Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Leica f2/50mm APO ASPH Summicron M
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Official News and Announcements
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the red dot is part of the price. But it must be. It happens everyday in every kind of market: apple computers, fashion clothes, cars. Food. Sometimes with less reasons than in this case.
The value of Leica brand is gained through years (decades) of absolute excellence, and keeping that level for such a time costs money and work to the company: I wouldn't blame them for putting a hype on it.

It costs 7 times what the zeiss equivalent costs, true, but if it was just 0,1% for something, someone may need that 0,1% and may be wanting to pay (6000 usd)for it: shooting with seven zeiss lenses won't make the picture 0,1% better...


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

I wonder how much Samyang would have to charge if they made the same lens design with the same materials?


Does Samyang have the same craftsmanship?
To make top quality optical glass, you need highly specialized workers, not just the casual guy around.
Does Samyang have the structures to train the needed optical engineers? Will Samyang pay them with the high German salaries that
such best-in-the-world optical engineers will demand?
Can Samyang afford the same unique optical glass that Leica uses, and for which they have very secret recipes, result of centennial researches and experience?
What about the tools, does Samyang have the platinum pots where Leica mixes their glass to avoid impurities?

Ian, why you keep talking of making high precision, top quality lenses as if it was as easy as making bread?
It's not, if it was that easy, everybody would make best top quality lenses at the price of a drinking glass.
If it doesn't happen, it's because it can't.


Well, I made a poor choice when I chose Samyang as an example. I was thinking of the quality of the Contax T* lenses made by Yashica and the Voigtlander ones made by Cosina.

I am not aware of the economics of lens making so forgive me, but I do question the 7000 price tag and what portion of that price is purely due to the name on the lens and what portion represents the actual cost of making the lens, that's all. The size of the rremium that has been attached due to the red dot.

I'm sure it will be a great lens but how good compared to other lenses from other makers that cost a lot less remains to be seen.


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="Orio"]
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

I wonder how much Samyang would have to charge if they made the same lens design with the same materials?


Can Samyang afford the same unique optical glass that Leica uses, and for which they have very secret recipes, result of centennial researches and experience?
What about the tools, does Samyang have the platinum pots where Leica mixes their glass to avoid impurities?

quote]

Few years back I read that Leica always purchased/used the glass from Schott. I don`t remember that particular link.
Do you have something, links, regarding the glass they use?


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="Himself"]
Orio wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

I wonder how much Samyang would have to charge if they made the same lens design with the same materials?


Can Samyang afford the same unique optical glass that Leica uses, and for which they have very secret recipes, result of centennial researches and experience?
What about the tools, does Samyang have the platinum pots where Leica mixes their glass to avoid impurities?

quote]

Few years back I read that Leica always purchased/used the glass from Schott. I don`t remember that particular link.
Do you have something, links, regarding the glass they use?


See http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/page57.html

According to Erwin, Leica used to use Schott glass, then they went to Corning, and now they are back with Schott. At least some of the glass that Schott supplies to Leica is in their catalogue. Presumably Samyang could buy it from Schott - if they wanted to. But maybe they use their own formulation - the use of PGM lined mixing pots is not a secret.

Erwin also tells us that most of the glass is lead free - so that the glass used in the modern 'Cron or 'Lux is not the same as that used in the corresonding lenses made 50 years ago.


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I really like Erwin Put's writings, he is very rational and reasoned and writes without any bias to any brand.

I find his blog entry about the Fuji X-Pro1 very interesting (bold emphasis is mine):

Quote:
A full analysis of this really exciting product is worth reading and in particular it stimulates profound consideration on the future and status of digital rangefinder system cameras in the current digital ecosystem, that is populated with camera models that are evolutionary converging to one species. If you do a close analysis, you might see major differences in the actual supply of high-end cameras, but from some distance the D800, D4, 5D-III and 1D-X are identical in performance and possibilities. Cameras with a novel approach are scarce, but the Sony NEX and the X-Pro 1 certainly qualify as a new evolutionary species. Dinosaurs, once the mightiest animals on earth, became extinct and the nimble cats, not a match for the big beasts, survived.
The X-Pro 1 is not without shortcomings, but in the area of recording performance does not only challenge the Leica M9, but might even surpass its image quality. The 1.4/35mm lens is unexpectedly good and is capable of challenging the Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50mm ASPH, the reigning champion of high-speed standard lenses for precision miniature cameras.
One needs more research into the reasons for the superb performance of the X-Pro 1 (when cameras used slide film the conclusion was fast and simple!), but one might look at the specific sensor design and the absence of a low-pass filter. Here I have to be careful: the lack of a low-pass filter does not imply the absence of a thick glass plate before the sensor! And a thick glass plate implies a parallel shift of the incoming light rays.


The X-Pro1 is 1429ukp body only, the Fuji 1.4/35 lens is 550ukp.

The Leica M-9 is just under 5000ukp and the Summilux 1.4/50 is just under 3000ukp.

Of course, the Fuji is APS-C and the M-9 FF but you do have to ask, how much is Leica's product actually worth and how much of it's price is purely markup due to the name and red dot? If there is minimal difference in performance between the X-pro1+1.4/35 and the M-9 and 1.4/50 then the 6000ukp price difference looks hard to justify imho and you have to ask, how much of that 6000 difference is due to the name and red dot rather than actual value of the goods?


PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I really like Erwin Put's writings, he is very rational and reasoned and writes without any bias to any brand.

I find his blog entry about the Fuji X-Pro1 very interesting (bold emphasis is mine):

Quote:
A full analysis of this really exciting product is worth reading and in particular it stimulates profound consideration on the future and status of digital rangefinder system cameras in the current digital ecosystem, that is populated with camera models that are evolutionary converging to one species. If you do a close analysis, you might see major differences in the actual supply of high-end cameras, but from some distance the D800, D4, 5D-III and 1D-X are identical in performance and possibilities. Cameras with a novel approach are scarce, but the Sony NEX and the X-Pro 1 certainly qualify as a new evolutionary species. Dinosaurs, once the mightiest animals on earth, became extinct and the nimble cats, not a match for the big beasts, survived.
The X-Pro 1 is not without shortcomings, but in the area of recording performance does not only challenge the Leica M9, but might even surpass its image quality. The 1.4/35mm lens is unexpectedly good and is capable of challenging the Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50mm ASPH, the reigning champion of high-speed standard lenses for precision miniature cameras.
One needs more research into the reasons for the superb performance of the X-Pro 1 (when cameras used slide film the conclusion was fast and simple!), but one might look at the specific sensor design and the absence of a low-pass filter. Here I have to be careful: the lack of a low-pass filter does not imply the absence of a thick glass plate before the sensor! And a thick glass plate implies a parallel shift of the incoming light rays.


The X-Pro1 is 1429ukp body only, the Fuji 1.4/35 lens is 550ukp.

The Leica M-9 is just under 5000ukp and the Summilux 1.4/50 is just under 3000ukp.

Of course, the Fuji is APS-C and the M-9 FF but you do have to ask, how much is Leica's product actually worth and how much of it's price is purely markup due to the name and red dot? If there is minimal difference in performance between the X-pro1+1.4/35 and the M-9 and 1.4/50 then the 6000ukp price difference looks hard to justify imho and you have to ask, how much of that 6000 difference is due to the name and red dot rather than actual value of the goods?


it's not always the functionality you buy, it's also a combination of other factors

the m9 with all it's shortcomings is still the only FF digital camera of it's size. till date, no other RF or DSLR or 4/3 or NEX have been released that have a FF sensor in such a small body

dont get me wrong, i treasure my first industar 50-2 as much as my noctilux so im not playing sides

but fact is, you sell more than a product. you sell innovation, perception and at this price segment, ego satisfaction

leica have built a brand so strong than even apple look up to them and this is no small feat

im not patient enough to do detailed tests like most people who have common sense Laughing

i buy, i shoot. i like, i keep. i dont like, i gift or sell. most of my leica lenses are keepers for my taste. like most of my C/Y Zeiss lenses.

i dont get why leica are seen as a super expensive brand. there are others who also produced premium goods and sold them at premium prices.

(NOTE: deleted links to ebay as they wernt working correctly)

here is one example -> zeiss 85 1.2

since leica didnt make/sell a 85 1.2, the closest thing i can compare with is the leica 75 1.4 which sells for lesser than the zeiss

or the 85 1.5 which sells for even lesser money

i was recently bidding on a pancolar 75 1.4

guess how much it went for? €3,500+

guess how much i paid for my mint summilux 75 1.4? €3,000

zeiss dont have a 35 1.4 in M mount. zeiss discontinued the 85/2 because it was too big and as expensive as the leicas so most people bought the smaller leicas.

the new 35 1.4 zeiss made for DSLR's is a joke at how big and heavy it is. id expect that size for maybe a 250mm lens, not a 35mm Laughing

i dont see zeiss scrambling to make and sell digital cameras so leica are taking the market.

who is stopping zeiss from making their own camera with their own mount and own lenses? nobody. are they doing it? no. why?

im not too well informed about zeiss but when was the last time zeiss came out with an "innovation"? a brand new product or approach, not a small improvement over some genius work by glatzel or bertele?

also, of all the big players today, only zeiss dont make their own bodies.

canon/nikon/sony/olympus/leica/panasonic/etc etc all make and sell bodies.

in this aspect, my outmost respect to cosina for all the new and innovative products they come out with.


PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
take a look at MTF charts - it _may_ answer the the questions why the price is so high.

http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_5480.pdf


PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I understand Hari, it's just that I can imagine having enough money that I would happily pay a premium for a particular brand name, what I mean is, I am so conditioned by financial circumstance that I can only value things based on their capabilities and actual worth. If a camera is worth 5000 in actual terms of what it cost to make and what it is capable of that's fine, but to charge 8000 for it because of it's branding, that to me is not something I would want.

It's just my feeling but I don't get any pleasure from owning things of a particular brand, for instance, I drive a old Saab and love it because it's so comfortable to sit in and so smooth to drive, I wouldn't get any nicer feeling from owning a brand new Saab or a Rolls Royce, I would only care about how comfortable the seats were o how nice it was to drive, the other aspects are irrelevant to me.

I agree about the lack of innovation from Zeiss, they do seem to just focus on developing the same old classic designs.


PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sure, old Zeiss glass is great, but maybe what you say is more a comment on the crappiness of Canon AF glass.


PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zeiss has chosen to bring on and perfection (where possible) the "classic" Zeiss concept of lensmaking.
I think there is nothing wrong in conservatorism in an age where the "new for the new's sake" is imperating.
The important part is that the conservatorism does not become immobilism, but is a continued effort to improve
on a classical concept.
Sometimes they succeeded, I think (especially with the ZM line), sometimes maybe less successful (some of the
releases for the Z SLR lines are a bit debatable).
But I think it's important that there is someone that still holds strongly on manual focus lenses in this digital era.
It keeps the concept alive, not only for themselves and for their customers, but for everyone believing that photography
is more than slamming an autofocus, autostabilized lens on an auto-metered, auto-sequenced, auto-framing and finally
auto-deciding camera.
So I think that everyone here, and all serious photographers, should be grateful to companies like Zeiss and Voigtlaender
which still struggle to keep the flame alive, in a difficult time made of high resolution photographic cellphones.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Official News and Announcements
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2