RE: [Leica] Whoops, rant mode again

[Austin Franklin <austin@darkroom.com>]

BUT, as I read this thread, Austin took a swipe at Ting Lee for trying to
sell an $1800 (used) lens for $3300, not understanding that the 
"Aspherical"
wasn't the "ASPH."

[Austin] No swipe intended.  You are correct, I did not know what the 
differences were between the versions.

When this was explained, he went slightly batshit over
the notion that anyone would pay so much for so little (relatively
speaking).

[Austin] Hum.  I would hardly call it 'slightly batshit', I only asked if 
it was any better than the later version (and hence possibly worth the 
extra money, aside from the collector value).  I also pointed out what 
'others' have said about the two lenses...right or wrong.

This, of course, is the age old misunderstanding of the
collector's milieu -- that hermetic demimonde where things unused,
untouched, produced in miniscule numbers have a cache, a "worth," far
exceeding their intrinsic value.  Then folks who own both lenses weighed in
to justify and rationalize their various expenditures.

[Austin] I do collect, not Leicas, but Minox, Hasselblad and Zeiss Super 
Ikontas, and I understand collecting...but I personally don't find a recent 
lense of this type to be enough of a variant to be 'collectable' (at 2x+ 
the price), but, obviously, for some, it is, and I understand that, and no 
one need continue to justify this.

I believe I am clear on what the two lenses have to offer now.  I like it 
when I learn something like this, and appreciate all the help in advancing 
my Leica lense education, however esoteric ;-)

P.S.  My spell checker does not like "batshit", it wants to change it to 
"baths".  If you are going to continue to use this word, I will have to add 
it...or ask that you spell it correctly.  It does not like "Leicas" either, 
it wants to change it to "leeches".  I think that's funny ;-)

- --------------------------