Leica Prices

[caymanlawyer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was going through some old receipts and I found an invoice for the new M6TTL and 35 Summicron and UV filter I bought in January 2003 (my first Leica purchases). The prices I paid were:

 

M6 TTL GBP 1,275

35 Summicron GBP 595

UVa GBP 33

 

I make that almost exactly a third of the current prices (assume the M6 is now an M7) . 300% inflation in 11 years! I wish I had bought all my kit in 2003, or that my income had trebbled since then.

[Advertisement]

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

[wattsy]

Yes, the prices have far outstripped inflation. I remember buying my first Leica M (also an M6TTL), brand new in 2002 for something like $1350 from a now defunct US grey market dealer. Converted into GBP it was around £950. I also paid £795 for a 35 Summicron ASPH from Wilkinson's in Preston which I seem to recall was a £100 saving over RRP. The equivalent new 'kit' nowadays will cost £5,500 (MP at £3,500 + 35 Summicron at £2,000) or significantly more if you consider an typ 240 as the appropriate Leica M body. No wonder the forum seems to be the preserve of millionaires nowadays.

[caymanlawyer]

In 2005 I subsequently bought an MP (new), and an Elmarit M 50 (also new). That is probably the last time I buy new from Leica. I since bought an Elmarit M 90 and a summilux 50 second hand - there is no way that I could justify buying Leica stuff new now, and I am not badly off by any means. It is a shame that the prices as so very high.

[jcraf]

Seem to recall buying a new Noctilux in 2002 for about £1400...and similar sum for a Black Paint MP, when the MP was first launched.......

[CalArts 99]

Of course Leica was always more expensive than most of the others (including Alpa, Contax, Zeiss, etc..) But it wasn't in the stratosphere. Today their prices are bordering on obscene, especially considering what you're actually truly getting in return. I often wonder about their profit margins and it can make me feel like maybe I'm just a chump.

 

But if that's the kind of business plan they've chosen then more power to them. They've always had a good marketing scheme that tries to make people think Leica products alone will always make the better photograph. Those with plenty of disposable income will buy with no questions asked; i.e., the Veblen good phenomenon.

 

I made a decision a while ago to quit buying any more Leica products. The reality is that anything they make isn't really going to have much of an impact on my own photographic production, so why spend that kind of money. And I sometimes wonder about the validity of what I already do own

[caymanlawyer]

The M6 and the 35 Summicron were worth it to me (and still are). When I saw the first slides I got back I was amazed - it was as if someone had removed a gauze from in front of the film. The lens is so much better than any SLR lens I had ever used. The same goes for the 90. The tactility and haptics of the equipment were, and are, fantastic. I am just pleased I bought them then, rather than trying to afford them now.

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M6 and the 35 Summicron were worth it to me (and still are). When I saw the first slides I got back I was amazed - it was as if someone had removed a gauze from in front of the film. The lens is so much better than any SLR lens I had ever used. The same goes for the 90. The tactility and haptics of the equipment were, and are, fantastic. I am just pleased I bought them then, rather than trying to afford them now.

 

I agree. Although there are lenses (especially some modern ones) that are fairly equal, imho. And I do like the Leica rangefinder system for the things you mention, otherwise I wouldn't be here

 

I did mean to say "new products" and not just any products from Leica. There's still the active used market and prices have been coming down lately. It's just that nothing new that they produce will really have much of an impact on me, personally. The rumor of a 28mm 1.4 Summilux might sound good but no doubt the price will be extraordinary. I'm content with the current offerings (as high priced as they are already.) 'Exotic' lenses are certainly interesting, but their real world functionality for me (and at those prices) doesn't mean a lot. Nonetheless, it's great for Leica to be stretching the bounds of lens design and if they can sell them too and be profitable, then that's all good.

[earleygallery]

My impression is that Leica M and R systems were always expensive, but not unobtainable for many. Indeed my parents were able to buy me an R3 and 50 Summicron in the early 80's, and they had averagely paid jobs.

 

In the dark years for Leica, as digital was taking the world by storm and everyone wanted to buy into the new technology, the days when Leica said that a digital M would be impossible, they managed to keep going by hooking up with Panasonic and selling relatively affordable digital compacts, with flagship 'prosumer' Digilux 1 and 2 models to appeal to the M and R film users who desperately wanted to buy into the new technology but stay loyal to the Leica brand if they could. A little while later Leica even managed to develop a digital back for the R8/9 film bodies, a remarkable product. Still the idea of a digital M was impossible.

 

Leica survived by selling 'cheap' digitals to existing and new customers. The film SLR range was a dead end and the M was a luxury piece of male jewellery sold as Hermes limited editions. But loyal customers and collectors still bought them.

 

The future was still uncertain though. How could Leica compete in the digital world if they couldn't make a digital body for all of the M users?

 

Leica camera had separated out from the original Leitz group and was a Public company. Then a rich investor came along and bought the company. Leica would be saved!

 

The company had already shifted towards the 'luxury gift' market and prices were increasing. I think people accepted it as a fact of keeping the brand going. Leica ambassador Seal (what's happened to him?) posted on this forum that Leica were 'for the elite' and if you couldn't afford their prices then tough.

 

Dr Kauffmann and Blackstone can do what they want with their company of course. If they can raise prices year on year above the rate of inflation and still struggle to keep up with demand then why shouldn't they?

 

I'm not a Leica customer any more, I simply can't afford to be. Not to say that I don't buy secondhand Leica gear and continue to enjoy my existing LTM, M and R equipment. Canon make excellent digital SLR cameras and lenses and I can still use my old R lenses on their bodies.

 

However I do wonder how long Leica can milk the luxury gift/male jewellery market for. Leica are desirable because people associate the name with some of the best photographers. Most people who buy a Range Rover won't ever drive off road. Most 'divers' watches won't even make it into the shower. People buy these products because they can show off to others that they have the best, they can tell themselves that they could drive across the Sahara or dive to 100M, no problem.

 

The Hasselblad Lunar is a good example of a mediocre product trying to trade off the brands reputation. Everyone knows it can't produce Hasselblad quality photos. It won't be the first choice of fashion photographers around the world. Slapping a ludicrously expensive price tag on it doesn't make it better.

 

Leica can only push it so far too IMHO. When they become just a luxury brand, only associated with wealthy male jewellery customers, they'll lose their purpose. They'll become a 2WD Range Rover that nobody wants, and the bottom end digicam market simply won't be there to save them again.

[adan]

It should be remembered that at the time caymanlawyer bought his lenses (and I bought most of mine originally), Leica was hemorraging money. At those prices Leica was losing money on every sale, and even had to make a financial posting that their cash value had dropped below the value of their debt (virtually if not legally bankrupt). And was trying to boost sales with 20%-off "Leica Day" discounts.

 

In rough outline (the details escape me without research), Dr. Kaufmann, who was a minority stockholder, bought out Hermés' near-majority stake, fired the CEO and COO, brought in a turnaround expert from Switzerland (Dr. Josef Spichtig) to run things, and managed to get out from under, in the process raising prices slowly about 50%. (M6 bodies jumped from $1800-2000 to $2700 in a couple of years).

 

The arrival of the M8 under Dr. Spichtig's direction coincided with the peak of the China boom - and it turned out that Chinese (and other Asian tiger) billionaires loved precision German "stuff" just as much as the Japanese before them. Demand outstripped supply - and the ratio accelerated with the M9 introduction (camera waits 9 months, lens waits up to 18 months).

 

Given the dismal straits Leica was negotiating in 2004-5, one can hardly blame them for making hay while the sun shines today (to mix my metaphors).

[Leonil]

In my view as a first time Leica Owner, I have bought into the mystique and the legacy that is Leica 8 years ago - started saving for one 7 years ago but still spending money on Canon gear to keep my business going.

 

One thing I did have to struggle with, as a "non-elite" (When Seal said that, well, he can go bugger off for all I care) I feel that Leica was meant originally to be the camera for the artist, the photographer - not the elite. Prices for Leica bodies and lenses were affordable, expensive but affordable. My dad told me that at one point his OM1 was more expensive in the East than it was in Europe for various reasons and brands like Olympus shared similar "legendary" status at the time.

 

Now, Leica is a camera for the wealthy. Its NOT for the elite - The Elite, the best, the talented don't get to their position using a Leica, they got there with a kit lens and a starter camera and went up from there - a lot of Leica photos here in Australia Ive spoken to say that their Leica is a reward for years of hard work. IT rarely sees studio time and its a badge of their knowledge and skill.

 

When I saw Seal's speech on the M9 release, he became a Leica shooter because some director had a Leica and he wanted one too, and bought a Noctilux the next day. IMO, that's not elite, that's rich, wealthy, unskilled, and most of all "pretention"

 

When it comes to the prices we pay today, I think its fair to say that Leica is popular enough to sell enough cameras with the prices they have. I think Leica is for the wealthy, I was wealthy 1 month ago when I had the money for a Leica M, now Im not - I am however, NOT ELITE - Im not a famous photog, I don't have lots of money, I don't have million dollar clients - Im a photographer who reward myself for years of hard work.

 

I think that once you decide to choose to spend that kind of money nowadays, you have not only accepted the camera as a camera, but as a symbol of what Leica stands for and what Leica says about where you are as a photographer. Anyone IMO who just "feels like" buying a Leica doesn't truly understand this and therefore I will never associate Elitism with Leica - Its a camera for the artist the photographer. Rich people buy them, good for them, doesn't make them any more special at photography than anyone else. Just because you can afford a Noctilux doesn't mean you are Elite, you are elite because you got there on your own back, not the Noctilux.

 

Im just tired of being a normal everyday professional photographer being told that I only got my Leica cause Im filthy rich. It was hard to part with my 7 years of savings, but I am by no means elite - just burns me that Seal's words of "only for the elite" still holds weight with some in the Leica community. Leica just rebranded itself as a luxury brand - it wasn't like that in the past, in the past, my dad said Leica was a "professional brand" and Olympus etc were the "enthusiasts" brand. But over time, more and more professionals moved to the Japanese markets and Leica was left wanting. Im glad they rebranded as Luxury to stay viable.

 

In the past people bought into the Leica philosophy, and when digital came, we bought into the Leica Legacy, and as someone pointed out to me, now people only buy Leica to buy into the Leica brand. Its just another Logo to show someone else. That somewhat bothers me a little - I hope that's the kind of customer Leica want. Because 8 years ago when I was in University, my peers were using OM1, Roliflex, TLR cameras, Canon 40Ds and Nikon D200's etc... Now when I lecture at some Universities, I see 18 year old kids dressed in black talking about Cartier Bresson with S2's M9s and Ms around their neck that mum and dad bought them and telling everyone that only pros use Leica. I have to scratch my head with that. Especially when one of the kids with an S2 said "I wish this could instagram."

 

Leica for the Elite? Maybe the price for the poor makes it Elite, but definitely not Elite enough for the wealthy.

 

End of Rant.

[UliWer]

In the link you find some postings with the German prices since 1990:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-kundenforum/223128-aktuelle-preisliste-1-1-12-a-3.html#post1986710

 

If you compare you'll see there was a constant price-increase for the last 25 years (you may go back to the early 60s to find the same pattern) and economic or other circumstances did not really play a major role.

[IWC Doppel]

There was a thread a while back that had a long discussion in prices, looking at RPI/CPI it showed that Leica glass has always been expensive and the prices way back in the 1960's were not out of tune with those today ( from memory they were a little cheaper, comparatively) I do recall seeing a. Catalogue with price list for a Noctilux f1.2 at about £300 from memory..... Trouble is you could have bought a flat in Mayfair for a few thousand then !

[IWC Doppel]

The good news is very few prices drop and ultimately go up. The only lenses I have seen second hand drop a little over the last few years are the wide Elmarit's (I think the 24 is stellar and a current bargain) and the 35 summicron ASPH, but the toppy prices for near new lenses were based on lack of supply. I have bought and sold 6 or more lenses over the last 3 years and not lost anything. I have bought and kept 12, if I sold those today I would be up on the deal. How often can you say that !

[CalArts 99]

I have bought and sold 6 or more lenses over the last 3 years and not lost anything. I have bought and kept 12, if I sold those today I would be up on the deal. How often can you say that !

 

That's providing you buy used in the first place. If you buy new then you won't be making anything (although of course there is the value of the time that you were able to use the lens before you sold it.) The exception was that period just a year or two ago when used (and new) lenses were selling very high because of the supply shortage.

 

e.g., today the Summicron 28mm is currently selling new for 4295.00 USD. The current resale price for used is averaging around 3000.00 USD and under (actual sold listings in eBay.) The same with the 35mm FLE, 50mm Summilux, etc.. There's no big demand for used since there's an ample supply of new inventory on the shelves. And one of the characteristics of a high priced product like Leica is that well heeled consumers have the money to buy new. So buying used usually means people who are looking only for deals, driving the used prices down. The wealthier Leica consumer will more often prefer to buy new (they can afford it.)

 

I realize the market can change and prices fluctuate over time. In ten years, you could probably sell something you bought new originally and do okay considering the use you would have had gotten of it. But used prices are flat now and with more supply coming out of Leica (plus they have a new factory going on line soon.)

 

But yes, buying used and selling used one can do fine. However that seems to be the case with pretty much any brand of decent lenses. e.g., Nikkor AI/AIS lenses (especially certain very good ones) still hold their value quite well. Buying used and selling used is usually the most economically sound thing to do.

[Guest redge]

In December, when I purchased an M 240, I had not bought any Leica equipment in eight years. I had an M3, M6TTL and four lenses, all purchased prior to 2005, second hand and at prices that I considered reasonable. So reasonable that when, in conjunction with buying the M 240, I looked at the current retail prices of the lenses that I have, I was floored.

 

In that context, I had little difficulty justifying $8,000 for the M, multifunction grip and spare battery. The alternative was to move to another manufacturer. Between a quality camera and four quality primes, I believe that this would have cost more, and would also have required me to abandon a system I enjoy for a system that I would have to learn and might or might not like.

 

If I keep the M for three years, and sell it for a third of what I paid for it, it will cost me $4.89 per day. Less if I sell the M6TTL, as is likely. I spend more than that on coffee.

 

For me, not a hard decision.

[IWC Doppel]

I'm a bit frugal and whilst I have quite a lot of Leica bits I have not bought any lenses or cameras new.....

 

My M9-P had a few hundred actuations and came from Stephens but it wasn't new. I might treat myself to a new Monochrome at some point and would like to buy one new lens at some point. Perhaps a Summilux 28mm ?!

[caymanlawyer]

Interesting to hear what you all think. For me, I was just bowled over by how 'cheap' my 35 Summicron Asph had been in 2003. I had forgotten what I paid for it brand new until I found the receipt last week. I know we have had inflation, and that Leica struggled in the early 2000s, and that Leica can't keep up with demand for new lenses and cameras....But I am part of the 'mass afluent' market (and 'should' be part of their target market as I am an enthusiast for their products!) and I have not bought anything new from them for some years, and I suspect that they might suffer again if a whole group of us no longer buy their stuff new.

[Guest Mr. B]

I was going through some old receipts and I found an invoice for the new M6TTL and 35 Summicron and UV filter I bought in January 2003 (my first Leica purchases). The prices I paid were:

 

M6 TTL GBP 1,275

35 Summicron GBP 595

UVa GBP 33

 

I make that almost exactly a third of the current prices (assume the M6 is now an M7) . 300% inflation in 11 years! I wish I had bought all my kit in 2003, or that my income had trebbled since then.

 

My receipt from December 2002 shows that my M6 TTL cost $1995 from B & H. My 50 mm Summicron was $995. As Leica was coming out with the M7 and MP they offered a $200 rebate on the M6. This brought my M6 down to $1795. If I remember correctly the M7 and MP introduction price was $2495. I have purchased two used lenses since as I can't and won't pay the asking price for new lenses. A digital M is out of the question for me so I bought a VLux 1 in 2007, and I also have a Nikon D7000.

Mr. B

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[MarkP]

Regarding the purchase of second-hand instead of new Leica lenses, this thread prompted me to see how many of mine were purchased new or second-hand since I first bought into Leica in mid 2010. I was quite surprised.

 

My three digital cameras (M9, Monochrom, M) were new, the CL obviously not. Five new M-lenses vs six M- & two R-lenses second-hand either from eBay, Forum Buy & Sell, or dealers. Almost all of the lenses were mint, boxed, papers, etc).

 

Of the six second-hand M lenses I bought, three are current production models (21-SEM, 90 Macro-Elmar, and 135 APO-Telyt). They were bought significantly cheaper than new and lens availability at the time was dismal. The saving on just these three purchases alone almost covered the cost of third lens compared with new lens prices - all potential sales lost from Leica (and there are currently no new lenses of interest to me - I think:rolleyes:)

 

I should add that I have never had a problem with any of the transactions or the lenses themselves.

[jaapv]

My receipt from December 2002 shows that my M6 TTL cost $1995 from B & H. My 50 mm Summicron was $995. As Leica was coming out with the M7 and MP they offered a $200 rebate on the M6. This brought my M6 down to $1795. If I remember correctly the M7 and MP introduction price was $2495. I have purchased two used lenses since as I can't and won't pay the asking price for new lenses. A digital M is out of the question for me so I bought a VLux 1 in 2007, and I also have a Nikon D7000.

Mr. B

It is quite useless doing historical Leica price comparisons in $$. Leica is a German product and the prices are in DMark and Euro. (Reichsmark if you go far enough back ) USD prices introduce the fluctuations of the currency market in addition to different rates of inflation on both sides of the ocean. Too many variables to draw any conclusions.