RE: [Leica] Portrait of Marianne = bad mistake

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

A silly post once again, Fred. I buy my equipment based on my photographic
needs, not on its resale value. Certainly, if I can find an inexpensive lens
that does the job, I'll buy it. But if any expensive lens does the job best,
that's what I'll go for. I had an older 35 1.4 Summilux, but I got rid of it
and replaced it with the 35 Summilux ASPH, which is a vastly superior lens
wide open in terms of flare suppression, contrast, lack of distortion, and
sharpness. I replaced a 21 preasph with the asph for the same reason.

The main reason the older Leica equipment holds some of its value - and if
you compare the purchase prices to the current prices in current dollars,
you'll see that it actually holds very very little value, can be explained
in two words, neither of which have anything what so ever to do with image
quality - "mystique," and "collectors."

And, by the way, Fred, what possible reason would I or anyone else have to
feel the need to justify buying a barging lens? After all, we're all
interested in photography, not status, aren't we? ;-)

B. D.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Fred Sears
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 11:13 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] Portrait of Marianne = bad mistake


Interesting error in your thinking you make as I stated that the picture(s)
were of poor quality, that it was impossible to say what type of lens they
were taken by - I never claimed that they were taken by a Leica product.

Some individuals, however, seem to feel the need to justify the sum they
spent on their Japanese lenses to which I have only one opinion - what of
the resale value of their products in say 10 or 20 years?

My old Nikon equipment is worth small fractions of what I paid for it
originally. If I remember correctly, I think it is worth about 25% of what I
originally paid for it.

I think it will be found that, for the most part, for the owners of the vast
majority of Japanese equipment, that the value of their lenses (and
bodies)will be but a small fraction of the sum(s) originally spent.  Looked
at in this way, it may indeed be cheaper (read "wiser") to invest in Leica
product(s).

I wait with baited breath to hear from those who claim that the market is
wrong....

Fred Sears


- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of B. D. Colen
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 8:55 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] Portrait of Marianne = bad mistake


Thanks, Dante - I guess when one's sense of self-worth depends upon the
brand of equipment one ones, one must feel pretty foolish discovering that a
$450 Japanese lens is every bit as good as that high-priced equipment. By
the way, that's not my assessment - it's the assessment of the much admired
Erwin Puts, who I believe acknowledged that the Nokton is a bit sharper, and
contrastier, than the Summilux at maximum aperture, although clearly the
Summilux is a better constructed lens - as well it should be at about four
times the price. And, I would also note, to be fair, that there are those
who do not like the Nokton's bokah. I believe that Johnny Deadman got rid of
his for that very reason.

B. D.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Dante
Stella
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 7:01 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Portrait of Marianne = bad mistake



Fred,

You can see a shot from that very lens at

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/nokton.html

The Nokton is a very capable optic, by some accounts better than the
current Summilux wide-open.  The Nikkor, the other contestant, beat the
hell out of the Summarit.  It took Leica 10 years to surpass it.

As to the balance of your comments (I guess they are directed at BD but
are also a slight at Peter), I would suggest that you mind your manners.

Regards
Dante

On Friday, August 30, 2002, at 11:58 PM, Fred Sears wrote:

>
> $498? For that lens?
>
> Must be a typo for $4.98.
>
> Or .05 cents.
>
> Not a surprise that the photos seemed so poorly focused and improperly
> exposed.
>
> Absolutely incredible that these were even posted and then to have the
> photographer brag that the glass was good for the money??
>
> I think a Coke Classic bottle used as a lens could make better
> pictures...(the original Coke Classic of course!).
>
> Hey, if you can't swing the Leica glass why berate those who can?
>
> Personally, I'd love to own a C4 but I can't swing it.
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html



- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html