Condition, condition, condition......

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A serious question. I know that to collectors condition can mean everything, but for users of Leica M lenses, just how important is condition? I ask because I have some nearly pristine lenses, and some which are pretty rough. All deliver good images though, even the rough ones, which I keep only if they actually work well and deliver acceptable images despite their appearance and roughness in operation (otherwise they are adjusted or sold/part-exchanged with faults described and as is, though I can remember few that I've had to sell on like this). And in all honesty I find myself appreciating the older, well-used lenses more and more because they don't need cosseting in order to maintain them in good condition. That said, I won't buy lenses with fungus and I avoid severe faults such as significant internal haze, but worn cosmetics, less than perfectly smooth mechancs and the odd optical mark (and even small scratch) don't worry me anymore providing the lenses work ok, for the most part anyway - there are some which are too problematic to buy unseen but others are not.

 

And another equally odd point is that I'm not overly worried about lens version so much - the later lenses are far better than earlier ones of course, but from the late 1950s onwards most lenses have actually been well designed and capable of pretty reasonable results in all honesty - not for specific precise purposes and not in direct comparisons, but certainly in terms of their abilities to produce acceptable 'pictures'. And as can be seen from the forum there are many who really do like the images from older lenses.

 

So a serious question, just how much do cosmetics, smoothness in operation and even optical flaws worry people? Any views?

[adan]

I don't know about "smoothness" - but I don't trust wobbliness. With the "proxy" focusing of a rangefinder, the alignment and spacing have to be dead on for the geometry to do its job and focus correctly.

 

With an SLR (or an M240 and electronic viewing), the lens doesn't have to be in any particular correct place, just so long as the ttl viewed image is sharp.

 

OTOH, my 21 pre-ASPH still carries traces of white-wash in the knurling of the focus/aperture rings, from an "event" 6 years ago. Honorably-earned battle scars.

 

(yeah, yeah, I know. "Jackson Pollock" edition M8. Can't find my post from when it happened.... video here, "Freshman Hill Climb"): http://www.coloradoseen.com/rmi-archives/

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[KM-25]

In the past, there was a lot of "mint" Leica lenses out there with the commensurate prices which made it hard for a guy like me to find good tools for a good price. The last thing I want to do is spend a few hundred extra for the pleasure of putting purely cosmetic marks on the gear that I would just assume be there anyway. Now prices are what I believe to be a 5 year low so it's a buyers market for sure.

 

But oddly, pricing for lenses in great cosmetic condition compared to worn are generally not that much more. For example, I had been looking to get another 35mm 1.4 Asph non-FLE. Most of what I found right off were lenses with good to mint cosmetics for around $2,800-$3,200. So I held out and found one that was well worn cosmetically for $2,400 and right when I was about to snag it one that was nearly mint and had a DAG CLA fell into my hands for $2,650 so I went for that one.

 

Conversely I lost over $900 this week in selling a chrome 50mm 1.4 asph I bought last year...I could not find one used at the time and paid a good bit more for it than I should have...that one stung, the damn thing was still mint.

 

I don't beat my gear but I do use it and after a few years, it shows...but so do the photos and that is all I really care about.

Edited April 14, 2015 by KM-25

[Ecar]

I typically look for the cleanest glass available when buying used/old. I then send the lens straight to CLA most of the time, so a bit of haze, dirt, dust, etc. are acceptable to me if the price is right.

 

Ditto for cleaning marks and small scratches on the front element, but the rear element must be in excellent condition.

 

I'm not overly obsessed by cosmetics, and signs of normal (or even heavy) use are OK, but I try to avoid dented or heavily scratched barrels, as these scars could mean that the lens was dropped - and repairing mechanical damage is either impossible or expensive.

 

And yes, I like my lenses to operate smoothly - a good CLA takes care of that (the only exception being some Russian lenses, but their cost makes me forget their roughness...)

[jdlaing]

A serious question. I know that to collectors condition can mean everything, but for users of Leica M lenses, just how important is condition? I ask because I have some nearly pristine lenses, and some which are pretty rough. All deliver good images though, even the rough ones, which I keep only if they actually work well and deliver acceptable images despite their appearance and roughness in operation (otherwise they are adjusted or sold/part-exchanged with faults described and as is, though I can remember few that I've had to sell on like this). And in all honesty I find myself appreciating the older, well-used lenses more and more because they don't need cosseting in order to maintain them in good condition. That said, I won't buy lenses with fungus and I avoid severe faults such as significant internal haze, but worn cosmetics, less than perfectly smooth mechancs and the odd optical mark (and even small scratch) don't worry me anymore providing the lenses work ok, for the most part anyway - there are some which are too problematic to buy unseen but others are not.

 

And another equally odd point is that I'm not overly worried about lens version so much - the later lenses are far better than earlier ones of course, but from the late 1950s onwards most lenses have actually been well designed and capable of pretty reasonable results in all honesty - not for specific precise purposes and not in direct comparisons, but certainly in terms of their abilities to produce acceptable 'pictures'. And as can be seen from the forum there are many who really do like the images from older lenses.

 

So a serious question, just how much do cosmetics, smoothness in operation and even optical flaws worry people? Any views?

Flawless operation and excellent optics are much more important to me than minor imperfections in the cosmetics.

[spydrxx]

Over many years, most of my purchases have been used lenses, with minor cosmetic issues. I'm concerned much more with optical condition, and personally (in my work) can't discern quality differences in the output of a mint/new lens and one with light internal dust (although I know the particles scatter some light). Fungus and haze, separation of elements are a different matter. Smooth operation of the focusing mechanism and diaphragm are key concerns to me in used gear, and major annoyances when not operating like the precision machinery they were designed as. Many can be corrected in the course of a CLA . DAG once performed miracles with a late version of a 50 Summicron which had dropped while I was changing lenses, and he actually made the focusing helicoids even smoother than they had originally been.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just buy new.......job done no stress no worries

[Jeff S]

Just buy new.......job done no stress no worries

Well of course for some there can be financial stress.

 

To alleviate concerns, whether new or used, I make sure I buy from a reputable dealer with warranty…and carry my own insurance for everything else.  Buying new Leica gear unfortunately doesn't ensure no problems…as evidenced by much forum discussion over the years….even with $7000 lenses, and particularly with digital cameras.

 

For the OP, I've found significant variation in pricing for used Leica gear, including lenses…by region and by individual dealer…for seemingly the same cosmetic condition.  It pays to shop around.

 

Jeff