stunsworth Posted May 14, 2012 Share #241 Posted May 14, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Quite apart from the fact that the prices of the optical glass they use has risen dramatically, sometimes by hundreds of percents. Some of the lens elements up to thousand Euro each. At the end of the day it's up to Leica to decide what price they want to sell their lenses - and bodies for - and I have no problem with that. On a personal level I regret the fact that they are moving to a price when I can no longer even consider buying most of what they produce. As I say it's Leica's call, but I can't help feeling that they are now selling equipment for what they can get away with rather than for a reasonable return on the production and development costs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 14, 2012 Posted May 14, 2012 Hi stunsworth, Take a look here New Summicron. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Phil U Posted May 14, 2012 Share #242 Posted May 14, 2012 In the meantime, no-one has lost out by the release of the new 50 Summicron I think the concern is that people will eventually lose out by the release of the new summicron insofar that the old one will be cancelled in due course. At that point, if you would like a summicron but are priced out of the market then you have lost out. And it doesn't sound great for Leica if for those wanting a 50mm f2 the solution for many of their users is to "go buy Zeiss". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
agrokid Posted May 14, 2012 Share #243 Posted May 14, 2012 But in order to maintain one's position in the superbling segment, it is not enough just to offer superexpensive products. This was not how Leica made its reputation. It was made by offering serious and innovative products for working photographers. I wonder if you're right. Consider Rolls-Royce. The current Phantom is a magnificent car, and priced accordingly, much like the new Summicron. But when did Rolls offer a car priced for "working" drivers? Even their smaller cars were always far beyond the means of most people. So, if you aim to provide superbling I'm not sure it's necessary to enter the "working" market at all. To do so might even be counter productive by damaging your image. "Working" photographers nowadays, are mostly "professional" photographers, and very few of them use Leica, and Leica knows this, and clearly doesn't care. Leica has positioned itself as a luxury brand, like Rolls, and Hermes, and Pateke Philippe, and others. There will always be a market for such things. It's a pretty good business to be in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 14, 2012 Share #244 Posted May 14, 2012 OK but such a price for a 50/2 is simply not in the tradition of Leica or any other camera brand IINW. Again i don't see any problem here as long as the current 50/2 is available but even middle-class guys like yours truly would be furious if it had to disappear the same way as the 24/2.8 asph did to be replaced by a slower lens, which is not in Leica's tradition either. Indeed that's the point that leaves to me some doubt on the real market potential of the new Summicron : I find difficult that it proves to be such a stellar performer to represent a definitive step-up on lenses like the Lux asph , or the Cron 75 AA, or the Lux24... in a way such that , in due course, Leica will renovate its lenses' line with items that leave all the current products "in the dust", all aligned with the new Summicron in term of price: will be like this their strategy ? To reposition , starting from this lens, all the M product line , "M10" included, around prices that make a honest body + 4 lenses set a 35-40 K Euro combo ? I think this would be too much... it would be really just to toy with luxury and super rich people... I frankly hope it won't be so... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 14, 2012 Share #245 Posted May 14, 2012 At the end of the day it's up to Leica to decide what price they want to sell their lenses - and bodies for - and I have no problem with that. On a personal level I regret the fact that they are moving to a price when I can no longer even consider buying most of what they produce. As I say it's Leica's call, but I can't help feeling that they are now selling equipment for what they can get away with rather than for a reasonable return on the production and development costs. Sure, but their last financial reports are those of a healthy company, not a price-gouging one. So I think it is still in the range of a reasonable return. And their financial power to absorb setbacks must still be very fragile. It needs bolstering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted May 14, 2012 Share #246 Posted May 14, 2012 Even if they decide to drop the regular Summicron in a while, there still is the Summarit 50mm, and it is even cheaper than the regular Summicron. I guess the "fear" is based on a feeling that there "ought to exist" a standard f/2 lens between the Summarit and the Summilux. To release an f/2 lens at this price level has upset expectations. I'm sure Leica considered the eminent image quality of the Summarit in deciding to release such an expensive Summicron. I'm also sure sales of the 50 Summilux Asph and the 50 Summarit will increase as a result. And I believe that Noctilux sales will decrease. Still, as Leica digital M cameras' ISO performance begins to catch up with that of more mainstream brands owning an f/2 lens may be sufficient for low light photography. Esoteric/exotic lenses which push the boundaries of technology are there for those who want or need them. That technology and expertise, as in all other areas, eventually filters down to improve 'everyday' products. Look at the improved optical performance of Leica's standard lenses compared to the esoterica of last century. So we all benefit in the long run. In the meantime, no-one has lost out by the release of the new 50 Summicron, and most importantly our current lenses have lost none of their quality since May 10. One can still buy Leica's more modestly priced but superb standard lenses, including the Summarits, with outstanding results...(and of course there are the excellent Zeiss offerings). True, we do benefit in the long run and that also goes for other fields, like the non-stick frying pan resulting from the Moon programme. It can be a while, though, before the benefits of the development of this particular Summicron are seen in other lenses. Production of the "cheap" current 50 Summicron will cease, that is certain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 14, 2012 Share #247 Posted May 14, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Steve, you are right. I don't know what I was thinking at the moment. Old age thing, perhaps. That's scary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted May 14, 2012 Share #248 Posted May 14, 2012 To be honest, and perhaps not entirely rational, I think my irritation is not with Leica who I'm glad are making both the world's best lenses and a profit to enable them to do so, but with the the people who immediately announce they're swapping their previous world's-best lenses for this one. Why should it irritate me though? Is it because it reminds me that, since all prices are determined by supply and demand, these are the people who, by their knee-jerk reactions and spontaneous demand for something that yesterday they didn't want, (let alone need), are helping to make new Leica products so hard for so many people to afford? As I said, it may not be entirely rational. But its not entirely irrational either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 14, 2012 Share #249 Posted May 14, 2012 Same as "I see no reason to upgrade from an M9 to an M9P. But I'm going to do so anyway" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 14, 2012 Share #250 Posted May 14, 2012 I wonder if you're right. Consider Rolls-Royce [ ... ] And pray, who owns Rolls Royce Cars now?* The brand itself could not survive on its own even in its extremely exclusive market, and has now itself become a piece of bling. The old man from the Kodachrome Age * Quote from Wikipedia: Rolls-Royce Motors, the car division comprising the Rolls-Royce and Bentley brands, separated from Rolls-Royce Limited in 1973. The company (now called Bentley Motors Limited) was acquired by Volkswagen in 1998, with the Rolls-Royce brand separately licensed (by Rolls-Royce plc) to BMW to establish a new car company (Rolls-Royce Motor Cars). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TshawM8 Posted May 14, 2012 Share #251 Posted May 14, 2012 I was not on this forum when the Noct .95 was announced but, out of curiosity, was there a similar sentiment in terms of its price? I feel like, even with the recent price increase, Leica will always get away with murder when pricing that lens because everyone is too enamored with its speed. Aren't many of the specifications of the new Cron just as impressive? The only reason there is such uproar is the price increase from the last Cron. They are two different lenses, the first of which should be expected to be that much cheaper! The design alone, it is a superb lens to avoid misunderstanding, is nothing spectacular and doesn't warrant a price anywhere near the new Cron. I like to think of this in terms of watches (my other hobby): Luxury watch manufacturers offer different varieties of the same watch (Omega's seamaster, for example). One that is automatic will be priced differently than one with a co-axial movement although at face value they may appear the same. This is also true with chronometers. I like to think of the new Cron in a similar way: its internal components and the assumed time and cost to make it, justify its price in my eyes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 14, 2012 Share #252 Posted May 14, 2012 I'm not convinced the convoluted workings of automotive corporations are a good example. This is a gordian knot of ties between huge international firms. Once you think who owns whom for a certain brand, it suddenly turns out that through all knds of companies sombody else, sometimes even the original company owns the alledged mother company... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 14, 2012 Share #253 Posted May 14, 2012 I was not on this forum when the Noct .95 was announced but, out of curiosity, was there a similar sentiment in terms of its price? Noctilux lenses have always been extreme in speed and very very expensive. Because there has been no other lens that did what they did. So an extreme price was expected. But for Chrissake, this is a 50mm f:2 – the most unassuming, petty-bourgeois specification in the entire camera business. How divinely, extragalactically, unimaginably good does such a lens have to be to justify that price? Would it not demand MTF figures in excess of 100%? The old man from the Kodachrome Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haroldp Posted May 14, 2012 Share #254 Posted May 14, 2012 The two Summicrons occupy vastly different positions in the marketplace by virtue of their price, and it is inconceivable to me that Leica will abandon the market niche filled by the current (non-apo) Summicron. The Auto analogy Is Ferrari producing and marketing 8 cyl. Ferraris at 200K + USD and Maserati's at half those prices. .... H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 14, 2012 Share #255 Posted May 14, 2012 The two Summicrons occupy vastly different positions in the marketplace by virtue of their price [ ... ] Nobody doubts that. Their prices are indeed vastly different. The question is, is the Apo, at three times the price, actually three times as good? The old man from the Kodachrome Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 14, 2012 Share #256 Posted May 14, 2012 Noctilux lenses have always been extreme in speed and very very expensive. Because there has been no other lens that did what they did. So an extreme price was expected When I bought my Noctilux new in 2002 it cost roughly what a 50mm Summicron does now. That's the non-APO Summicron obviously. Noctilux was sold on a few years ago Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted May 14, 2012 Share #257 Posted May 14, 2012 But for Chrissake, this is a 50mm f:2 – the most unassuming, petty-bourgeois specification in the entire camera business. How divinely, extragalactically, unimaginably good does such a lens have to be to justify that price? Would it not demand MTF figures in excess of 100%? It's $4000 for the 50 Summilux ASPH which has an aspherical lens and floating element group. Does anyone really believe that this 50/2 costs substantially more in terms of material costs or assembly and test time? Come on people, don't drink the kool-aid!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TshawM8 Posted May 14, 2012 Share #258 Posted May 14, 2012 When I bought my Noctilux new in 2002 it cost roughly what a 50mm Summicron does now. That's the non-APO Summicron obviously. Noctilux was sold on a few years ago Yes, but the noctilux you are referring to is the f/1. I was discussing the .95 - too very different lenses. As for the differences in cost between the lux and this cron - it has already been said that nobody can truly know except for the employees. With that said, I do think production may be more expensive. The element sizes and group are different and the apo elements are (obviously) different. Not the mention the quality of glass used for the elements is, more than likely different. I would guess that many people are going to quickly disagree with this, but it makes sense. The quality of glass used in the .95 is entirely different than in the lux, for example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted May 14, 2012 Share #259 Posted May 14, 2012 The question is, is the Apo, at three times the price, actually three times as good? No, it isn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 14, 2012 Share #260 Posted May 14, 2012 Yes, but the noctilux you are referring to is the f/1. I was discussing the .95 - too very different lenses I was responding to the comment made by Lars about the pricing of the Noctilux in general. One thing that Leica have managed to achieve over the last few years is to make prices that would have been eye watering not too long ago seem eminently reasonable now. That's actually quite an achievement - and probably more a result of the success of the M8 than solely a reflection of changes in manufacturing costs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.