Leica lens pricing

[Clandrel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

Just wondering...

Why is i.e a 35mm Summicron much cheaper than the 28mm?

Why is the 35mm Summilux that much more expensive than the 50mm Summilux?

 

Does anyone know how and why Leica prices their models like this? Is it much more expensive to produce the 35 lux than the 50? Or cheaper production for the 35 cron than the 28 version? Is it market demand, production costs or other elements that sets their prices?

 

/c

[Advertisement]

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

[adan]

The pattern is that the closer a lens is to the "normal" range, the easier it is to design at a given aperture, and the cheaper it is to build (on the whole)

 

Covering a wider view already stresses the optics (note how many cheap P&S zooms have gross barrel distortion at the wide end, or color fringing, or just plain fuzzy corners). So building a wider lens at the same aperture requires perhaps double the optical sophistication.

 

Consider Canon EOS - 35 f/1.4 is about 4x(!) as much as a 50 f/1.4, 28 f/1.8 is about 39% more than the 35 f/2 (bigger difference proportionally than between the Leica 35 and 28).

 

If anything, the RELATIVE price difference between Leica lenses of different specs is usually rather small - mostly due to the fact that as hand-made items, they are going to start from an expensive labor-cost base in any case.

 

The same is true going long - a 75 or 90 f/2 is more expensive than a 50 f/2, partly due to optical issues (getting rid of CA) and partly due to simply needing more of everything (glass, metal, etc).

 

Now - there are also market forces, too. People naturally assume the bland "normal" lens range will be the cheap "kit" lens. And in fact that is why Leica says they can't do an ASPH version of the 50 f/2 - they need a basic quote-cheap-unquote starter lens in the lineup.

 

Also, more "normal" lenses are generally sold, which spreads costs over more units, and reduces the cost per lens. Although there is something of a chicken-and-egg effect there - people might buy more 28 'crons if they were the same price as 35 'crons.

 

Finally - at least in the case of the 28 vs 35 'crons, the case can be made that the 28 'cron is not only wider, but a better lens overall. Significantly sharper in the corners than the 35 @ f/2-f/5.6. And requires two more (expensive) glass elements. And is bigger/heavier (more brass, literally and figuratively ).

[Clandrel]

Great answers!

 

It makes sense, even though I'm not sure I believe the 28mm 2.0 is 35-40% more expensive to produce than the 35...

 

And why then, if a normal lens is less expensive to produce, is the Noctilux THAT expensive?

 

/c

[adan]

I'm not sure I believe the 28mm 2.0 is 35-40% more expensive to produce than the 35...

 

Well, 33% per B&H's prices today ($3,000 vs. $4,000). And as to actual costs, nobody knows but Leica.

 

It costs no more to make a 16 x 20 print from one of my negatives (about $10 in paper and chemicals) than it does to make one from a Gene Smith or Ansel Adams negative. But on the marketplace, people will pay a much higher price for their prints than mine (sigh!). So quality (however defined) has an effect on price, not just costs.

 

People who like wide views may be willing to pay extra for a 28 over a 35 of the same aperture. Even if it costs Leica exactly the same to make a 28 'cron or a 35 'cron, why should they not charge according to what the market will pay?

 

And why then, if a normal lens is less expensive to produce, is the Noctilux THAT expensive?

 

f/0.95. All other things being equal, there is an exponential increase in optical aberrations with every stop increase in lens aperture. So there has to be a corresponding exponential increase in optical sophistication. By strange coincidence Leica's 50mm lens prices go up pretty close to exponentially with aperture - see chart. I imagine a 35 f/0.95 would cost as much more than the 50 Nocti as does a 35 f/1.4 over a 50 f/1.4 (maybe more!).

 

In the final analysis, Leica (or any company) will first price their products at least at what it costs them to make them (materials, R&D, labor, service/shipping overhead, etc.) - and then an additional amount based on what they think the "market" will pay. I doubt an M9Ti COSTS 3.2 times as much to make as a basic M9 - but that had nothing to do with the PRICE - at which it still sold out overnight.

 

Or in other words, productions costs are a price FLOOR - not a CEILING.

[pico]

Imagine what a f1/.7 for full frame 35mm would cost! Your chart would have to be three times taller, but no wider.

 

(btw - Voigtland has a 25mm f/.95 coming this month - for micro 4/3)

[richfx]

Excellent analysis and explanation, Andy.

Rich

[archinaut]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think it must have something to do with the number of elements in the lens - more grinding, polishing, assembly, and quality assurance.

35mm Summicron = 7 elements, 28mm Summicron = 9 elements.

35mm Summilux = 9 elements, 50mm Summilux = 8 elements.

[marknorton]

Good analysis from Andy; we don't have a lot of points to plot but, in round numbers, the price (that is not to say the production cost) doubles for each extra f-stop with a floor level for the slowest lenses and a premium for the fastest ones.

 

It's not just a case of counting elements because not all elements are created equal. One of the elements of the 50mm Summilux ASPH is said to cost more than the rest of them put together. It's not entirely a matter of material cost either. Leica used to trumpet that the glass for their lens elements cost more than solid silver which, if you worked it out, wasn't mujch compared to the price of the lens.

 

Far more than camera production, Leica's lens production is a great example of adding value. Taking a collection of relatively inexpensive and otherwise not immediately useful materials and turning it into a world class lens is what Leica brings to the party.