 Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
AhamB wrote:
| pst wrote: |
Rolf, you are right! One must certainly differentiate between "objects of daily use" and lifestyle producst!
But without hesitating I place "Leica" in the latter category.
IMHO the typical Leica buyer is an enthusiast with very large wallet, who buys the M9 system (or older lenses) just to set themselves apart from the average CaNikon / Zeiss user. |
I think you are quite wrong. Some (not all) of Leica's lenses are the best that money can buy (in the field of consumer lenses). I think this is one of the main reasons why Leica has it's user base.
I don't have any Leica lenses (interested to try some though) so I don't have any of my own purchase decisions to defend.
I agree that with some of Leica's products the price is really pumped up, just to let the product pricing be in line with the rest of their products, but as far as their lenses are concerned they have valid reasons to price them as highly as they do. For instance, the Summilux-M 50/1.4 uses a type of glass that takes 6 months to cure, produced by Schott exclusively for Leica. The images from that lens show very well why people who have the budget are prepared to pay the price of that lens. I have seen nothing that comes close. Same with the Summicron-M 28/2, APO-Summicron 90/2.
Some things are indeed ridiculously overpriced like the M9 upgrade to the M9-P. They charge $1000 or so just to remove the red dot, replace the top cover and put a piece of sapphire glass over the LCD...
Btw, I used to think that Leica products were mostly lifestyle products until I saw more of the results that the lenses can give. You have to realise that many people have the same opinion about Zeiss lenses, simply because they haven't seen (or can't appreciate) the difference with cheaper lenses from CaNikon etc. |
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
