Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/12/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark Rabiner wrote: "I also remember that my Leica glass I got in the 90's are worth twice now than what I paid for them. Nikon Zero. Not what I'd call a close call." My 35/2,8 Summaron listed for $103. when introduced in 1958. But the dealer would give a 10% discount against a fictitious "trade-in", cost: $93. Today a clean specimen sells for $750.-900., if mint, over $1,000. One reason why Dante was so far off base contending that the only way Leitz sold M3's was because people wanted them to use their Japanese lenses on. Wrong. The overwhelming majority, close to 100% of Leica M3's, M2's and M4's, were sold with at least one Leitz lens, almost invariably either 35mm or 50mm. Only David Doulgas Duncan, who discovered the Nikkor 50/1,4 during the Korea conflict, and a few of his colleagues, bought those lenses to use on their M3's. Along with photojournalists who bought second and third Leica bodies to use with their Leitz lenses. Seth