Eyeballing the 75mm Summitar

[ho_co]

Originally Posted by stunsworth

I don't believe that's true. I don't think it's as simple as dividing the difference between f2 and f2.8 by 2. I'll try to find the correct formula when I have time.

Steve, the folks who have responded are those who gave me my current level of erudition (?) on the matter at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...tml#post576056.

As Luigi said above: Putting together the facts that no one (EP excepted?) has measured these apertures exactly and that Mr Lee advised against advertising the aperture as 2.4, it's possible that the lenses are generally faster than 2.5, though again I recognize that 1/2 stop is the minimum that makes a noticeable exposure difference.

As a meaningless but informative check: Luigi, why don't you check the metered exposure difference between marked f/2.8 and marked f/2.5 on the 75? Just curious whether a difference shows at all. And yes, I know, whatever results you get would apply only to your sample of this one design--but still might firm up the "marketing" aspect of the aperture designation.


Steve--For completeness, see this information from another manufacturer's instruction manual illustrating the camera's interpretation of one-third stop increments.

And by the way--you really look funny with that dunce cap. Take it off!

[ho_co]

Originally Posted by gyoung

Just as bad as selling all those 52mm lenses as 50mm!!

Gerry--
Design focal length was/is 51.9 mm to be exact.

And remember, Leica DID engrave the actual focal length on most of them...

[gyoung]

Originally Posted by ho_co

Gerry--
Design focal length was/is 51.9 mm to be exact.

And remember, Leica DID engrave the actual focal length on most of them...

I was rounding up, honest!!

In fact they seem pernickety about engraving on the longer ones, my 90 and 135 both have it engraved (to half a millimeter only, not 0.1 ) but I dont remember seeing it on any of my 50s (4) 35s (2) or the 21.


Best wishes, Gerry

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by ho_co

... Luigi, why don't you check the metered exposure difference between marked f/2.8 and marked f/2.5 on the 75? Just curious whether a difference shows at all. And yes, I know, whatever results you get would apply only to your sample of this one design--but still might firm up the "marketing" aspect of the aperture designation.

Quick and easy check ... in 3 different light situations (tungsten, interiors) f 2,8 vs. f 2,5
- 1/24 vs. 1/30
- 1/125 vs. 1/180
- 1/15 vs. 1/24

as expected... but nothing about whether 2,5 is really 2,5 or 2,4 of course...

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by ho_co
Gerry--
Design focal length was/is 51.9 mm to be exact.

And remember, Leica DID engrave the actual focal length on most of them...

Originally Posted by gyoung

I was rounding up, honest!!

In fact they seem pernickety about engraving on the longer ones, my 90 and 135 both have it engraved (to half a millimeter only, not 0.1 ) but I dont remember seeing it on any of my 50s (4) 35s (2) or the 21.


Best wishes, Gerry

Hey that's matter of the Historical section... old Summicron 50 had indeed 3 variants.. the 51.6 the 51.9 the 52.2 ... well known story...

[Saloti]

Originally Posted by stunsworth

To be honest my personal opinion is that the latest increases in price, for both body and lenses, have pushed Leica right to the edge of what people can afford. I don't think they can afford to push them much further, if at all, especially given the current economic climate. Until recently I bought most of my lenses new, but that's not something I can contemplate at the moment - just my personal perspective.

Steve, I fully agree. You are the best example that Leica was/is wandering on
dangerous paths with regard to pricing. In economically difficult times people offer
their gear in second hand markets. Parallely people like you switch from "new" to
"second hand". Well done Leica!

Another proof that Leica made substantial mistakes both in product policy and
pricing: Meister Berlin (Leica Mono Brand store, biggest dealer in Germany)
is offering the Digilux III at € 1.550,- including lens LEICA D VARIO-ELMARIT
1:2.8-3.5/14-50mm ASPH. This equals to an absolute rebate of € 949 (!), the
only thing you have to do is leaving Meister any old/used camera.

[stunsworth]

Lothar

In fairness I should have written "what most people can afford" rather than "what people can afford", there will always be a minority of people who could afford anything Leica asked.

The Digilux 3 offer you mention just indicates that Leica are trying to clear stock - probably at near cost, if not less. I don't expect to see another 4:3 camera from Leica.

[Saloti]

Originally Posted by stunsworth

It would be highly unusual for a company to offer a rebate that would have to be paid from profit already made - and possibly spent - unless forced to do so by some regulatory body.

As for an increased price following an upgrade, wouldn't that depend on the cost of the upgrade to Leica. I'm sure if they could contain the cost if possible.

To be honest my personal opinion is that the latest increases in price, for both body and lenses, have pushed Leica right to the edge of what people can afford. I don't think they can afford to push them much further, if at all, especially given the current economic climate. Until recently I bought most of my lenses new, but that's not something I can contemplate at the moment - just my personal perspective.

Originally Posted by stunsworth

Lothar

In fairness I should have written "what most people can afford" rather than "what people can afford", there will always be a minority of people who could afford anything Leica asked.

The Digilux 3 offer you mention just indicates that Leica are trying to clear stock - probably at near cost, if not less. I don't expect to see another 4:3 camera from Leica.

I agree Steve. However, the figures show that Leica cannot continue to live from this
minority. Digilux 3: Yes, this is stock clearing. Leica will focus on Compact (with
Panansonic) and M plus R.

[ho_co]

Originally Posted by luigi bertolotti

Hey that's matter of the Historical section... old Summicron 50 had indeed 3 variants.. the 51.6 the 51.9 the 52.2 ... well known story...

Correct--Design focal length was 51.9. See for example the DR Summicron: All the DR versions were 51.9 (design standard). Versions with differing f.l. went into non-DR mount.

And you're right; doesn't belong here.

Originally Posted by gyoung

I was rounding up, honest!!

In fact they seem pernickety about engraving on the longer ones, my 90 and 135 both have it engraved (to half a millimeter only, not 0.1 ) but I dont remember seeing it on any of my 50s (4) 35s (2) or the 21.

Correct--
Only lenses 50mm and longer require different mounts. I had at first thought all 50's had the engraving, but was set straight on forum: Most 50's and lenses longer than 50 had the actual f.l. engraved. Engraving was for last full digit plus first decimal, and I am sure that some rounding went on.

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by lct

In fact i wanted to know if the Summarit 75 deserves its price as far as image quality.

IMHO - absolutely yes.

Cheers,

Sean

[ho_co]

Originally Posted by luigi bertolotti

Quick and easy check ... in 3 different light situations (tungsten, interiors) f 2,8 vs. f 2,5
- 1/24 vs. 1/30
- 1/125 vs. 1/180
- 1/15 vs. 1/24

as expected... but nothing about whether 2,5 is really 2,5 or 2,4 of course...

Thanks for checking. In terms of %change, the differences are:

-20%
-31%
-37.5%

A one-stop difference would have shown -50%

So the exposure difference is--as has been surmised--such as could make the lens f/2.5 or f/2.4.

Back to shooting, I guess...


As I do it, %change is calculated by: ( (NEWvalue - OLDvalue) / OLDvalue ) *100

[robert_parker]

Originally Posted by wizard

Actually, Steve, the point was somewhat finer. While Leica people said the Summarit line didn't sell according to expectations, what they also said was that the original expectations (by Mr. Lee) were way too optimistic. Wrong boundary conditions, so to speak. By Leica standards, the Summarit line DOES sell quite well, it is the unrealistic expectation that should be blamed.

Andy

...and maybe slightly misplaced target market. I think maybe they've got enough out there right now to satisfy demand for the present but with the just in time style embraced by the factory, extra demand could be catered for very quickly

[lct]

Originally Posted by lct

...In fact i wanted to know if the Summarit 75 deserves its price as far as image quality...

Thank you Sean.

[delander]

Leica made a marketing decision early on to separate the Summarits from other Leica lenses. They should not have bothered it emphasizes 'these are specially cheap Leica lenses'. But they have created a problem because most people relate price to max aperture and the summarit range does not fit in. Maybe they should have just added more asph elmarits, like the 28mm or just made the max aperture 2.8 and called them elmarits.

If your priority is low cost then you can do even better with Zeiss or CV.

Leica also need to learn that the prices of digital cameras dont go up, they go down after intro. If of course they wish to increase their customer base.


Jeff