Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Steve LeHuray wrote: > > "You should also consider which lens will hold it's value the best in the > long term--I would wager it will not be the CV." David Morton replies: > > Er...that rather depends if you calculate the depreciation as a percentage > of the initial investment or in absolute terms. > > In the UK the Leica 28mm f2 sells for UKP1225, it's worth about 70% of that > in a private sale in mint used condition, so carrying it out of the shop has > cost you UKP360. The CV 28mm f1.9 costs UKP335 brand new. > > In other words, for the CV to suffer more depreciation than the Leica lens > in absolute terms, you'd have to mess it up so badly that you have to pay > someone over UKP25 to take it away. :-) Good points David. But I will maintain in the long run you come out ahead with Leica gear. To give you an example: About 15 years ago I bought a beat-up black paint M2, it came with 3 chrome lenses and I paid $450 for the lot. Last year I sold one of the lenses (21/4.0) for $1200. This year I sold the other 2, a 35/3.5 for $300 and a 50/2.0 collapsible for $400. I still have the beat-up M2 and use it everyday and in it's current condition (mechanically excellent, cosmetically, shabby) is easily worth $4000, I have seen these advertised for $6500 in similiar beat-up condition. And let me say I do not think of Leicas as an investment, my mind just not think that way (I am probably the only guy in the world who ever sold a rare, classic Porsche for less than he paid for it). I was only trying to make the point that when you buy quality it pays dividends in the long run. sl - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html