[Leica] 75mm F/2 M lens? New vs. used

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

On 3/21/05 11:15 AM, "Joseph Yao" <joseph@yao.com> typed:

> on 21/3/05 2:02 am, B. D. Colen at bdcolen@earthlink.net wrote:
> 
>> As to cost comparison - anyone who goes out today and buys a new 75 1.4
>> - assuming he or she can find a used one- is out of his or her mind.
>> $3000? Nuts. Pick one up used and save maybe $1K over the new Summicron
>> AND get an extra stop along with the $1K saving.
> 
> I may be nuts by your standard but why would I want to buy a used lens when
> new ones are readily available?  The saving of $1k is nowhere enough to
> offset my discomfort of such compromise.  This is not a case of the R
> 35-70/2.8 ASPH when no new ones are available. ;-)
> 
> Firstly, the M 75/1.4 would not cost me US$3,000 as we do not have a greedy
> Leica importer here.  Secondly and more importantly, I would never buy used
> if the same is available new.  The same applies not only to photo 
> equipment,
> but also to cars, fine watches and just about everything.  I find it very
> hard to accept something that has been used, fondled and possessed by
> someone else.  The only exception is when the item in question is no longer
> available new.  In such case I would only consider 'new-old-stock', 
> followed
> by LNIB, MIB and as a severe compromise, 'mint-'.
> 
> Perhaps I need to see a shrink, but then I did not marry a divorcee either.
> 
> Joseph - overworked ER doc with OCD regarding new Leica toys  ;-)
> 
Well I disagree heartily with both you guys. (BD and Joseph Yao)
First of all the question itself posed by BD which is:

Why buy something, namely Leica but also in general NEW when you can get it
used and save a bunch of cash.

I'm having trouble getting on the same wavelength of the logic of this
question.
Second of all the answer here by Joseph;
"...why would I want to buy a used lens when new ones are readily
available?"
I'm not following that either.
I should buy a new one because it's available?
Joseph, perhaps you should elaborate!?!

New vs. used
That's a subject which has not come up that often on the LUG you'd think
we'd see it every week.
To me its this:
Some people like new stuff and are willing to save up for it. Its a big deal
for them.
And sometimes that have real reasons other than a vague preference for metal
with less germs on it.
And some almost always prefer old stuff. They don't mind the extra effort in
tracking the stuff down and figuring out how to deal with the gremlins which
pop up right off the bat or a bit further on down the line.
Often much of there preference might be for stuff which is too good and cool
to be made any more.
I could say it's a matter of commitment as is often my point on just about
anything. But I'd not really be hitting it.
Plenty of photo enthusiasts with stacks and portfolios of finished fine
prints or a fine tuned tray of slides or a laptop CD computer presentation
don't have the street price new sticking in their brains any more than that
have that insulting "retail" quote which comes out of the press release.

But of the photographers I know on most of their gear I'd say 2/3's of their
stuff is new and maybe one third used. But some tend to be all used or all
new. I actually don't know any professional photographers who are all used
or even mostly used. Or some local people I know who are highly committed
amateurs, perhaps with some shows in galleries.

Often you find yourself needing a new piece of gear for some shots you need
to both shoot and deliver by the end of next week.
There is rarely any thought of "which version of a 21mm lens do I want to
get". You get what they have in the store. I don't think this is what Joseph
was just saying but if it was then we're on the same wave length after all.

By "store" for me that means "B&H" mail order.
B&H" has been my main supplier since Camera world down the street bit the
dust by the big bad Wolf say four years ago.
Most of my Leica stuff I got from there though.
Over the counter.
They don't pay for parking so sometimes I'll walk.
Many of the photographers in this area of course went that route.
More then a few actually got stuff from camera world new only did it by mail
order. And it was less than a mile away from their studio.
And many photographers living in or near a large city with a good camera
store maybe was able go go that route although camera world was a bit of a
rare exception in local stores.
It was cheap.
It was good.
And it had everything.

A friend of mind who is a top photographer saw me with my Leicas and thought
he'd try them out.
There was a bunch of used stuff under the glass of PRO PHOTO down the street
going for cheap. He picked up a used M6 with a couple of lenses and got an
adaptor so he could use old screw mount lenses for a different look for some
of his shots. Many photographers are always going for a new and different
look.
Or in this case an "old and different look".
There was a problem or two of course with the M6 and at least one of the
lenses.
He brought it all back at the end of the two week period of returns.
That was that for Leica for this guy.
I often though had he gone to CAMERAWORLD and spent some more money like I
did and got stuff which, if it didn't work could be exchanged for something
that did he'd be shooting with Leica for plenty of his stuff now.
Instead of the stuff which he DID get from CAMERAWORLD.
Stuff which he needed to work right off the bat and didn't have the time to
fool around with.
Nikon and Canon and Hasselblad.
When it came to the stuff he was more serious about and paid the bills he
didn't screw around.

That's how most of my photographer friends get their stuff..
They buy new when they need it now and they cant afford to screw around.
It's going to pay for itself anyway in the short to long run.
Or its just otherwise just too important for them.
They just want the very latest version.
And they need to be able to exchange it for a good one if they somehow got a
dud.


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/