Leica equipment as an investment

[Mike Hawley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I came to start buying Leica cameras as a result of my fifties childhood obsession with photography. Remembering those 1950’s adverts in Amateur Phographer magazines when Leica was the camera everyone aspired to. It was only in the last few years that I took the plunge and bought an M10. Since then I have bought a varied collection of lenses (and a Q just for good measure)..

I have recently purchased a 1955 Summaron 35mm 3.5 on EBay for £300 (at the time of writing UK prices on eBay varied from  £300 to £570  USA and Japanese prices went up to £2k). I subsequently  wondered how much it might have ‘appreciated’. In value over the years. 
Looking at a !955 copy of AP I found the Summaron  for sale at London Camera Centre for £42~10 shillings. On first look this would support the common assertion of Leica being a sound investment. A return in excess of 300% whoopeeee. However when inflation is factored in I discovered that the purchasing power of £42.50 in 1955 was equivalent to £1239 today. 
I don’t believe you can put a price on the delight and enjoyment that the use of precision equipment genererates, especially when it’s lifespan is in excess of 70 years. But if you want to pass your fortune on to your children intact then maybe inflation hedged investment…..?

[Advertisement]

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

[Pyrogallol]

I bought a goggles version 35mm f3.5 Summaron for £45 in 1973. After 40 years with a friend I now have it back.

F3.5 Summarons seem to have jumped up in price in the last year or so. They were about £250 in 2021 (I bought two) but now seem to sell for about £350 and the f2.8 versions have risen from about £600 to £800+ ( I have a few).

[weatherproof]

Most folks who have been shooting film before the M8 never would have thought that the used price of analogue Ms would continue to climb this high.

[Al Brown]

On 10/20/2022 at 12:34 PM, Mike Hawley said:

I came to start buying Leica cameras as a result of my fifties childhood obsession with photography. Remembering those 1950’s adverts in Amateur Phographer magazines when Leica was the camera everyone aspired to. It was only in the last few years that I took the plunge and bought an M10. Since then I have bought a varied collection of lenses (and a Q just for good measure)..

I have recently purchased a 1955 Summaron 35mm 3.5 on EBay for £300 (at the time of writing UK prices on eBay varied from  £300 to £570  USA and Japanese prices went up to £2k). I subsequently  wondered how much it might have ‘appreciated’. In value over the years. 
Looking at a !955 copy of AP I found the Summaron  for sale at London Camera Centre for £42~10 shillings. On first look this would support the common assertion of Leica being a sound investment. A return in excess of 300% whoopeeee. However when inflation is factored in I discovered that the purchasing power of £42.50 in 1955 was equivalent to £1239 today. 
I don’t believe you can put a price on the delight and enjoyment that the use of precision equipment genererates, especially when it’s lifespan is in excess of 70 years. But if you want to pass your fortune on to your children intact then maybe inflation hedged investment…..?

You need to factor the last 5 years if you want good investment intel. Leica M6 went from 1200 to 2600 - 3500. Noctilux 50/1.2 went from 3600 to 36000. Many more examples.

[pippy]

In terms of being an investment where Leica products are concerned (Cave! I'm no financial adviser!) rarity and condition are of fundamental importance.

Success stories amongst their lenses include the original 50mm f1.2 (already mentioned by Al), the 35mm 'Double Aspherical' Summilux, the early 'Steel-Rim' 35mm - especially the Black-Paint examples - and that's about it for the heavyweight gains. ALL OF THESE were produced in relatively small numbers and in some cases there were fewer than 100 made. Much the same goes for bodies. Any original MP camera will be worth a small fortune as will the 'Null-Serie' survivors and other rarities; Black-Paint M2 /M3 and even M4 as an example.

However! Although cameras such as the M6 assuredly have appreciated significantly in the last handful of years they are still worth less than their original purchase price so the VAST majority of Leitz/ Leica output over the last 99 years (IMO) cannot be seen as 'an investment'.

FWIW I also have a 35mm f3.5 Summaron (1954) and it's probably still just about worth what I paid for it - inflation considered - back in 1980 so 'Not Bad' but not an investment.....

Philip.

[pgh]

I admit to dislike this line of thinking. The M6, despite any price appreciation (minimal with inflation figured in) should indeed have cost most people money by now with all of the rolls of film they've put through it. The best way for a camera to be an investment is to use it as a work tool IMO - and that comes with its own pitfalls.

All this stuff does is drive speculation up for tools that were manufactured to make photographs not sit on a shelf and look pretty or to be fetishized. The worst thing that could possibly happen to a Leica lens, even the finest, most rare one ever produced is for it to sit behind some glass case on a shelf to drooled over. If it's not regularly being used to make photographs it's a just another piece of stuff - I think an owner that loves photography and not stuff would want it to go to the next person who would use it. 

Edited October 21, 2022 by pgh

[Ouroboros]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The only time I've ever found that a piece of photographic equipment was an appreciating asset was when I sold my v4 f1 Noctilux for £5k in 2011.  I bought it new five years earlier for £1800, I never liked it and rarely used it. 

I wish I'd bought a dozen of them.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Ouroboros

[pippy]

1 hour ago, pgh said:

I admit to dislike this line of thinking....All this stuff does is drive speculation up for tools that were manufactured to make photographs not sit on a shelf and look pretty or to be fetishized. The worst thing that could possibly happen to a Leica lens......is for it to sit behind some glass case on a shelf to drooled over. If it's not regularly being used to make photographs it's a just another piece of stuff...

Whilst I agree with the general ethos on what you write I don't think anyone here has suggested anything to the contrary; apart from an incredibly small minority of Leitz offerings the reality - in terms of 'long term investment potential' - is quite the opposite as pretty much all of us, here (I believe), appreciate.

The OP stated in his first post that his Summaron, today, is worth 1/4 of the comparable value of his original financial outlay all things taken into account. AFAIK all the other responses have been from people who regularly use their cameras and lenses - regardless of notional value - as originally intended. No-one who has responded (again; AFAIK) keeps 'Unused Shelf Queens / Investments' as a rule.

At the same time I understand why some very special pieces might well be kept at home and not allowed out to play on a day-to-day basis. Most of these, I suspect, will already be in the hands / vaults of heavyweight collectors and I suspect that the vast majority of these serious collectors have a very deep understanding of the historical importance of their items. They probably also have other 'more normal' kit on hand as a 'daily driver'.

As far as using these special items is concerned? Apart from the frisson of sheer hedonistic pleasure garnered (I can only suspect) by being able to go Walkabout with an original 'NullSerie' why on Earth would anyone choose to do so? Pretty much every camera Leitz has made since those times has been an improvement - obviously - so why choose to use something so extremely rare and historic if there is a possibility that it might become lost/broken/stolen/damaged when in use?

I won't even begin to go into the ethics of buying something purely as an investment as opposed to being a 'user'. That particular can of worms is FAR to large to be dealt with, here, in any depth worth the writing.

If anyone DOES fancy a go shall we take the 1960 - 1995 35mm Summilux lenses - including the AA - as an example?

"5,000 words from each of you by Monday at the latest."....

Philip.

[RayD28]

I personally can't see buying camera equipment as an investment.  Too many better options to invest in for the long term.  

[shanefking]

Great investment for making photographs that preserve memories.  
 

The most valuable Leica I’ve ever seen was one that was used so much it was worn down to the brass, practically molded to the photographer’s hands. You could tell that this tool had become an extension of the artist’s body.   That’s worth more than money…

You can’t buy a camera like that, but you can earn it by dedication to your craft.  
 

 

[darylgo]

As an investment?  Added into this is the extra accessories purchased such as filters, cases etc.  The cost of selling an item can be large, eBay 13%, consignment 20-30%.  If the owner finds issues, the repair cost could diminish the gains further.   Shoot Leica, invest elsewhere.   

 

 

 

Edited October 23, 2022 by darylgo