Relative price of lenses cron vs lux

[bencoyote]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Quick question:

Why is a 50mm Summilux $3795 but a 35mm Summilux $4995?

 

Does that FLE magic make the lens $1200 more complicated and thus more expensive? 

That is what I was kind of assuming but I was looking at the specs and it doesn't seem that much more complicated. The 35mm has 9 elements in 5 groups while the 50mm 8 elements in 5 groups.

 

However, it could be something hard to perceive from the outside like the required precision or the difficulty and time to needed assemble it. Does anyone have any guesses why it is so much more expensive?

 

Or is it just a supply and demand thing?

[michaelwj]

As the angle of view increases, it becomes much more complicated to design and make a f/1.4 lens, therefore more expensive.

Taken to the extreme, the 21 summilux is twice the price and size of the 35 summilux, with (technically) worse performance wide open.

On the other side, as the angle of view decreases, it becomes easier to design but you need so much larger elements that it becomes infeasible to make and use.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[adan]

Just for the record - the 50 ASPH Summilux ALSO has "FLE magic" and accompanying complications.

 

Bottom line, any time you move away from the "normal" range for lenses (for 35mm film or equivalent sensor size, about 42-55mm focal length), the lenses are being asked to do more. In the case of wide-angles like the 35 and 21, bend the light more without aberrations, and in the case of longer lenses, aberrations that get magnified along with the rest of the scene and thus become more obvious.

 

So for a given aperture and other specs, a wide or long lens will almost always cost more than a "normal" lens with the same specs otherwise. It takes more effort and expertise and more exotic materials to build them.

 

Add to that the fact that generally, a manufacturer will sell more normal lenses than any particular long or wide lens, so the costs of development get spread over more units. Leica is a little unusual in that the "ethos" makes either a 35 or a 50 "normal" in the rangefinder world, and there is not really a "kit lens" except maybe the 50 Summicron. But for Nikons (when single focal lengths were still the norm), a 35 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.4 usually cost twice or more what the basic 50 f/1.4 that came with the camera cost. Nikon probably sold ten 50mm lenses for every 35 or 85.

 

Nikon still makes 50 and 35 f/1.4s: 50mm = $400.00, 35mm = $1,500. Imagine if the Leica 35 f/1.4 cost 3.75x as much as the 50 Summilux (or, $14,231.00)!!!!

Edited December 14, 2016 by adan

[luigi bertolotti]

Well... in marketing terms, let's say that a WA can be priced more than a corresponding normal.. and it has been frequently like this... just as a curios, 4995 to 3795 is about 30% more... the French Catalog of 1961 does report 1387 FrF vs. 1086, again 30% more, for Summilux 35 vs. Summilux 50... and back again, before the Summilux era, US Catalog of 1953 says 102 $ vs. 68 for Summaron 35 3,5 vs, Elmar 50 3,5...

 

(but exception have existed... in Germany, 1968, the Summilux 50 costed a bit MORE than the Summilux 35...)

Edited December 14, 2016 by luigi bertolotti

[jaapv]

The wider the lens, the more demanding the tolerances in lens polishing and the corresponding lens mount. Hence the price difference.

[semi-ambivalent]

You also have to factor in cost of any specialty glasses involved in the formula. But really, once the design is set there is no increase in design costs, and computer controlled machines crank out lens elements with relentless precision. Costs might vary in the output/mistakes of the assemblers but those are certainly monitored and controlled.

 

But a non-trivial portion of the cost is user perception. 35mm has long been presented as the "ideal" focal length for a Leica and accepted as a solid choice for a one-lens kit. With just one lens having a usable f/1.4 can be quite beneficial even if your photography rarely 'needs' anything faster than 2.8 or 4. Finally, 1.4:35s (Summiluxes here) are sexy; they have acquired a certain cachet that plays out in lots of gear forums (I can still buy new a MF 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor AiS as an only-semi-special order from Nikon). I have seen here in the forum a poster's new 50mm Summicron, all $2,200.00 of it, referred to as a "good beginner's lens". The 35 Summilux is, by all reckoning, a great lens but don't kid yourself; the noses in Wetzler are sometimes held a little high.

 

s-a

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

[...] 4995 to 3795 is about 30% more... the French Catalog of 1961 does report 1387 FrF vs. 1086, again 30% more, for Summilux 35 vs. Summilux 50... and back again, before the Summilux era, US Catalog of 1953 says 102 $ vs. 68 for Summaron 35 3,5 vs, Elmar 50 3,5...

(but exception have existed... in Germany, 1968, the Summilux 50 costed a bit MORE than the Summilux 35...)

 

According to my french tarifs about 20% more from 2006 to 2010 and 33% more from 2011 to 2015 since the launch of the 35/1.4 FLE. Now 28%.

[tobey bilek]

MSRP has nothing to do with cost to manufacture.   Has everything to with what people will pay.  Not just Leica.

 

If you went to business school, you would know this.

[michaelwj]

MSRP has nothing to do with cost to manufacture.   Has everything to with what people will pay.  Not just Leica.

 

If you went to business school, you would know this.

 

 

Provided the MSRP is above the cost of manufacture of course 

[luigi bertolotti]

Provided the MSRP is above the cost of manufacture of course 

...plus development costs to amortize... when they had their own glass lab, they developed a very special glass for one of the 3 elements of the Telyt-S 800... a cost which was amortized on 109 items sold...

(they developed also a glass for the Summicron 50... and numbers were different.. )

[tobey bilek]

As an example,  at one point a Cadillac cost $400 more to make than a Chevy.  Yet cost double.  

 

At one point I had an employee who transferred from Cadillac.  He cited spark plugs cost double at the Caddy dealer compared to Chevy,  but were the very same GM part # 

[semi-ambivalent]

As an example,  at one point a Cadillac cost $400 more to make than a Chevy.  Yet cost double.  

 

At one point I had an employee who transferred from Cadillac.  He cited spark plugs cost double at the Caddy dealer compared to Chevy,  but were the very same GM part # 

I once new a woman who mail-ordered a part requested by her mechanic for her Volvo DL 240. When it arrived it was a Volvo part box inside of which was a Subaru part box inside of which was the actual part. Molded, printed and invoice numbers conferred it was no prank. This was the mid- to late 1970s.

 

s-a

[Jeff S]

You also have to factor in cost of any specialty glasses involved in the formula.

 

Indeed, as Peter Karbe explains the construction and cost of the 50 Summilux ASPH....   http://www.shutterbug.com/content/leica-lens-saga-interview-peter-karbe-page-2#B2LYdBJTvD8JVXTK.97    

 

An excerpt...

 

"Establishing a balance between factors, including performance, size, choice of the appropriate glasses, and production tolerances, required lots of patient development work and numerous experiments and trials. For example, the glass I chose for lens element 3 is of crucial importance in minimizing the secondary color aberration. This glass, formerly made at the Leitz glass laboratory, was for a long time offered by another supplier who had taken over its production. But they had stopped making it, so I had to “encourage” another German glassmaker to literally reinvent this glass type. Today this glass is extremely expensive. Indeed, the material for this lens element alone costs as much as the glass used in all the other lens elements of the Summilux 50mm f/1.4 ASPH! In short, optical design software, as useful as it can be, will not help in choosing the appropriate glass types, especially those used to minimize secondary chromatic aberration."

 

Jeff

[adan]

As an example,  at one point a Cadillac cost $400 more to make than a Chevy.  Yet cost double.  

 

At one point I had an employee who transferred from Cadillac.  He cited spark plugs cost double at the Caddy dealer compared to Chevy,  but were the very same GM part # 

 

Sure - but a Cadillac is generally a badge-engineered Chevy to begin with (as was demonstrated when Caddy accidentally shipped some cars with the "Chevrolet"-stamped valve covers still in place).

 

If a 35mm Summilux ASPH was simply a 50mm Summilux with different engraving - and tailfins - then your example would apply. I doubt that is the case.

[pico]

Bottom line, any time you move away from the "normal" range for lenses (for 35mm film or equivalent sensor size, about 42-55mm focal length), the lenses are being asked to do more. In the case of wide-angles like the 35 and 21, bend the light more without aberrations, and in the case of longer lenses, aberrations that get magnified along with the rest of the scene and thus become more obvious.

 

 

You should try the CV 10mm, then post,

Edited December 17, 2016 by pico

[michaelwj]

 

 

 

You should try the CV 10mm, then post,

The compromise in this case is of course the maximum aperture. Can you imagine the size if it was a well corrected f/1.4!