Choosing a fast 50mm lens

[platel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks a lot for the replies...

 

Choices, choices.

 

I have found some interesting secondhand options here in Holland.

 

1. A Summicron 50mm f/2 Type 3 from 1972, which just had a CLA for €650,-
   
2. A Summicron 50mm f/2 Type 2 from 1969, for €525,-
   
3. A Summilux 50mm f/1.4 model 11114 for €950,-
   

 

I have no idea what a wise choice would be. How important is the CLA (additional cost of €90,-). What would be the benefit of a Type 3 over a Type 2 Summicron? Or should I just go for the reasonably priced, old Summilux?

[Xmas]

Here we encounter a real cliché: Japan is cheap. But in all recent statistics I have seen, national income per capita is actually slightly higher in Japan than in Germany. Japan is also a country where income inequalities are far smaller than in the West generally -- not to speak of the extreme inequality in the U.S.A. So you cannot argue that Cosina lenses are made by a downtrodden, half-starving proletariat while the tycoons eat beef from cows that had their individual masseurs ...

 

The fact is that for a long time, routine production, including fairly high-tech production, has been increasingly outsourced to countries like China, Taiwan, Vietnam and now also Indonesia. Why? Because Japan is not cheap. That was in the 1950's and the 1960's. That's the reality lag of most of the cliché-wavers. And the labour in the Cosina factory that makes C/V lenses is not paid less than the labour in the same Cosina factory that makes Zeiss lenses. It is simply that less of it is used to make an average CV lens, than is used in the assembly of a Zeiss-branded lens. And that extra labour is not employed to twirl their thumbs.

 

The old man again

 

nice spurious interjection...

 

The same workers make both CV and ZM lenses, the same machine tools make both ZM and CV lenses, the same robots make both CV and ZM lenses. That is how a Ja factory works, small batches, JIT supplies.

 

Zeiss had a different manufacturer make the Contax G system a decade ago they would not have switched cause it was going to cost Zeiss profit.

 

Cosina can sell SLR lenses for other Ja cameras, the same factory, the same workers, the same machine tools and the same robots.

 

Deming was about total efficiency, for total war in WWII, the Ja adopted it afterwards, sufficoently such that by 1960 Zeiss could not compete in design, marketing or manufacture, with Nikon (Contarex v Nikon F price and volume of sales). I'd say Cosina are more efficient than Nikon today, for specialist lenses, Nikon are focused and competing for DSLR % with Canon et al...

 

Leitz stayed in production post 1960 because they had a niche market place rfdrs and patents.

 

Noel

 

.

[UliWer]

Hi

 

I believe the reason why Zeiss manufacture in Japan is that it is cheaper to manufacture in Japan. Zeiss make more profit getting Cosina to make than making themselves in Ge, i.e. there is 'fat' in the food chain...

 

...

 

I am not sure, whether Cosina lenses for Zeiss or Voigtländer are manufactured in Japan. Japanese labour isn't cheaper any more than in Europe. Cosina has it's seat in Japan but they may well produce elsewhere in south east Asia, probably in China with much, much lower labour costs. Which does not mean that the output should be worse than in Europe or in Japan.

 

The other important factor for lens prices is - evidently - glass. The top Leica lenses need very specific sorts of glass which is only produced for Leica and nobody else. This means very high costs for very low amounts of glass - and a lot of problems for the supply chain as we see at the moment for lenses like the 50lux asph. Cosina may be able to use glass sorts which are produced in much higher amounts for many different needs, so they can reduce their costs very effectively.

 

We see the same if we look at the differences between the M-Summarits and the other M-lenses. Labour costs for the Summarits should be the same, but the difference will be in the glass. Another example is the 2.8/28 asph. compared to it's non-asph. precedessor: the newer lens came on the market cheaper than the old one! I don't know the facts but I am almost sure, that the lower price was possible because Leica could use cheaper glass for the lens - in spite of (or because of?) using aspherical elements.

[Xmas]

Thanks a lot for the replies...

 

Choices, choices.

 

I have found some interesting secondhand options here in Holland.

 

1. A Summicron 50mm f/2 Type 3 from 1972, which just had a CLA for €650,-
   
2. A Summicron 50mm f/2 Type 2 from 1969, for €525,-
   
3. A Summilux 50mm f/1.4 model 11114 for €950,-
   

 

I have no idea what a wise choice would be. How important is the CLA (additional cost of €90,-). What would be the benefit of a Type 3 over a Type 2 Summicron? Or should I just go for the reasonably priced, old Summilux?

 

The type III is a higher contrast lens, almost on a par with the type IV, At 5.6 it will be better in resolution than the type II or lux, but you might never detect the resolution difference. The lux has an extra stop - if you take poor light shots.

 

You need to inspect each of the lenses conta jour for mist or scratches, bargin or walk away if any.

 

Some lenses never need servicing some need repeated servicing.

 

Noel

[Xmas]

I am not sure, whether Cosina lenses for Zeiss or Voigtländer are manufactured in Japan. Japanese

 

labour isn't cheaper any more than in Europe. Cosina has it's seat in Japan but they may well produce elsewhere in south

 

east Asia, probably in China with much, much lower labour costs. Which does not mean that the output should be worse than

 

in Europe or in Japan.

Zeiss make some of the ZM lenses in Ge, the remainder they get Conina a Ja company to make, I believe the critical point is

 

Cosina have free access to the Ja patent pool, as they are a Ja company... otherwise patents cost money.

The other important factor for lens prices is - evidently - glass. The top Leica lenses need very specific sorts of glass

 

which is only produced for Leica and nobody else. This means very high costs for very low amounts of glass - and a lot of

 

problems for the supply chain as we see at the moment for lenses like the 50lux asph. Cosina may be able to use glass sorts

 

which are produced in much higher amounts for many different needs, so they can reduce their costs very effectively.

optical glass is dear (unlike window glass) but cost of glass is small fraction of lens production cost. I think Cosina have their own glass manufacture and Leica sold their lab, but that would only be a small % advantage.

We see the same if we look at the differences between the M-Summarits and the other M-lenses. Labour costs for the

 

Summarits should be the same, but the difference will be in the glass. Another example is the 2.8/28 asph. compared to it's

 

non-asph. precedessor: the newer lens came on the market cheaper than the old one! I don't know the facts but I am almost

 

sure, that the lower price was possible because Leica could use cheaper glass for the lens - in spite of (or because of?)

 

using aspherical elements.

f/2.5 would be cheaper then f/2, as : aberration is dependent on aperature, later design allows later optical catalogue to be used, & production would have had more experience, so cheaper. The 28m asph element and later glass would have allowed the lens to be smaller and cheaper, the non-asph may have been difficult to manufacture, hence expensive.

 

The best analogy is leica are making boxters and Cosina Mx-5s, lower volume, more expensive, more performance.

[giordano]

Noel, what is this Japanese patent pool of which you speak, and what does it contain? I ask you because Google, Bing and Wikipedia don't seem able to explain.

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks a lot for the replies...

 

Choices, choices.

 

I have found some interesting secondhand options here in Holland.

 

1. A Summicron 50mm f/2 Type 3 from 1972, which just had a CLA for €650,-
   
2. A Summicron 50mm f/2 Type 2 from 1969, for €525,-
   
3. A Summilux 50mm f/1.4 model 11114 for €950,-
   

I have no idea what a wise choice would be. How important is the CLA (additional cost of €90,-). What would be the benefit of a Type 3 over a Type 2 Summicron? Or should I just go for the reasonably priced, old Summilux?

 

For me the wise choice is #1 : a Summicron 3rd type just CLAed (with proper receipt) is a lens one can be confident at all; with Summilux...

1) You pay more

2) Anytime you use at at f2 on, you'll think "i could have spared 300€ to get the same"

3) Anytime you process a pic taken at 1,4, you probably will think "well, I could have started with 300€ my saving for an asph"

4) And if your saving for the asph goes slowly... well you started the saving for a Nokton 1,1 with 1/3 of the sum... ... and with a Summicron in your bag.

 

A good Summicron is a lens one hardly regret to have bought, period.

[pico]

Noel, what is this Japanese patent pool of which you speak, and what does it contain? I ask you because Google, Bing and Wikipedia don't seem able to explain.

 

Companies pool resources to share specific patents between themselves for a number of reasons, mainly to support the awesomely expensive process of defending patents: they might trade rights, or share rights to avoid expensive litigation.

 

Regarding the Japanese flavor, well the Japanese Patent Office has an interest in advancing 'Japanese Branding' of patents, and certainly for national economic interests.

 

The US Government did the same in the past: fostered patent pools in order to break gridlocked manufacture and extraordinarily high prices of patent object caused because only a few companies held certain critical patents.

[lars_bergquist]

I am not sure, whether Cosina lenses for Zeiss or Voigtländer are manufactured in Japan. Japanese labour isn't cheaper any more than in Europe. Cosina has it's seat in Japan but they may well produce elsewhere in south east Asia, probably in China with much, much lower labour costs. Which does not mean that the output should be worse than in Europe or in Japan.

 

For what it is worth, the engraving on both my 18mm Distagon and my 25mm Biogon says "Lens made in Japan". Which must mean at least the final assembly, which is what I was discussing.

 

But I agree about the glass -- at least to a certain extent. I do not know anything really about the breakdown of either Cosina-proper or Zeiss or Leica manufacturing, but it is a factor of course. How relatively important it is is anybody's guess. But my impression is that labour and plant (capital) costs dominate.

 

The old man from the Age of Crown and Flint