Leica Madness (like reefer madness without the fun)

[nemesis101]

I am astounded at what people will charge for anything with 'Leica' attached?

The most egregious examples are the truly dreadful Tamron 28-200mm AF lens which guys are asking 295 bucks for, adaptall run of the mill 135mm which 'sell' for 250 dollars and even simple Leica R - 4/3rd adapters for 200 dollars or more!

Apart from asking who would by a Leica to stick a Tamron 28-200 on it, one wonders what is the point, or is this just more Ebay price scamming for the fan-boys?

Doug

[rbelyell]

its amazing, truly, doug. there is another thread today asking which is better the leica r 50/1.4 at about $2000 or the zeiss planar T 50/1.4 at $350! are you kidding??? given the price disparity i am incredulous that no one besides me has mentioned it as a factor. seems the consensus is the leica is 'better around the edges', but some dont even agree about that! better around the edges?! for an extra $1700?!

i have a summarit 50/1.4 that cost more than the planar, but performs less well than the $100 yashica ml! what is it the who said, 'dont get fooled again'?!

[LucisPictor]

Leica items are amazing. Period.

BUT, I would never pay the "real" price for a new lens, incredible sums. I could never imagine that there are enough people who would spend that much money on photo gear, but there are!

My son's godfather is one of them. He has an amazing Leica-R-set, all bought new!

But sometimes, with luck and a lot of patience, you can find Leitz items for fair prices and then you should not hesitate.

[Rolf]

[rbelyell]

i am not sure exactly what 'amazing' is when one can get similar or marginally inferior iq for literally 25% or less of the leica price.

take the digilux 2. people are willing to pay huge amounts for this 6mp cam because of the 'amazing cron' lens. well i had one, bought btw for significantly less than market price. it was my first leica and i was so proud and wanted to love it. end of story, i sold it a few months later for a nice profit. the vf was truly one of the worst ive ever used. it would jump and shake, and was totally ueseless in low light, even for just framing. imo, so much for 'leica quality! my old olly 4mp that i bought for $100 was eons better, and so were the pix i got from it, or my old sony 8mp zoom. digilux pix were fine, but really nothing special, nothing that other cams couldnt deliver at a fraction of the price.

presently i have a lovely summarrit 50/1.4 that i also bought well under market price. out of zeiss planar T, yashica ml, takemur and even dsb1.9, the summarit is my least favorite 50/1.4 in terms of iq, though it costs 5x's the price of the lowest costing alternative i have!

i am sure at a certain absurd price point there exists leica equipment that would make one sit up and take notice, but i have not seen any that justfy the absurdity of the price.

[Rolf]

[Mos6502]

Well there are those who think everything Ferrari made was awesome - even though they turned out a few stinkers.

A lot of Leica stuff is very good. But they've made some less than good stuff too. It'll fetch a lot anyway though because it has the name on it with the reputation that good products earned.

[poilu]

[Rolf]

[rbelyell]

i am not saying leica does not make good products. i am saying their products imo are overrated, especially when given the pricing. imo their average product is only marginally better than counterparts costing far far less.

with respect to digilux 2, i am sorry to differ with rolf, who knows far more than i about photography. however, i owned a 4mp olly zoom and an 8mp sony zoom, both of which were contemporary products to the digilux, the olly a year or so earlier and the sony a year or so later. both had much more useful vf and imo both took pictures as good or better than the leica. in truth, the digilux had the single worse vf i have ever personally used, even on a crappy p&s. again, my opinion, if it ha d any other name on it, it would never have sold for, or continue to sell for, anything near the price. i believe the red dot clouds judgement.

[poilu]

[Rolf]

Tony, I´m not knowing more than you about photography.

You have right in one aspect. The prices for R-lenses dropped down a long time since it was clear that Leica wouldn´t produce a successor of the R8/R9 line without any chance to use the R-lenses.

Since 6 to 12 month suddenly the used prices increased - and for the very good and special lenses overproportional. But you will see this effect with other manufacturers too.

But I must say again - the price ideas of some dealers are one point, but I don´t think that these are market prices. You know that I have a very friendly dealer here where I buy and bought my lenses - and Leica lenses too.

All Leica lenses over a certain price level in his used shopping window are shelf warmer there (maybe that the dealer will have the lenses only for commission) and nobody will buy them. Seems there is a difference between local shops and *bay.

[Mos6502]

[BRunner]

Summarit 1.5/5cm was designed in early 50's! It can be expected that it won't perform as lens designed 20 years later!
Most of the Leica lenses was/are state of the art, but you should compare it to lenses from same period.

Primoplan 1.9/75 is my worst performing portrait lens, yet it usually fetches higher prices on eBay than my all other portrait lenses (including Summicron-R 2/90 or Pancolar 1.8/80).

[rbelyell]

well, i'm not a historian, but i think the zeiss planar T series is what, 30-40 years old? yashica ml's also. yet the summarit--as old as you say it is, sells today for more than it's zeiss and yashica counterparts combined! and its iq isnt as good as the yashica! you prove my point!

and while, like the primoplan you cite, there are cases where other than leica equipment is overpriced, all leica equipment, imo, is way way ovepriced when compared to just as good or marginally not as good competitors.

also its one thing where a lens sells for more than it's better competitors, and the leica case where it sells for 5x's more.

[Mos6502]

Yes but that is the point of all brand names.

Besides if you don't want it anyway - then why care?

[BRunner]

[rbelyell]

Mos: the only reason i 'care' is because its the point of the post! that any piece of garbage with a red dot on it sells for ridiculous prices. and even though most leica products are 'quality' products, they are horrifically over priced vis a vis their qualitative competitors.

anyway, doug, its an obviously interesting topic--you hit a nerve with this one!

[nemesis101]

Good grief what did I start? lol

But folk, you are seemingly missing the point I was attempting to make WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ACTUAL LEICA GEAR!

I might wel agree that something made by Leica sells for about 5x the price had it been made by anyone else, but what I WAS commenting on was that a crap Tamron 28-200 (which achieved the lowest ever recorded score of 1.7 on photo-me) was being sold for a fantastic sum as it was in Leica mount - same for the very common Adaptall 135mm - as it had a Leica adapter. Even lens hoods to fit Leicas cost more than most of my cameras..

It was the 'halo' effect of the name which boggled my mind! Like saying here is 100kg of horse-shit.. $5 here is 100kg of horseshit to fit a Leica.. $5,000 lol

Doug

[Rolf]

I own approx. 15 Leica-R lenses and I bought them at a time with a low and fair price. Maybe at a higher price compared to other brand names but if you have ever an original Leica lens (not lenses made by SIGMA etc) in your hands you will feel the differences.

Good to know that I could realize a nice taxfree profit if I would sell the lenses now. But I would never do !

[pst]

Hi Doug, and everybody else reading this thread!

I've asked myself this sort of question maybe a thousand times:

Is Leica better than Zeiss?
Is Audi better than VW better than Skoda?
Is Louis Vuitton better than Samsonite ? (Not that I would ever buy LV)
Is Canon better than Pentax?
Is Oackley better than Rudy Project?

...and always considering what you get for the price.

My conlusion: It all depends on how much a brand's name is worth. It's simply pointless discussing that.

...and I haven't even mentioned High End HiFi: We could discuss the 4-digit price of cables perhaps?

[Rolf]

At first you have to devide between let say Life Style products like LV, Rolex, Cartier etc and let say products with technical aspects/performances etc.

Up to a certain level of performance (let say 95 %) I´m sure you will find a ratio between price and performance/technical datas and so on.

The last 5 % to 100 % cost the money and that is the question whether you are willing to pay it or not. Another method to save money is to buy the products from last year which are not significant poorer.

[pst]

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.

Also I'm aware that the last 5% always cost much more, but Leica just does not always offer those 5%.

[rbelyell]

yeah i agree w pst. i really do not mind paying a premium for quality. for example, i had an audi tt convertible and in terms of comfort and performance, it was worth twice as much as a volkswagen beetle convertible to me. however it would not have been worth 5x's as much, as leica items are over high quality zeiss etc competitors. i think that is the real issue; yes leica is probably worth more, but the actual or perceived quality increase of leica does not justify the amount more presently demanded by the marketplace. it is a matter of degree. i can understand the argument (though i dont agree with it) that leica products are in general say twice as good as next best competitor, but i cant at all undrrstand the argument that they are 3, 4 or 5 times as good.

[LucisPictor]

In one way or the other everybody here is right.

Leica items in most cases are unreasonably expensive. There the myth, the legend of Leica strikes.

Zeiss lenses are surely by no means worse and a lot cheaper, still they are more expensive than e.g. Tamron lenses and those Tamrons are not far away performancewise. Nikkors are somewhat in between.

You pay for more than just IQ. You pay for the name but also for haptics, the "feel", for reliability etc.

I used to have four Leica R-lenses and still have two.
And I own three Leica rangefinder lenses.

My experiences are diverging:

Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/35 = fantastic lens, great performer and amazingly built. (SOLD, regret it)
Leica Summircon-R 2/35 = amazingly built as well, but not as good in performance. (SOLD, don't regret it)
Leica Summicron-R 2/50 = one of my all-time favourites.
Leica Elmar-R 4/180 = great built, amazing performance and very compact for a 180.

Leica Summitar 2/50 = wonderful lens, handling not as smooth as with the R-lenses, but nevertheless better than with most other lenses.
Leica Elmar 4/90 = very good (but not extraordinary) performance, nicely built.
Leica Hektor 4.5/135 = surprisingly good performance and very well built.

Leica C2 = feels a bit plasticky, but the lens is very, very good (but not that fast, though).

Leica Digilux 2 = Yes, viewfinder is crap, but the images are absolutely amazing, better than anything else I have seen from a 5 MPix cam (incl. Minolta Dimage 7, Dimage Z5, Sony F717 and others...)

Leica M3 w/ Summicron 2/50 = WOW! Unfortunately, a friend's cam.

Leica M9 (Orio's) = absolutely fantastic!


You see, not all my experiences are overwhelmingly good but most are and still I am a real fan of Leica products. I wish I could afford some more without risking serious trouble with my wife.


Of course, many of those items are sold for prices that are perhaps 300% of which they would cost without the name tag. But buying a used Porsche or Mercedes is pretty similar...