". That got me thinking, how many of us here own costly lenses we never use but can't bring ourselves to part with? Edited January 28, 2015 by Jennifer Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Hi Jennifer, Take a look here Expensive Paperweights. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
John McMaster Posted January 28, 2015 Share #2 Posted January 28, 2015 They all get used at some time, maybe not as often as before ;-) john Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted January 28, 2015 Share #3 Posted January 28, 2015 I'm going to try to be ruthless this year and sell my noctilux f1, possibly my 28 cron ......oh no, I've started shying away from it already Pete 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted January 28, 2015 Share #4 Posted January 28, 2015 I have over 70 lenses in Leica mount. I've used all of them, some are very rare, some are custom converted, some are 80 years old. Selling off some lenses paid for the M9 and M Monochrom. But it was not easy picking those out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted January 28, 2015 Share #5 Posted January 28, 2015 I would never let it happen. If it's not used it's gone. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted January 28, 2015 Share #6 Posted January 28, 2015 It would make a nice paperweight though, especially in chrome! I give something 6 months then it's gone. Clothing gets 12 months to account for seasons. I like to keep possessions to a minimum though, that's my issue. Cheers, Michael Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 28, 2015 Share #7 Posted January 28, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) .... how many of us here own costly lenses we never use but can't bring ourselves to part with? Surely lot of us...provided that NEVER is not intended rigorously... Many by sure have some lens that use time to time just for they HAVE and LOVE it......not because they NEED that specific lens... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted January 28, 2015 Share #8 Posted January 28, 2015 My 35 Summilux ASPH, a 40th birthday present from my wife, sits in a drawer while its 'elderly' Summaron 2.8 brother shoots around the world. But I have never sold a present, and the two lenses are so different that I can't bring myself to sell. I also shoot a lot of film, which amply justifies having the extra two stops of speed. Maybe using the Summilux should be my resolution for 2015? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi996sps Posted January 28, 2015 Share #9 Posted January 28, 2015 Well, as i did not use it 'that' much, i sold my 28mm cron asph in the last 12 months to soften the blow in purchasing my M240. Although this left me with my other 28mm, an elmarit asph. Although 'generally' adequate, for people, i preferred the 28mm cron, so i have to say, i have regretted parting with it. Now, i have in the last couple of days, also taken delivery of a 50mm APO cron and will definitely NOT be parting with my other 50mm lenses, a lux and f1 nocti. Each of these, for me, says something sufficiently different to warrant that i retain them, even if i only use them 'occasionally'. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 28, 2015 Share #10 Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) In another thread it's been suggested that now that I've acquired an APO-Summicron 50 my Summilux 50 asph will become little more than an "expensive paperweight". That got me thinking, how many of us here own costly lenses we never use but can't bring ourselves to part with? Firstly, camera enthusiasts cling to gear like it is Gollum's gold ring in "Lord of the Rings", photographers look at them strictly as tools that help them attain a vision, if something is not being used, it could either be a backup or will be sold. Secondly, that is the way I work and I sold off most of my Leica gear once a project was done. I chose to keep one M3 on which I use a single Leica lens, the 50mm 1.4 Asph and 99% of the time shoot Tmax 400...I would be an idiot to sell it or replace it with the Apo Summicron and lose a stop of much needed speed. I just don't get this need to cling to gear....if you are not using it, then sell it and use that money for travel, a good charity, etc. At some point this year, I am going to Cuba with my M3/50 asph and 50 rolls of Fuji Provia 400X and that's it, those are the only tools I need for this project and the work will be spectacular, guaranteed. Edited January 28, 2015 by KM-25 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted January 28, 2015 Share #11 Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) I have reduced my paperweights by over 150 lbs recently and still own 3 R lenses and 35 M lenses. More weight reduction in the cards. I sold one APO50, but will keep the last one for myself. Edited January 28, 2015 by algrove Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted January 28, 2015 Share #12 Posted January 28, 2015 I think it depends on how often you use, how much they mean to you, what you might do long term and your photography trends change. I am shooting a lot with wider glass at the moment, recording a journey as we start to refurbish an old house, I haven't put a 50mm on for a while (Christmas I did to be fair and a recent shoot of a new born for a friend) but I could argue that several lenses are under under utilised (I don't have 35!!!) but the most popular today won't be the same tomorrow. If you really like the lens keep it is my rule of thumb, if you simply don't get on with it for whatever reason and you don't see that changing move it on 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carduelis Posted January 28, 2015 Share #13 Posted January 28, 2015 I think if I had ever bought a 135 mm lens, it may have ended up being a paperweight given their weight and lack of image stabilisation Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
platypus Posted January 28, 2015 Share #14 Posted January 28, 2015 Are we assuming that Leica lenses require more justification for their ownership than do other possessions? Is this because of their cost/value or because they are a mechanical object originally intended for use, or maybe for both these reasons? So what about other expensive possessions such as jewellery, watches, designer garments and shoes, wine collections, art objects etc? It doesn't seem that collections of these luxury items require any justification by those that possess them, nor the validation of frequent usage. So why should this be expected of lenses? Seems irrational. Incidentally, I have a collection of very pretty, antique Boston & Sandwich "End of Day" paperweights. They just sit around and I notice them occasionally, mostly when I'm dusting. They never actually weigh down any paper and I never feel the need to justify their existence by making them do so. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted January 29, 2015 Share #15 Posted January 29, 2015 I have some older Leica lenses that rarely ever see use. I keep them as backups in case the ones I normally use need service or get stolen. Even with the runup in prices over the last few years, these user-cosmetic lenses wouldn't bring in a fortune if sold. I ran out of GAS on lenses years ago and am satisfied with the one's I have. All the major money I've chucked into Leica gear in the past couple decades has been for bodies. I kept my original 2 M4's but otherwise have sold the rest as I upgraded. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 29, 2015 Share #16 Posted January 29, 2015 Never sell a Leica lens my grandmother said so my darkroom looks like a photo shop but i use my old gear like good wines, with pleasure and moderation . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted January 29, 2015 Share #17 Posted January 29, 2015 In another thread it's been suggested that now that I've acquired an APO-Summicron 50 my Summilux 50 asph will become little more than an "expensive paperweight". That got me thinking, how many of us here own costly lenses we never use but can't bring ourselves to part with? I have my third 75lux now because of this type of reasoning and I hope I learned my lesson now and just keep it. Most of my Leica lenses I traded in led to regret, e.g. the APO-Elmarit 180 R, what a shame, the Macro-Elmar 90, etc. Thus far I do not regret trading my 50lux asph for my 75lux, but that is because I'm not really a 50 man. As a paperweight I can think of better lenses than the 50lux, for instance some Noctilux. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted January 29, 2015 Share #18 Posted January 29, 2015 Seems irrational. Of course! This is the Leica user forum! Since when does rational come into play when one owns tens of thousands of dollars in 50mm lenses for a manual focus, far from state-of-the-art camera?[emoji4] Thinking about it, you could probably buy every 50mm lens for every 35mm camera in production for the cost of a single 2/50 APO Leica lens. Nah, that's not irrational![emoji1][emoji1] Cheers, Michael Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted January 29, 2015 Share #19 Posted January 29, 2015 state-of-the-art camera I fail to see the pertinence of this judgement. In fact, I don't even know what this phrase might mean in the broad context of Photography. Isn't it really just marketspeak? Not voting for hair shirts here either, s-a Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted January 30, 2015 Share #20 Posted January 30, 2015 I fail to see the pertinence of this judgement. In fact, I don't even know what this phrase might mean in the broad context of Photography. Isn't it really just marketspeak? Not voting for hair shirts here either, s-a In the context of photography it has no meaning. I'd say that if we are saying the photography is art, then rational (and therefore irrational) has no place. In the context of technology, the M is far from technologically state of the art. Rational and irrational do have a place in technology. I would say that state of the art in marketspeak is implying that a new technology will make a difference to your art, which we all know is bollocks. How about hair shorts? Cheers, Michael 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.