Ronan Posted August 5, 2011 Share #21 Posted August 5, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I could have taken that picture by walking next door to my neighbor with almost any camera. Show me the "Leica" part of the picture. Don't be mean The Leica part is what took the photo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 5, 2011 Posted August 5, 2011 Hi Ronan, Take a look here Used Lens Prices Going Up?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
luigi bertolotti Posted August 5, 2011 Share #22 Posted August 5, 2011 It's been months since I fish around the internet for used Leica lenses but I've noticed what appears to be significant price jumps. I bought my 35mm Summicron ASPH about 7 years ago in virtually brand new hardly ever used condition for $1200.00. Now these are going used on E-bay for about $3000.00. What's going on out there? I feel for those who are new to Leica. Even the used market is starting to become prohibitive. On the upside a Leica lens, generally speaking not only retains it's value, but will generally increase. Leica Summicron M 35mm f/2ASPH (Chrome) LTM | eBay Apart the (right) considerations made by others about the used market of today, take note that the linked ebay offer is for a Cron 35 asph IN LEICA SCREW MOUNT VERSION : a rare item, made around 1999 in limited series (300-500) and targeted to Japanese market (together with a limited series of Lux 50 asph and Cron 50 in SM) ... surely a very appealing item for collectors, besides being, of course, an excellent lens to use: in this sense, the asking price is not so exaggerate... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 5, 2011 Share #23 Posted August 5, 2011 Agree about the LTM version but i was after an M-mount 35/2 asph myself and it is true that s/h prices are often very close and sometimes superior to list prices on e**y. Got a demo copy with full Leica warranty for €2K last month and i consider myself lucky. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted August 5, 2011 Share #24 Posted August 5, 2011 surely a very appealing item for collectors, besides being, of course, an excellent lens to use: in this sense, the asking price is not so exaggerate... Hi Luigi Yea a collector might like the lens to complete a set but a user just sees it as a convenient way to code for his M9, and not worth any premium. The lens inflation seems to be user driven, not collector... May be a slow sale, users dont like adapters, few people use LTM cameras... CV and ZM lenses sell as fast as Leica's, the CV f/1.7 35mm (also LTM) is 400-500 USD, mine was 220 few years ago. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Studio58 Posted August 5, 2011 Share #25 Posted August 5, 2011 I could have taken that picture by walking next door to my neighbor with almost any camera. Show me the "Leica" part of the picture. While I agree that it was not a remarkable shot by any stretch of the imagination, I did feel that it was a nice portrait worthy of posting. In Pico's defence I would say that generally there is way too much applause for mediocrity in this era of social networking. The acceptance of second rate photography is currently leading to the death of the portrait studio. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted August 5, 2011 Share #26 Posted August 5, 2011 The acceptance of second rate photography is currently leading to the death of the portrait studio. I think you might have it the wrong way around. I've always thought the typical portrait studio has led the way in the "acceptance of second rate photography". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 5, 2011 Share #27 Posted August 5, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Both ways are probably true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Studio58 Posted August 5, 2011 Share #28 Posted August 5, 2011 I think you might have it the wrong way around. I've always thought the typical portrait studio has led the way in the "acceptance of second rate photography". yea... That is probably the case in the UK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 5, 2011 Share #29 Posted August 5, 2011 I think you might have it the wrong way around. I've always thought the typical portrait studio has led the way in the "acceptance of second rate photography". Explain that, please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsh Posted August 5, 2011 Share #30 Posted August 5, 2011 I know that others on this forum have said it, and I agree, but used prices are being driven up by the lack of supply of new lenses, inflation, demand from China, Russia and India. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Studio58 Posted August 6, 2011 Share #31 Posted August 6, 2011 Explain that, please. no explanation necessary. Just an unqualified, baseless rant. In OZ we would call it a wank. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted August 6, 2011 Share #32 Posted August 6, 2011 I wouldn't call wattsy's post baseless, or a rant, just an observation. Clearly you've chosen to take it personally, which you shouldn't. Bear in mind that attitudes to photography will surely be different in Oz to what they are in the UK, which is where wattsy's experience comes from. Here there exists a chain of studios that shoot everything against white, over-expose like crazy, then charge hundreds of pounds for any copies of the results. Somehow they manage to pull off this trick and keep going, and in the process sell people an idea that this one 'look' constitutes a 'professional' shoot. Meanwhile smaller places peddle dull shots composed against curtains. It probably more fair to say that a lack of imagination, and a resulting lack of interest from the public, are more likely to kill off the 'traditional' portrait studio. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Studio58 Posted August 6, 2011 Share #33 Posted August 6, 2011 It probably more fair to say that a lack of imagination, and a resulting lack of interest from the public, are more likely to kill off the 'traditional' portrait studio. Interesting points you make. Anyhow, for whatever reason, I know and am hearing of a number of photographers going out of business. I am likely going to shut my studio after 12 years in it's current location. Times change, gotta keep moving forward... 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/158542-used-lens-prices-going-up/?do=findComment&comment=1758154'>More sharing options...
christer Posted August 6, 2011 Share #34 Posted August 6, 2011 .... I could use some advice on where to stay in Havana. I want to shoot urban decay and quite a bit of macro work (rusted metals, peeling paint, that sort of thing). I never, ever, ever photograph people. I won't do it. I may have some advice for you re. where to stay. As a general advice, bring as much with you as you can within baggage weight limits - and leave everything there. People who do not have jobs where they can access dollars are --very-- poor and can use everything. I suggest you also bring a 100-box of ball point pens to give to school children, and note books to go with it. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/158542-used-lens-prices-going-up/?do=findComment&comment=1758192'>More sharing options...
pico Posted August 8, 2011 Share #35 Posted August 8, 2011 Quote:Originally Posted by wattsy:I think you might have it the wrong way around. I've always thought the typical portrait studio has led the way in the "acceptance of second rate photography". Pico: Explain that, please. Studio58: no explanation necessary. Just an unqualified, baseless rant. In OZ we would call it a wank. Then I will elaborate. We had a large, high-overhead studio that had run its business very well for about sixty years, making run-of-the-mill, technically good color photos. It collapsed almost at once when digital cameras came about. Comparing it to another still-successful studio that does marvelous lighting and posing in a nearby medium sized city I would guess that people saw better quality elsewhere and those not so concerned with quality used home photography or they used the chap across the street from me who converted a new two-car garage into a studio and works on the cheap making basically the same photo every time - his niche is high school individual sports individuals and teams. But they are big and sharp, with 2;3 lighting - a trend for the time. Boooooring stuff displayed in various financial supporters' shop windows "athlete of the month" stuff. Niche. At the time, there was a man name Duffee who had his studio in his large Victorian home who photographed into his nineties and passed away, still shooting until ten years ago. He used tungsten reflectors, scrims, and a 1910 (or so) Century studio 8x10 on its original wood and cast-iron platform - you know, the kind with wheels to elevate the platform and to roll about. I do not remember his lenses, but they were studio-shutter, large brass and black lenses. Circa 1865 - 1930 I'd say. Every one of his pictures was the same pose, full frame, soft-focus and no background. He shot all the time as if every executive or wanna-be just had to have a photo by Durfee. (When he died he left thousands of negatives, neatly filed in envelopes on open shelves. A historical photo buff bought them. I got all his flashbulbs which he apparently rarely used on his infrequent location shots where he would disassemble the studio platform, schlep it in his little car and reassemble it on location.) I already have the same platform, and a lot of old lenses like his. I did get some odd things such as a film retouching platform, and later I can scan some of the false backgrounds intended to be contact printed with the 8x10 negatives. He never removed them from the original packing) The still very successful studio in the nearby town just gushes opulence, deep purple velvet, marble statuary and props, all that schtick, and a partner who does fancy framing. By the looks of their recent work they went MF digital. Expensive photography. Another niche. Finally there is a wedding photographer in Iowa who shoots the craziest and fun photos I've ever seen. All MF work. This was before Photoshop was any good and I don't know how he got a couple to pose with beaming pride, tux and flowing white outfits standing in the middle of a muddy, crap infested pen with pigs all about, flash-fill with the barn or house behind and darkened sky. I have to go back to see if he is still in business. Clearly he has a talent for working with people. Nuff blather. Time for morning coffee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted August 8, 2011 Share #36 Posted August 8, 2011 Here there exists a chain of studios that shoot everything against white, over-expose like crazy, then charge hundreds of pounds for any copies of the results. Somehow they manage to pull off this trick and keep going, and in the process sell people an idea that this one 'look' constitutes a 'professional' shoot. Meanwhile smaller places peddle dull shots composed against curtains. Yes, that is precisely what my observation alluded to. There was nothing personal intended. An example here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 8, 2011 Share #37 Posted August 8, 2011 Yes, that is precisely what my observation alluded to. There was nothing personal intended. An example here. Ah, but once you get that formula correct, it's like falling off a log to take money from people. Look at all the examples in your link - they could all have been taken on the same day. Every major town High Street has a photographer's studio peddling the same shots. The only real skill involved, with such formulaic work, is, IMHO, to not make people look miserable - quite an achievement in the current climate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted August 9, 2011 Share #38 Posted August 9, 2011 Ah, but once you get that formula correct, it's like falling off a log to take money from people. Look at all the examples in your link - they could all have been taken on the same day. Every major town High Street has a photographer's studio peddling the same shots. The only real skill involved, with such formulaic work, is, IMHO, to not make people look miserable - quite an achievement in the current climate. I happen to know somebody who proudly hangs number of such formulaic images on the wall (yes money went to full time working photographer). Person could not care less whether it was taken with one camera system or the other and probably wouldn't know the difference. If paying public enjoy to have such formulaic photographs than who are we to disagree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted August 9, 2011 Share #39 Posted August 9, 2011 It probably more fair to say that a lack of imagination, and a resulting lack of interest from the public, are more likely to kill off the 'traditional' portrait studio. No good blaming public, after all they do spend the money on works that apparantly doesn't please some members of this forum. Perhaps traditional portrait studio needs to put more effort into advertising. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted August 9, 2011 Share #40 Posted August 9, 2011 No good blaming public, If you actually read what I wrote, I didn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.