Re: FIE ON COLLECTORS!

["Brian Levy" <dlevy@worldy.com>]

Charlie,

I am a strange beast. If the 40/2.8 were on my shopping list, it would 
be as a user regardless of the price since its ONLY value to me is in 
its use and not collectability. I am the type who believes that if 
one owns a Stadavarious (excuse the sp, never could do that one) and 
it were hanging on the wall and being played, it would be 
appropriate to hang the owner beside it. Its non use is not a benefit 
to the owner, but a loss to the world. With this statement, I am sure 
no one will offer me  LHSA commemrative set #1.

As to the 40/2.8, you state that the 40/2 is better. Without doubting 
you, if there were so few made/sold out where how was this 
determined? In the early 70's I saw my first CL (rep's sample at a 
dealer) prior to its release. It had a 40/2.8 which looked like it 
belonged on the camera.. He had some B&W 8x10s he had taken with it 
and they were beautiful. Admittedly I was of little knowledge and did 
not pull out a loupe and start looking that closely. When the dealer 
got the CLs  into stock, they had the 40/2 which when I first saw it, 
it looked like a last minute 4th string substitution on the camera. I do 
love mine, but have never forgotten that little 40/2.8. Oh, the 
dealer explaned the substitution was made because Leica decided that 
the camera was more salable w/ a 2.0 as a standard rather than a 2.8 
lens. I always thought that the 40/50 frames were a neat marketing 
decision for Leica. With the 40/2.8, the dealer could give a trade 
credit and swap it out for the 50 Summicron for those wishing 
additonal speed and make an additional profit. I don't know if the CL body
could be bought without the 40 attached. 

Generally, I agree with this, Brian.  But I think Marc and others were
saying that if you were to locate a 40 2.8, its value would be too high to
use, and anyway, you could get the 40 f2, a better lens, and have enough
left over for  a whole M system.--Charlie

Brian Levy, J.D.
Scarborough Ont.