StephenPatterson Posted May 14, 2012 Share #261 Posted May 14, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) The quality of glass used in the .95 is entirely different than in the lux, for example. That's just not accurate. The cost is higher for several of the larger 0.95 Noctilux elements, due in no small part to the long cycle time to cool the glass, but to say the quality is entirely different (and by different I take it you mean "better") than the lux is wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 14, 2012 Posted May 14, 2012 Hi StephenPatterson, Take a look here New Summicron. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
TshawM8 Posted May 14, 2012 Share #262 Posted May 14, 2012 Or a combination. I do agree the M8 brought some level of price increase to the products. I doubt it is the only explanation for them though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 14, 2012 Share #263 Posted May 14, 2012 Or a combination. I do agree the M8 brought some level of price increase to the products. I doubt it is the only explanation for them though. I didn't mean to imply that it was the sole explanation, but as I wrote I feel that it had more of an effect than an increase in production costs over the period. Since I don't have those costs it's all speculation on my part. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted May 14, 2012 Share #264 Posted May 14, 2012 6000, whatever. The point of my argument is that if people of the so-called middle class in the first or even second world tend to go skiing, eat in restaurants, buy BMW cars, jewelry for their wives, the list is endless, buying an expensive lens is not exorbitant. Here in the US, middle-class would not typically be able to afford any of the things you mention, but that's just a matter of differing definitions. Of all the physicians, attorneys, dentists, and businessmen I know (and I know a lot!) who go skiing, eat in restaurants, buy BMW (and similar-priced) cars, and jewelry for their wives, I know only one beside myself who buys expensive camera gear. The rest, if I answer them truthfully as to how much my M9 cost, look at me like I'm out of my mind. But even I and that one doctor who shares my appreciation for fine photo equipment have a limit to what even we are willing to consider, and the majority of Leica's catalogue is now well past that limit. For something I use a week at a time 3-4 times a year, a $7000 lens just doesn't appeal to my sense of value. For others it may. It's not always and only a matter of financial ability. We all have our own priorities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
agrokid Posted May 14, 2012 Share #265 Posted May 14, 2012 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). Oh! Come on! Ownership is not the point at all. It's about "brand image" to use a bit of modern marketing speak. Please stop pushing your point of view down all out throats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted May 14, 2012 Share #266 Posted May 14, 2012 The question is, is the Apo, at three times the price, actually three times as good? You know it isn't. But that was and is to be expected. As Jaap has correctly pointed out, improving optical performance of a lens that was long considered one of if not the best standard lens in the world is very difficult, and certainly doesn't come cheap. Prices rise exponentially when you wish to obtain that little extra quality on top of an already excellent product. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 14, 2012 Share #267 Posted May 14, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Please stop pushing your point of view down all out throats. Errr, it's a forum, that's what happens on forums - as you yourself showed in the sentence that proceeded the one I quoted above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted May 14, 2012 Share #268 Posted May 14, 2012 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. I love my Leica and want Leica to suceed like most on this forum. I just hope they show balance with products and pricing over the medium term. No one knows outside of Leica whether or not they are putting margins on products to maximise short term profits, stats and financial reports don't provide that level of colour I may buy a Noctilux one day, but I do doubt I'll justify £5,400 on a very sharp 50mm F2, but hey I stand to be corrected as no pictures out there yet to really tempt. I don't feel ripped off by Leica but prices are moving into the can I justify for an enthusiast. Whatever metric you apply the model pricing is relativley more expensive than it was which from a punters perspective is a shame. I might have had a Noctilux by now ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 14, 2012 Share #269 Posted May 14, 2012 Sorry, my friend. This forum is open for all opinions. It is not good form to try and silence an opposing voice. Oh! Come on! Ownership is not the point at all. It's about "brand image" to use a bit of modern marketing speak. Please stop pushing your point of view down all out throats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted May 14, 2012 Share #270 Posted May 14, 2012 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. It is quite funny - in the days since 10 May I've occasionally felt that my Summilux Asph was quite inexpensive. Funny how one's perception may change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 14, 2012 Share #271 Posted May 14, 2012 I'm looking forward to seeing shots from the new MM/Summicron combo, including over-processing in SFX, added vignette in PP, and all the rest. Should be real winners Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 14, 2012 Share #272 Posted May 14, 2012 It is quite funny - in the days since 10 May I've occasionally felt that my Summilux Asph was quite inexpensive. Funny how one's perception may change. That's the power of marketing, for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted May 14, 2012 Share #273 Posted May 14, 2012 no pictures out there yet to really tempt It's pretty funny that the one photo Leica shows on its site as taken with this new f/2 lens has motion blur. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 14, 2012 Share #274 Posted May 14, 2012 Look no further, that was exactly what the presentation shots were Quite impressive photographic art - very 1940/50-ies Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJDrew Posted May 14, 2012 Share #275 Posted May 14, 2012 It's pretty funny that the one photo Leica shows on its site as taken with this new f/2 lens has motion blur. It's definitely Medium Format quality motion blur. Look more closely. First, I really get a kick out of Lars. It appears that many of the reactions to this 50/2 lens come from a place of speculation as to Leica's motive and direction as much as feelings about he lens itself. Is this simply a "We did this because we can!" product? Meant to cement their position as capable of technical marvels (regardless of their practical merits) Is this a message to many potential customers that the M line is "not for you?" Are they establishing a bar in terms of premium pricing for the whole M line - with the goal to make it increasingly inaccessible to all but a small cross section of photographers? Are they making space for a still-amazingly-expensive mirrorless system with a lower price point? Are they simply milking the cow? (You know, the cash cow) The lens itself is surely something special. Surely it's doubtful that there are but a handful of photographers that need this lens to achieve their goals - but that's okay. It feels nice to have the best. The medium-format comparisons are just silly to anyone who has used MF systems. More interesting, however, is what this move represents for the Leica brand - and the answer is surely more complex than any one reaction can embody:o. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 14, 2012 Share #276 Posted May 14, 2012 and the watch I liked most in the jewelers window turned out to have a price tag of 409.000 Euro... Did you buy it? That is how I felt when I was in Neiman Marcus and they had a rack of ties starting at $125. Now I can afford to spend $125 on a whim but I couldn't justify the price for this item. Could this be how many feel about Leica gear? I figured they had about a half a million dollars worth of ties alone so there seem to be enough customers who don't see the price as a factor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted May 14, 2012 Share #277 Posted May 14, 2012 I believe that Leica has identified their new target demographic for M mount cameras and lenses...Seal. Unfortunately for Leica's marketing department not many people walk into the Leica Shop in Vienna and drop $150K in one afternoon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 14, 2012 Share #278 Posted May 14, 2012 I've been trying to picture what the response would be if a 50 f2 lens the same quality as this was made by Voigtlander, Canon, or Nikon and was being sold at the same price. Would there be a market for it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
40mm f/2 Posted May 14, 2012 Share #279 Posted May 14, 2012 The basic design (3 +5 lens elements) FLE etc. are similar between the Summilux and the new Summicron. There may be different and more expensive glass used but otherwise I don't see any reason for a difference in production costs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 14, 2012 Share #280 Posted May 14, 2012 The difference is that the design target for the 35 FLE was to make a lens that was as close as possible to the 35 ASPH but without the focus shift and the design target for the Apo-Summicron was to make the best 50 mm lens that humankind can craft. That makes a magnitude of difference in the tolerances required - and a substantial difference in the resulting price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.