StevieB Posted June 2, 2012 Share #1 Posted June 2, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi, I am looking for a used 50 Summilux asph as my first and probably only lens. I was looking at a little used, mint very late copy priced at £2,400 and also a much earlier copy, also mint for £2.00. My feeling is that I should get the newer copy but if the lenses are optically the same would this make sense? There is.a 8 year age difference between them. Thank you in advance for your advices Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 Hi StevieB, Take a look here Earlier v later 50 Summilux asph?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lars_bergquist Posted June 2, 2012 Share #2 Posted June 2, 2012 Very early specimens of the Summilux-M 1:1.4/50mm ASPH sometimes had problems with tooo stiff focusing (this was the first M lens ever with floating elements). I bought mine in 2005 and it had that problem, which had to be fixed. Try the focusing action of both lenses, when mounted on a camera (that makes a difference in your experience of the focusing action). If there is no issue with the focusing of the older lens, then it comes down to the state of the lens, which is enough to account for a few hundred dollars. You decide for yourself. Any M lens with clean glass and good mechanical function will serve you well for many years. And any 'mint' lens will be 'used' in a couple of years, if you are incautious enough to actually take pictures with it ... The old man from the Brass Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted June 2, 2012 Share #3 Posted June 2, 2012 I'd get the one for two pounds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 2, 2012 Share #4 Posted June 2, 2012 Don't be too hard on him. To fail is human. A typo happens easily (in this case two, a comma became a period, and one zero was lost). We all do them. Therefore some of us acquire the habit of doing a quick check before we press 'submit'. Even that is not bomb-proof. A rule in the publishing business was that the author should not do his own proofreading. It is easier for an outsider, who does not know the text beforehand, to spot the errors. Even automatic text correction (which I have not yet to see on any web site) fails, because it does not really understand context. Only an intelligent entity can correct text. The old man from the Age of Proofreading Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted June 2, 2012 Share #5 Posted June 2, 2012 Stevie, Welcome to the forum! Another thing you might like to consider is that a new 50/1.4 Summilux asph costs £2,589 at Red Dot Cameras so for only £189 more you can have a brand new lens with the one year Leica Passport Warranty that protects you against accidental damage as well as manufacturing defects. (You might like to ring Red Dot to check on availability of this lens though.) Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted June 2, 2012 Share #6 Posted June 2, 2012 I have never understood why people pay 90% of the new price for a used lens with no warrantee. Proper used price is 65% of new. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted June 2, 2012 Share #7 Posted June 2, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Stevie - I've had both, and the most recent version is worth paying more for. It is one of the great Leica lenses of all times, in my humble opinion -- beautiful bokeh, pin sharp -- ranking with the new 35 Summilux FLE, and the 75 APO-Summicron Asph. The previous 50 Summilux Asph is a fantastic lens, and if you got an amazing bargain, would be worth it, but if you can spare the extra pounds to buy the newer one, especially one new, with the warranty, it really is worth it, and you won't be disappointed. Welcome to the Forum. JB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted June 2, 2012 Share #8 Posted June 2, 2012 It comes down to availability. For the sake of a small difference in cost, I would seek a new copy, particularly as supply seems to be easing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted June 2, 2012 Share #9 Posted June 2, 2012 Stevie - I've had both, and the most recent version is worth paying more for. It is one of the great Leica lenses of all times, in my humble opinion -- beautiful bokeh, pin sharp -- ranking with the new 35 Summilux FLE, and the 75 APO-Summicron Asph. The previous 50 Summilux Asph is a fantastic lens, and if you got an amazing bargain, would be worth it, but if you can spare the extra pounds to buy the newer one, especially one new, with the warranty, it really is worth it, and you won't be disappointed. Welcome to the Forum. JB What is the previous 50 Summilux Asph? It seems (apologies in advance if I misread your post) that you're thinking of the pre-Asph in which case I think you've misunderstood the original question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted June 2, 2012 Share #10 Posted June 2, 2012 I have never understood why people pay 90% of the new price for a used lens with no warrantee. Proper used price is 65% of new. On what basis do you conclude that 65% would be the "proper" used price? That is just opinion. The used prices of certain Leica lenses are perfect examples of supply and demand price setting. Then it is only up to the buyer to decide whether to accept or not. Why focus on the absence of warranty when buying pre-owned Leica lenses? Sure it feels good to have but on most second-hand Leica lenses the warranty will have expired, often a very long time ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 2, 2012 Share #11 Posted June 2, 2012 Why focus on the absence of warranty when buying pre-owned Leica lenses? Sure it feels good to have but on most second-hand Leica lenses the warranty will have expired, often a very long time ago. The more reason to expect a lower price. A warranty reduces risk. Reduced risk is a value that carries a price. See what the insurance business is doing. The old man from the Brass Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted June 2, 2012 Share #12 Posted June 2, 2012 What is the previous 50 Summilux Asph? It seems (apologies in advance if I misread your post) that you're thinking of the pre-Asph in which case I think you've misunderstood the original question. You are exactly right! I was thinking of my circa 1998 Summilux II, which I traded in 2004 for the Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH (FLE). Minor brain fog on a Saturday morning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted June 2, 2012 Share #13 Posted June 2, 2012 The more reason to expect a lower price. A warranty reduces risk. Reduced risk is a value that carries a price. See what the insurance business is doing. The old man from the Brass Age Certainly, a warranty reduces risk. The point I was making was that given the longevity of Leica lenses warranties may have less of an impact on a buying decision than on, for instance, computer equipment. On top of which a warranty is a warranty, it is not an insurance, and is restricted in terms of the faults that are covered. Typically manufacturing faults are covered and provision is made specifically to exclude defects due to improper handling (which includes accidents btw). So the "value" of a warranty is quite low. That said, I normally recommend buying second-hand gear from shops rather than from individuals because it is easier to deal with them should one have to return the good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted June 2, 2012 Share #14 Posted June 2, 2012 Watch out here. In the US the 3 year Passport warranty even covers accidental damage including breakage, water damage or any accidental damage. That's value. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted June 2, 2012 Share #15 Posted June 2, 2012 The only things that should hold value are precious metals and things that can not deteriorate or move. Then you may have to have metals assayed and jewels appraised. If there are parts that deteriorate,glues, lubs, plastics, perhaps does not work to spec, possibility of it being stolen some place along the line, not necessarily current seller, hidden damage you can not see. All this possible with lenses. Then you have only a seller warrantee which is as good as his name only. And there is always risk you may not discover damage until after the warrantee. This to has happened to me. Then you try to get it repaired and find it would have been cheaper to buy new or even that it can not be repaired. I must agree is its value is what it can be sold for and 90% has been the going rate for decades if in original condition. I will not pay that much, but if others are willing, so be it. I would hate to tell how many mint old lenses I have tried that were dogs. Worn beat up lenses almost always take nice pics. They got used because they worked. That is my reasoning for 65% . Obviously more disagree than agree, but that is my position based on 5 decades of experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieB Posted June 2, 2012 Author Share #16 Posted June 2, 2012 I chose a more recent copy of the asph although this lens has no warranty, I hope the focus will be fine apparently it is and I can collect it next week so I will see. thank you for your feedback. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPizzzle Posted June 3, 2012 Share #17 Posted June 3, 2012 One thing to consider is that the newer model might be 6 bit coded. Also, purchase a floater on your renters/home insurance for the lens/camera-then you don't have to worry about warranty. I would purchase new though at that price diff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.