You don't lose money on M Lenses, right?

[jaques]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am the exact opposite- only one of my lenses is coded... This was possibly one of the factors involved in me being able to collect a lot of M glass below market value. I don't find not having coding that much of an issue. I would prefer it but without is OK. I wish Leica would let us make our own customised profiles though...

[Advertisement]

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

[NightSun]

I am the exact opposite- only one of my lenses is coded... This was possibly one of the factors involved in me being able to collect a lot of M glass below market value. I don't find not having coding that much of an issue. I would prefer it but without is OK. I wish Leica would let us make our own customised profiles though...

 

Same with me, I don't care at all if the lens is coded or not. I think the perceived importance of this is often exaggerated. That said, it is true that a coded lens can be more attractive for buyers. However, what I learned from experience is that it is a much more important factor when buying a used lens, whether it is spot on or off regarding RF calibration. It can be a very good selling point if the lens is freshly serviced and calibrated before getting advertised.

[Per P.]

Well, I do agree with Adan that it is useful information whether a lens is coded or not, so I have added this information. It certainly matters more to some than others.

 

I also agree that recent service and calibration is a good selling point. But I think it is unlikely that you would be able to recoup the cost of servicing through a higher sales price.

 

Same with me, I don't care at all if the lens is coded or not. I think the perceived importance of this is often exaggerated. That said, it is true that a coded lens can be more attractive for buyers. However, what I learned from experience is that it is a much more important factor when buying a used lens, whether it is spot on or off regarding RF calibration. It can be a very good selling point if the lens is freshly serviced and calibrated before getting advertised.

[bjornthun]

Coding is much more important for wide angles than for normal and long lenses, due to colour shift.

[NB23]

what rubbish. You think the person who paid 335,000 pounds for M3 #700000 did so because they planned to take photos with it? Or because they thought it was state of the art? pff.

 

and as to the OP's question: I don't lose money on M lenses... if you paid too much initially then you might.

 

And you, please tell me, why did he buy it?

[Stealth3kpl]

what rubbish. You think the person who paid 335,000 pounds for M3 #700000 did so because they planned to take photos with it? Or because they thought it was state of the art? pff.

 

 

He bought it to fondle, hoping it will go up in value just as NB23 said

The only lens I have a chance of making money on is a 50 Summicron latest pre apo version which I bought for £500. I imagine losing money on all the rest. All mine were purchased used, for the going rate. I look at eBay alot and I don't see any lenses increasing in value. Don't kid yourself chaps, it's no investment if it's been a standard run of the mill lens at some time.

Pete

[mirekti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And you, please tell me, why did he buy it?

 

We don't know why he bought it.

 

He bought it to fondle, hoping it will go up in value just as NB23 said

Were you the buyer so you know it for a fact, or you know the person who bought it?

 

 

 

I would certainly not invest so much money in any camera/lens, and expect a ROI on it, would you? Some maybe do.

We also must be aware that the money paid isn't a big deal for some people.

[Stealth3kpl]

No, I'm just being realistic.

Pete

[spydrxx]

In spite of lots of people arguing that lenses are investments....I would argue they are artistic investments, not tangible investments where one expects to earn a specific financial return. The old adage that Leica lenses don't lose value is rubbish...because of their unique characteristics and limited production they often don't lose as much value or as quickly as others, and some because of their scarcity and fads crreating temporary high demand can certainly increase in value...but with over 43 years of owning Leica gear and having a career in the financial markets I wouldn't recommend trading Leica lenses as a very reliable way to make money or even maintain the buying power of the "investment". I've managed to buy a lot of the top notch lenses at "distressed" prices, used it for a while and made money on some, lost it on others. My objective was to find the gear I liked best.

[NB23]

We don't know why he bought it.

 

 

Were you the buyer so you know it for a fact, or you know the person who bought it?

 

 

 

I would certainly not invest so much money in any camera/lens, and expect a ROI on it, would you? Some maybe do.

We also must be aware that the money paid isn't a big deal for some people.

 

Tell that to jacques. I share your point of view completely but it seems that jacques knows exactly why the guy paid 330K.

[jaques]

of course I know exactly why he bought it: because he had WAY too much money:rolleyes:

 

But seriously: you are not arguing that he bought it because it was state of the art? Because holographic cameras are not widely avialable yet? You think it was an expensive stop-gap measure? Pfft. He bought it as a collectible.

 

I suppose you think people buy and restore model T Fords because they are waiting for hovercrafts to become widely available?

[matlep]

I would say that the fact that you live in Switzerland and that if you ship to the EU (or rest of the world) the buyer will have to pay VAT and customs fees is one factor that makes it harder to sell.

[LocalHero1953]

A few rather grumpy replies here.

I guess the OP can stand up for himself, but I didn't read his post as a complaint that his lenses hadn't gone up in value. The title grabbed the attention, but the question was about what is needed to attract a buyer, any buyer. He got some helpful replies.

 

I don't expect to make money on Leica lenses, but my experience is that you lose less on Leica's than on many others. Like some others, I trade on the s/h market entirely to find lenses to test and maybe keep.

 

I'm trying to sell some old Nikkor and Canon LTM lenses (from the UK) and have found similar difficulty in attracting enough attention on ebay. I have sold stuff on commission through dealers before now - you get less money (because of commission, not because of a lower sale price) but you're more likely to sell. Frankly, I'm more likely to buy from a dealer because of the warranty and ease of return, though I have occasionally bought on ebay, and even via Facebook, though in that case it was from a well-known photographer.

[Paul J]

I think speculation on camera gear should be for entertainment only.

 

I have several very expensive systems that did rise in value over the years which are now worth relatively little, even if I could find a buyer. That can happen to any system, at any time, without warning.

 

It would be ridiculous, to me at least, to hold back your photography with some piece of gear that isn't right for you, because of speculation, because you listened to that bullshit saying "never sell a leica lens". If that is how you roll I think you'd be better off to buy a 5D and invest the rest of the money in a worthy and appropriate avenue where you won't likely be disappointed.

 

It would be fun to buy (and be able to afford) a couple black paint M3's and sit on them for a decade or two just to see. The fact my 75mm Summilux has almost doubled in value since I bought it 3 years ago is a wonderful and entertaining surprise. From past experience though, wether or not it stays like that, or rises higher, I'm rather dubious.

 

It's always fun to watch this search in ebay Worldwide leica on eBay sorted by highest first

[james.liam]

I'm trying to sell some old Nikkor and Canon LTM lenses (from the UK) and have found similar difficulty in attracting enough attention on ebay.

 

Funny, I've been looking for the very same items in the US and specifically avoided eBay because I fear having to deal with gummed up innards and/or fogged & scratched elements on a 60 year-old mechanical device. Once had a bad experience quibbling with an unknown eBay seller for a refund and am not eager to revisit it.

 

I have sold stuff on commission through dealers before now - you get less money (because of commission, not because of a lower sale price) but you're more likely to sell. Frankly, I'm more likely to buy from a dealer because of the warranty and ease of return, though I have occasionally bought on ebay, and even via Facebook, though in that case it was from a well-known photographer.

 

Exactly.

A consignment seller's continuing reputation hinges on a brutully honest assessment of what he's selling, sometimes to the chagrin of the seller. Popflash in the US, whom I regularly use for this sort of thing, has been in business for decades.

 

The warranty IMHO, is well worth the marginal extra premium,

[Per P.]

Thank you to everybody who gave really useful and helpful opinions on what may or may not be working when trying to sell a lens.

 

In response to some of the other replies: No, these lenses were never bought for investment, they were bought to get used. As I got more experience with the M system it became clear that I am not, generally speaking, a wideangle kinda guy. Therefore the sensible thing is to sell them on to someone who is.

 

And since this has proven to be much more difficult than I imagined then I would like to understand why that is the case. Hence the original post. If the title was seen as provocative by some, then I assure you this was unintended

[Lenshacker]

A number of us bought a lot of lenses when they were very cheap, before the M8 was introduced, before mirrorless cameras were introduced. $60 for a coated Summitar, $70 for a 5cm F2 Summicron collapsible, $100 for a type 1 Rigid Summicron, $350 for a 35/2.8 Summaron- the list goes on and on. That was 10 years ago, and people that picked up those items have "not lost any money".

 

Buying lenses used these days, that are still in production, some have been superseded- you can lose some money just like on anything else. And if you decide you want to try the lenses out again, chances are you will lose more money than if you had kept them. You might be surprised to find that with a bit more use, you will start liking to use them.

 

If you are going to lose money to the point of being disappointed with the sale, just keep the lenses and invest a little more time in using them. In Switzerland- I'm sure you can find some good use for Wide-Angle lenses!

[joeswe]

The price for used lenses nowadays is more or less transparent and defined by the Ebay market, even for deals that are made outside of Ebay through classified listings here or elsewhere. Ask prices in LUF classifieds are a unreliable indicator of market prices, as you never get to know the actual final selling price after negotiations. Whenever I want to buy or sell a lens, irrespective of where I intend to do the actual trade, I will first go through the recent Ebay "sold" listing to figure out what the current going price is. And I think many others in the market do the same. So, I think it's very difficult to sell a lens that is priced markedly (more than 10-15%?) or so above the average going price at Ebay (for items of comparable condition, of course). As a consequence I try to price items that I want to sell at the price that people are willing to pay and if I don't like the price I refrain from selling.

This works for me when I sell on LUF or through Ebay classifieds.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

I don't expect to make money on Leica lenses, but my experience is that you lose less on Leica's than on many others. Like some others, I trade on the s/h market entirely to find lenses to test and maybe keep.

Neither do I but, of the Leica lenses I've bought and sold I've probably got more than I paid for most. This has allowed me to trade up and end up with a really decent set of lenses. With just one exception I've bought used and have tried to buy good but not 'mint' copies of lenses that have interested me, although I also have some tatty but working perfectly copies (condition is not nearly as important as capability and results).

 

With the exception of the 75mm Summilux which I've still failed to find at a reasonable price, I now have virtually all the lenses I would like. I am aware that they have a resale value but not bothered that it isn't necessarily as much as or more than I paid for them - that's not why I've bought them.

 

FWIW I've found that selling through a reputable dealer can be a very effective way of achieving a good price, especially if the lenses are very clean, but thei dealer's commission means that the price achieved will yield less than a private sale may do.

[Paulus]

Warning: This post can be seen as a blatant plug for my sales adverts! That is not my intention though, I am genuinely curious and looking for your viewpoints.

 

Over the last year or so I have made several attempts to sell my Elmarit Asph 21mm and 24mm lenses. Not because they are no good, but because I just don't use them.

 

Both were bought second hand and I expect to lose money on them, simply because I live in Switzerland. One was bought at a time when the Euro exchange rate was a lot higher than today, the other was bought at probably too high a price directly from Leica Switzerland.

 

The thing that puzzles me: I don't find any buyers for them. And I wonder why. Have I got an unrealistic idea of the value? Are the lenses seen as outdated because of the Super Elmars? Is it my descriptions?

 

Your views are very welcomed! These lenses deserve to be used

 

The 24mm is a great lens and I will buy it some day!! It is still on my wish list. Prices here stay at a regular € 1900- € 2400,- depending from the condition, for the last 8 years now.