Investing in a summicrom

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As previously alluded to, if one buys a new lens, eventually it becomes a "used" lens (once store return period is past and the warranty card is filed with Leica).

And for Leica, that immediate depreciation will be around 20-30% depending on circumstances.

For the most part, with Leica M lenses, once that initial depreciation has happened, the value is unlikely to change much unless the condition deteriorates significantly. Or a significantly upgraded replacement model appears (probably unlikely with the 35 Summicron ASPH - it's already been upgraded recently). Or the general economy tanks, or currencies fluctuate, and other such unpredictable market effects.

Over a long enough time, they may actually increase in value (no promises!), as Leica keeps raising new prices. For example, a clean-but-not-mint used 75 APO-Summicron-M-ASPH sells today for at least the new price when it was introduced in 2005 ($US 2295). New price for identical lens today is $US 3995 (!)

Some examples:

21mm f/2.8 - new 1986 price $800, used price now around $1250-1600 (upgraded twice since 1986). New 21 f/3.4 today = $2995

35mm f/2 non-ASPH v.4 - new 1986 price $495, used in 2001 $695, used today $2150± (prized for size and retro imaging, upgraded to ASPH - new today $3295)

75mm f/1.4 - new 1986 price $1050, used price today around $3300-$4500 (never upgraded, but discontinued 2005 and rarish and unique).

35 and 50 Summicrons tend to be more tame in used value changes, since Leica probably sells more of those two than all the other lenses combined. Big supply out there.

Also keep in mind that original boxes and packing count big in Leica-world - can add 10% to desirability value with some buyers.

[Advertisement]

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

[RayD28]

I don't have any lenses I consider ever being collectible because I use them regularly.  While I don't baby them, I don't abuse them either.  The difference between what I pay and what I get for a trade-in or sale I attribute to the cost of using them over an extended period.  Example, I buy a lens for $1500 and get $1,000 as a trade-in five years later.  The $500 difference is the cost of renting it for 20 three-day outings is about $800.  Owning means I have the lens at ready disposal which also adds value. I know there are lots of holes in this rationalization but it takes out some of the sting when I do decide to swipe my card.   

By the way, I have traded-in only one Leica lens and it was a 50mm Summicron v5 toward a current version 50mm Summilux.  I took a bath on the Cron but it still only amounted to the value of four good seats at an American football game.  Oops, there I go again rationalizing ..... 

BTW, a year later I bought a 50mm Cron v4 with tab.  Love the 1.4 but also love smaller Cron.  

Ray 

Edited November 20, 2019 by RayD28

[wattsy]

19 minutes ago, RayD28 said:

I took a bath on the Cron but it still only amounted to the value of four good seats at an American football game.  Oops, there I go again rationalizing ..... 

Nothing wrong with rationalising expenditure – I do it all the time. In my case, I usually compare to the number of café bought coffees (at approximately 3 quid a pop).😀

[a.noctilux]

I'm happy not smoking cigarettes anymore.

At 10€ a pack and one pack a day that means 3.650€ roughly 35mm Summilux-M, in only one year.

[ianman]

22 hours ago, Martin B said:

The > 40% price increase for this lens cannot just been explained by the "bokeh" king term.

Obviously, as it's complete b... balderdash.

[farnz]

9 hours ago, adan said:

Some examples:

21mm f/2.8 - new 1986 price $800, used price now around $1250-1600 (upgraded twice since 1986). New 21 f/3.4 today = $2995 ...

Of course calculating Net Present Value at the 1986 price would give a better idea of whether the lens had increased in value or simply been taken along with the inflation-fuelled 'conveyor belt'.

Pete.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Probably correct - I should have included "inflation" in my general "market effects."

[Martin B]

5 hours ago, ianman said:

Obviously, as it's complete b... balderdash.

I agree as I pointed out in my earlier comment. In fact the bokeh of this 35/2 vers. IV lens is not great IMO. I am still wondering why it was ever hyped up like this since it doesn't take much to see this in a few wide open photos taken with this lens. It's okay but not great. 

[Martin B]

11 hours ago, adan said:

As previously alluded to, if one buys a new lens, eventually it becomes a "used" lens (once store return period is past and the warranty card is filed with Leica).

And for Leica, that immediate depreciation will be around 20-30% depending on circumstances.

For the most part, with Leica M lenses, once that initial depreciation has happened, the value is unlikely to change much unless the condition deteriorates significantly. Or a significantly upgraded replacement model appears (probably unlikely with the 35 Summicron ASPH - it's already been upgraded recently). Or the general economy tanks, or currencies fluctuate, and other such unpredictable market effects.

Over a long enough time, they may actually increase in value (no promises!), as Leica keeps raising new prices. For example, a clean-but-not-mint used 75 APO-Summicron-M-ASPH sells today for at least the new price when it was introduced in 2005 ($US 2295). New price for identical lens today is $US 3995 (!)

Some examples:

21mm f/2.8 - new 1986 price $800, used price now around $1250-1600 (upgraded twice since 1986). New 21 f/3.4 today = $2995

35mm f/2 non-ASPH v.4 - new 1986 price $495, used in 2001 $695, used today $2150± (prized for size and retro imaging, upgraded to ASPH - new today $3295)

75mm f/1.4 - new 1986 price $1050, used price today around $3300-$4500 (never upgraded, but discontinued 2005 and rarish and unique).

35 and 50 Summicrons tend to be more tame in used value changes, since Leica probably sells more of those two than all the other lenses combined. Big supply out there.

Also keep in mind that original boxes and packing count big in Leica-world - can add 10% to desirability value with some buyers.

Going back 33 years for price comparison is a bit of a stretch IMO to support the point. Especially when looking at some collector lens items which are no longer made like the 75/1.4. You can see the demand/supply better looking at a shorter time frame. The 35/2 ASPH in question has not increased in price at all from the version released about 5 years ago - in fact it has even decreased a bit in the used lens market. $2150 for the 35/2 vers. IV is rather on the very low end these days - I see regular prices more in the $2500 range as mentioned earlier. The lens is not a collector item, the bokeh as discussed earlier is average as best (given that some buyers might still fall into the "bokeh king" trap), inflation doesn't explain this price hike either, so IMO it is mostly caused by buyers adapting this lens to other MLCs. I think that many older not collector-based M-rangefinder lenses are purchased to be used on non Leica branded cameras. I know several photographers personally who do this. The other way to look at it is checking prices for M-lenses which do not work well on non-Leica based cameras - it doesn't take long to see that they are often going for much lower prices (for example Color-Skopar lens just to name one). Reason is that they are less in demand and have limited use on modern alternative MLCs. 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Martin B

[Stealth3kpl]

On 11/19/2019 at 12:04 AM, steve 1959 said:

If i bought a brand new 35mm f2 summicron asph 2 today how much is it likely to be worth in 5 years time.

Factoring in inflation what percentage of value would be lost if the lens was in mint but not as new condition 5 years on?

I am a uk citizen.

Best uk price is about £2,400

You will lose half your investment. It will be worth £1200 in 5 years time if in pristine condition.

Pete

[lct]

18 minutes ago, Martin B said:

[...] the bokeh as discussed earlier is average as best (given that some buyers might still fall into the "bokeh king" trap) [...]

I won't say that i disagree because i'm after a German copy of this lens and i would like to see its price plummet ASAP

[adan]

2 hours ago, Martin B said:

Going back 33 years for price comparison is a bit of a stretch IMO to support the point.

Which point? You mean where I said....

14 hours ago, adan said:

Over a long enough time, they may actually increase in value (no promises!)

Seems to me there's no stretch between "long enough time" and "33 years."

 

 

[Martin B]

1 hour ago, adan said:

Which point? You mean where I said....

Seems to me there's no stretch between "long enough time" and "33 years."

 

 

No question about it, I agree here with the increase over a long enough time. But this is different from the point originally raised by me - to see the influence of M-lens pricing after MLC developed around 2014. Before this, the game was pretty much divided by each camera brand with a few lens suppliers making lenses for a variety of brands (like Tamron, Tokina, Sigma for example). Now with MLC, lens gear has become interchangeable to some (better or worse) degree. And pricing reflects this. It's not only well working M-lenses affected by this - for example many Minolta MD, Canon FD lenses have seen spikes in used lens pricing since, too (My FD lenses were fairly worthless until 2014, now some of them go for several hundred dollars).  

Edited November 20, 2019 by Martin B