New Summicron

[IWC Doppel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, I did. At no point does he compare and contrast the differences between the methods used to test elements of each lens for any flaw. Additionally, I feel as though I should remind you that I am simply relaying information stated by a Leica employee. I was privy to this information due to the fact that I work at a camera shop who has a strong relationship with Leica (i.e. they just sent S2's and all four S lenses to our shop for a demo class allowing students to use the camera at a nearby location).

 

Quite. It works beyond compare on the M9 sensor and you can tell that it's like no other lens (closest being 75mm APO) in the current system.

 

Tell me more I will never be able to justify or afford but very interested in what the pictures are like and how they compare to other 50's

[wok64]

While I don´t like the price of the new Summicron either, I find the comments about Leica drifting into a wrong direction off the mark. Let´s face it, the Leica M is a camera for enthusiasts and wealthy collectors and it was just that since quite a while. Leica used - and still uses - it as a cash cow to create the money it needs to develop new products like the S and the X series. The aim of achieving a 1% market share is not achievable with the Leica M series, even if they were pricing the new Summicron at 70$, just because far less than 1% of photographers are willing to deal with a rangefinder.

 

The S series was a smart move into a market segment where Leica could profit from it´s reputation of high quality products, By competing with companys which are niche players themselves the problem of having to catch up with autofocus technology was managable. Trying to compete with Canikon in the "fullframe" DSLR market would have been a disaster instead.

 

With the X series Leica could profit from its Leica M experience of integrating large sensors into small cameras while gaining additional knowledge in the area of AF-lenses and CMOS sensors. Now everything is set for the X-body with exchangable AF-lenses. If Leica wants to become successful in the digital world, they have to turn the X-series into the long term cash-cow, because this is the only system suitable for a mass market. Leica has to try to catch up with the main players and make the X-series competitive as long as the M-series is doing well. To me it´s fairly clear that Leica either succeeds with the X-series or goes down in flames. Neither the M- nor the S-series will remain relevant enough to keep Leica alive.

 

I hope they succeed.

[k-hawinkler]

What are the chances of sony producing a FF Nex soon?

 

 

I don't know. Hopefully soon.

[SteveYork]

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.

 

There's been a price increase of about 100-150% on stuff in the last decade. Some of it's inflation. Some of it's higher costs of production. But lots of it's demand. How do we know? After the M8 was released, and all these new players came into the fold, the price of everything just went up, up and up. Now I don't begrudge a company doing that, that's just business, and a small company like Leica needs to make money while they can, because tomorrow may be a different day, BUT EVERY MAN DESERVES HIS SUMMICRON!

[wattsy]

like no other lens (closest being 75mm APO)

 

Does that mean it flares badly whenever you point it anywhere near a light source?

[thighslapper]

Having read all 17 pages of this meandering thread it strikes me that most of you have lost the plot.......

 

a). Leica makes stuff to make money

 

. All high end brands need a 'flagship product' that shows why they are the market leader in their particular niche ...... that's what the 50/2 Asph is .... it's a statement, not a mass market product.

 

c). The M9M is a product 'life extender' as a stop-gap till the M10 is ready. I'd take the 'back to basics' excuse with a large pinch of salt. It's a low investment tactic and if they don't sell many I suspect they wont lose any sleep over it.

 

Both will be low volume sales and are designed as brand name enhancers rather than sources of dosh.

 

Get real guys, Leica isn't a charity working for Rangefinder junkies.....

 

If I have cash burning a hole in my pocket I may buy them..... more out of curiosities sake..... but it won't be because I need them.

 

By contrast the new 21/3.4 is astonishingly good .... obviously so ... and reasonably priced as well.......

[wok64]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What are the chances of sony producing a FF Nex soon?

 

Since the E-mount lenses don´t cover full frame it´s not going to happen. Maybe there is a full frame A-mount mirrorless camera coming up at some point.

[IkarusJohn]

Going back a bit:

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?

 

I suspect some of Leica's pricing is based on cost. Supply and demand does not set price where demand is relatively inelastic - i.e., at the top end, where rational decision making seems to be secondary to the I want it approach to product selection.

 

The reverse is also true, Peter. If these dilettantes establish or push the demand for the Summicron 50 ASPH, does that mean that the less expensive lenses become more expensive or cease to be available? The fact is, if you're in the market for a Summarit 50, the release of the Summicron ASPH won't have changed the price or availability of the Summarit.

 

Put another way, if there is a mass of good, honest, capable, salt of the earth, "working" photographers out there who don't need the new Summicron, surely they're better off if the Summicron is a success? If the Summarit isn't a success, perhaps there are less of these salt of the earth types than we think. To use the car analogy (usually a bad idea), the latest Audis are astonishingly good, but I'm still very happy in my VW. The success of the Bentley, the Bugatti, the Lambourghini, Porsche and Audi is good news for we mere mortal VW, Seat & Skoda drivers ...

 

Also, I had thought that the new Summicron ASPH was the first in a new line of lenses providing higher resolution from the traditional 35 mm format for higher resolution sensors. It's release with the Monochrom seemed to indicate that this standard of lens was necessary to make the most of the new camera. Presumably, the demands of the M10 will be likewise, so we may see more of these high performing lenses.

 

Not sure what that says about creating a gap between the M Rangefinder and the X2, for a new mirrorless line ...

 

I can see the problem of this lens being an indicator of a trend at Leica that many (myself included) may see as pushing prices up across the board. But I'm not sure that's justified, if the lens is really as good as everyone seems to think it is. The only complaint seems to be that it has fantastic performance, but is "only" f/2 (compared to the Summilux). The logic of that escapes me, as I'm not at all sure that there is an automatic link between a fast lens and a high performance lens - as the SEM 21 seems to indicate.

 

Cheers

John

[Peter H]

John, all pricing is based on supply and demand. Except perhaps in North Korea, to an extent.

 

Cost is an influence on the supply side, and is only one of many factors that go into determining a price.

 

I have no problem with the new lens, as I said. Or with the people who'll make good use of it.

 

But I have a bit of an issue with what I perceive to be the semi-rational panic that afflicts some, not all, but some, people to have the nominal best in the world" without their having the faintest notion of how it will actually improve their photography, and quite plausibly very little prospect of its achieving anything whatsoever.

 

And yes, those people, if they in fact exist, would certainly push up the price of the goods in question.

 

How that then affects the prices of a range of other alternative goods is far too complex an equation for me to try to solve at this time of night!

[MarkP]

Speculation about the demise of the original 50 Summicron is purely that..speculation. It has a clear niche both for users and price. The $7000 lens is hardly a substitute for the $2200 lens for almost all users.

 

The range includes:

$1500 2.5/50 Summarit

$2200 2.0/50 Summicron

$4000 1.4/50 Summilux

$7000 2.0/50 Summicron APO ASPH

$11000 0.95/50 Noctilux

 

(Car models have similar price ranges and specs within models, so why not Leica if the demand is there. Most people buy a standard 323i >330i > 335ii, and only a few buy an M3)

 

None of us have any evidence one way or the other regarding discontinuation of the original Summicron. This is a large lineup, but two of these lenses are clearly esoteric models, and the original Summicron has a unique place in the Leica 50mm lens lineup. So it would be reasonable to assume that if it continues to be sold in adequate numbers it will stay in production. If sales drop then the market may determine it's demise in which case the Summarit will become the standard (what a shame one would have to use such a crap lens:rolleyes:)

 

Those of you concerned about the potential demise of the original 50 Summicron...go out and buy one.

Tell Leica with your wallets that you want it!

[IkarusJohn]

John, all pricing is based on supply and demand. Except perhaps in North Korea, to an extent.

 

Cost is an influence on the supply side, and is only one of many factors that go into determining a price.

 

In a free market, yes. But when a retail price is set by the producer, and demand exceeds supply, we see secondhand and grey market prices exceeding the retail price - e.g., Noctilux prices on eBay. Similarly, when price kills demand (any number of overpriced, failed luxury items over the past few years).

 

It's not just supply and demand, except where you have a market pricing mechanism like Dutch flower auctions, oil markets and electricity spot prices. But, for one off items, systems design, specialist processing plants and the like or cost plus contracting, pricing is set by cost, plus a margin. Tenders and competitive mechanisms try to introduce market concepts, but they do so badly. Price is not supply and demand for major capital work - often there is only one supplier, and one buyer.

 

I appreciate what you say in the long term for retail production items - overpriced goods either get withdrawn or the companies producing them go bust. But to say all pricing is based on supply and demand isn't quite right, unless all product is auctioned or open to a pure market pricing mechanism.

 

But I have a bit of an issue with what I perceive to be the semi-rational panic that afflicts some, not all, but some, people to have the nominal best in the world" without their having the faintest notion of how it will actually improve their photography, and quite plausibly very little prospect of its achieving anything whatsoever.

 

I agree entirely, but I don't have to deal with them, and I hope they don't affect my simple pleasures too much. That will depends on Leica's pricing policy, I guess. As mentioned above, that frenzied buyer you refer to will often get more frenzied if they perceive shortage and exclusivity.

 

In a pure supply and demand model, the producer increases supply to meet demand, and to soak up the price premium. Luxury producers can't afford to do that - Pierre Cardin suit anyone? Thought not.

 

Cheers

John

[algrove]

Speculation about the demise of the original 50 Summicron is purely that..speculation. It has a clear niche both for users and price. The $7000 lens is hardly a substitute for the $2200 lens for almost all users.

 

The range includes:

$1500 2.5/50 Summarit

$2200 2.0/50 Summicron

$4000 1.4/50 Summilux

$7000 2.0/50 Summicron APO ASPH

$11000 0.95/50 Noctilux

 

None of us have any evidence one way or the other regarding discontinuation of the original Summicron. This is a large lineup, but two of these lenses are clearly esoteric models, and the original Summicron has a unique place in the Leica 50mm lens lineup. So it would be reasonable to assume that if it continues to be sold in adequate numbers it will stay in production. If sales drop then the market may determine it's demise in which case the Summarit will become the standard (what a shame one would have to use such a crap lens:rolleyes:)

 

Those of you concerned about the potential demise of the original 50 Summicron...go out and buy one.

Tell Leica with your wallets that you want it!

 

I recently voted with my wallet as you suggest and bought a 50/2.0 Summicron and don't regret it a second. Wonderful lens that renders like a proven Leica product.

[Peter H]

A long and no doubt dull digression about supply and demand, with due apologies.

 

John, I disagree with you about supply and demand, I don't think the apparent exceptions are genuine exceptions really. Except in non-free markets, which is why I mentioned N Korea.

 

Let's say I make one wooden toy for the fun of it, a one off, and I decide that because its cost me £50 to make, that's exactly what I'll sell it for, come what may. And I do. So, you might say that there's no S&D effect there. There might be a queue round the block offering £200 or more but because I've decided to sell it for £50 I've defeated the law of supply and demand.

 

But in fact all that's happening is a very tiny data point in the workings, and still subject the some basic forces: If no one was prepared to pay £50, I couldn't have sold it. So I have no sale if the price is too high, or an easy sale at a price that's too low. A glimpse of the stirrings of S&D even in a one-off anti-S&D transaction.

 

That doesn't argue against the law, it just demonstrates that if someone is determined to side-step it, it can be done for a little while.

 

But when it comes to commercial entities operating in a competitive market, these temporary semi-exceptions become irrelevant because they cannot survive long enough to become relevant. Because of the workings of Supply and Demand.

 

The same applies to one-off suppliers. They are one offs for a reason: they've got the expertise, of course, but also they've got their price right. If they consistently set their prices above the level of demand they'd vanish. If they set it below, and couldn't cope with the huge demand, someone else would find a way of supplying. So they are operating within the constraints of the forces of supply and demand. That's how they survive.

 

So yes, perhaps I shouldn't say all prices, but rather, virtually all prices, virtually always.

[IkarusJohn]

Hi Peter,

 

My apologies for prolonging the digression, but it is relevant to Leica's pricing, I promise!

 

I don't disagree with any of what you say, in a free and informed market. Classic economic theory (with the traditional supply and demand curve, and the line indicating full employment at the intersection of the two curves, without stagflation) is simplistic. I'm not saying you're simplistic, Peter, just the basic theory. That is because the theory makes a number of assumptions, notably that supply and demand applies in a free market with the following characteristics:

 

• the market participants are fully informed
  
• the market participants are rational
  
• the products are identical (ie, uniform in the sense that petrol is basically the same product wherever you buy or, or your electricity is uniform)
  
• there is no external intervention (your North Korea point)
  

 

Your wooden toy, in your example, would then either sell or not at the price point established by supply and demand - i.e., there are people who want to buy the toys and the shop around the corner is selling them at $75 or they have run out of toys at $45, making yours the next cheapest.

 

In the case of a new Leica lens, some of these assumptions fall over. Leica either prices the lens based on what it costs to produce, plus a margin (what I deal with every day in the construction industry), or what they can get away with charging. The market is reasonably well informed (due in no small part to the internet), but not entirely; the market participants are, with all due respect to other forum members, not rational; and the products are not uniform.

 

There is a problem with how well informed the market participants are, and that is in real, objective information about how good the lens is. We have MTF charts, and presumably some testing done by Sean Reid and others will provide some information, but for the same reasons that some like Mandler lenses more than Karbe lenses, the bokeh of one lens over another, and the mythical fingerprint suggests that actually, we aren't fully informed. Some form of "blind" testing might improve our knowledge, but it is incomplete.

 

Worse, the players are not rational. This is the whole mystique of Leica, and the reason some people will sit in a camera shop, listen to all the good reasons for buying a Canon 5DII, and buy the M9 anyway, at more than twice the price. That's what I did.

 

And we know the products are far from identical. Leica uses old fashioned hand assembly techniques using traditional materials etc, etc (insert marketing material from the latest brochure), and the M system is the only full frame digital rangefinder system on the market.

 

So Leica's pricing pays a larger part, to my mind, than pure market forces. My original comment was:

 

I suspect some of Leica's pricing is based on cost. Supply and demand does not set price where demand is relatively inelastic - i.e., at the top end, where rational decision making seems to be secondary to the I want it approach to product selection.

 

In the superyacht industry, there is what a client of mine described as the hamburger mentality. He was building a superyacht (200 foot luxury motor yacht, with gold plated hand basins, and a case for a Stradivarius violin, all costing north of USD 50 million), and as it neared completion there was no shortage of people wanting to buy it before he took delivery; because they wanted it now and they wanted it while it was hot.

 

There is an argument that Leica's customer base is changing (actually, I'm not convinced - rationally, I could not have afforded or justified any Leica equipment at any stage in my life, compared to the Canikon alternative, and that has always been expensive enough). But the fact remains that there is, actually, no market alternative for Leica equipment. It is the only player, and it can charge what it likes, up to a breaking point we haven't reached yet. Among Leica aficionados, we will pay what it costs.

 

Take the new APO Summicron 50 ASPH. Was there actually demand for this lens? I would say not. There was speculation that it was due for renewal (which hasn't happened if you ignore Lars, and believe that Leica will continue to produce the non-aspherical version). What is happening is that Leica is trying to stimulate demand for this product, presumably by implying that you need this level of performance to make the most of the resolution of the Monocrhom (itself, a dubious project). So how does supply and demand set a price point for this lens that no one wanted (yet)?

 

There is demand for anything which Leica produces, apparently; and within that group with more money than brains (according to traditional economic theory), the market participants will pay whatever Leica asks. Comparing prices over the last 10 years shows an unrelenting upwards trend, with an increase in sales and profits. You might argue that the increase in prices reflects the increase in demand. Traditional theory also suggests a slackening of demand, particularly with such huge increases. Yet, demand seems to be relatively unaffected by the price increases.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not disagreeing about supply and demand, just exploring whether there is more to it than simply setting a market price based on supply and demand.

 

Of course, Leica won't make any products if the market price is less than cost (that seems to be what happened to them in the dark days before the M8 was introduced and bankruptcy loomed). Similarly, will they produce and price their products for less than the market will pay for them? Apparently so, judging by the prices people in Hong Kong and elsewhere are demanding and apparently getting. Leica's solution to that is to increase supply to meet demand and to reduce an overheated grey market.

 

The other side of that equation would be for Leica to increase prices until demand dries up, or at least supply matches demand, at the cost of people who actually take photos with their gear.

 

So, to my mind, Leica's pricing of its products is largely based on cost, plus a reasonable margin, because they can do this. I don't believe that they are price gouging, but some might argue that. If they're making good profits, the suggestion could be made that their prices should drop so they make a reasonable profit, but not astronomical (based on their apparent capitalization, I doubt their profits are astronomical in percentage terms). Applying pure market theory, buyers would switch to the alternative, or not buy at all.

 

I suspect the reason Leica's pricing is so high is the rare and expensive materials they use, R&D in a small market sector, labour cost, and because they strive to be the very best. Not because we are asking them to, but because they can. We buy their goods, not because of traditional supply and demand pricing, but because we can, and because we want what Leica has to sell.

 

If they can't sell the new Summicron for $7,000 (they will), their solution will not be to reduce the price, but to withdraw the product (as they did with the Noctilux 1.2). What they won't do is to produce the lens in batches of thousands, only to have them sit on shelves because there is no market demand. What will happen is that the lens will occupy a trophy position in the line-up, bought by the small group who actually need that level of resolution and the larger group who just want the best. Leica will organise its batch production accordingly. I doubt it will sell like hotcakes, as people can understand paying $3,000 more for f/0.95, but they don't understand paying $3,000 less for f/1.4, regardless of the MTF charts.

 

Sorry about the rambling, but it did get on topic, and I actually don't think we disagree on the basics, Peter. At least I hope I have explained my point of view in a way that you can accept, even if you don't agree.

 

Cheers

John

[AlanG]

 

In the case of a new Leica lens, some of these assumptions fall over. Leica either prices the lens based on what it costs to produce, plus a margin (what I deal with every day in the construction industry), or what they can get away with charging.

 

 

I see on B&H that a Nikon 67mm lens cap costs $15, a Hasselblad one is $15, A Mamiya one is $15, a Sony one is $9.50 or $9... depending on logo, a Canon one is $8.50 (free shipping), a Tamron one is $8 and a generic one is $4.50.

 

A Leica 67mm cap sells for $35. As is the Zeiss cap. I would venture to guess that Leica gets its lens caps for a pretty low price... otherwise it should find another supplier. And I don't think the Leica caps are hand made, use rare or expensive materials, or differ from the others significantly in quality or performance.

 

When you price the 72mm version, the Leica one jumps up to $50, Nikon is $12 (free shipping) and Canon's is $8.50 (free shipping.) Here is what the reviewer had to say about the Leica cap, "Nice lens cap! For $40, it better be. I am actually using it on a 4/3rds Panasonic-Leica 14-150 lens (it came with a Lumix cap)." So he didn't like having a "Leica" lens and a Lumix cap.

 

I bet very few Leica owners who lose a lens cap replace it with anything but another Leica brand lens cap.

[Rick]

You know, there is a market in-waiting for a good $5.00 Leica lens cap made in China and sold on eBay.

 

 

Edit: I'll take 5. I'm always misplacing those things.

[k-hawinkler]

I have a bunch of generic lens caps for Leica, Nikon, and Sony.

eBay or Adorama offer some.

Some caps are only a buck or two.

[pico]

Alan, for the fun of it look on that big auction site for Noctilux lens shades. I think they are plastic. Breathtaking asking prices. 'course, they don't sell.

 

Wait, I'll save you the trouble. Asking prices: $3,988.00, $3,599.00, $625.00, $599.00 .... $399.00

 

.

[IkarusJohn]

I see on B&H that a Nikon 67mm lens cap costs $15, a Hasselblad one is $15, A Mamiya one is $15, a Sony one is $9.50 or $9... depending on logo, a Canon one is $8.50 (free shipping), a Tamron one is $8 and a generic one is $4.50.

 

A Leica 67mm cap sells for $35. As is the Zeiss cap. I would venture to guess that Leica gets its lens caps for a pretty low price... otherwise it should find another supplier. And I don't think the Leica caps are hand made, use rare or expensive materials, or differ from the others significantly in quality or performance.

 

When you price the 72mm version, the Leica one jumps up to $50, Nikon is $12 (free shipping) and Canon's is $8.50 (free shipping.) Here is what the reviewer had to say about the Leica cap, "Nice lens cap! For $40, it better be. I am actually using it on a 4/3rds Panasonic-Leica 14-150 lens (it came with a Lumix cap)." So he didn't like having a "Leica" lens and a Lumix cap.

 

I bet very few Leica owners who lose a lens cap replace it with anything but another Leica brand lens cap.

 

This is a fair point, but as you will know producing such things as lens caps is all about volumes. If you go to a plastic moulding company and ask for a run of lens caps for the entire Nikon lens production you will get a completely different price than Leica would get for caps for its entire M lens production.

 

That is not to say that Leica doesn't charge a higher margin than Nikon - I'd be amazed if they don't. But the cost of production, margin and pricing approach of a huge, mass market producer like Nikon is quite different to a niche producer like Leica.

 

Comparing the cost of lens caps is pointless. Comparing the prices for the same accessory (say a table top tripod) out of the same factory, one labeled Nikon, one Leica, and one unlabeled and sold out of the factory would tell a different story. You would find then, I'm sure, that Leica charges a higher premium for affixing its red dot as it wishes to maintain its exclusivity. Then, the criticism would be fair.

 

You would be unlikely to easily find such a comparison, I'd bet (Panasonic & Leica equivalents aside), because Leica is unlikely to affix its red dot to something so generic. I might be wrong, but most top range producers insist on exclusivity for such items to avoid these comparisons. You will read elsewhere on the forum recommendations for the D-Lux 5 over the Panasonic LX-5 equivalent (I'm sure some will say the V-Lux 40 is a better buy than the Panasonic TZ30), when the only difference is the packaging, perhaps some firmware and getting a LR4 licence.

 

Cheers

John

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

You know, there is a market in-waiting for a good $5.00 Leica lens cap made in China and sold on eBay.

 

 

Edit: I'll take 5. I'm always misplacing those things.

 

Just buy generic ones and write "Leica" in script on them with a white paint marker. If their volume precludes good pricing, I bet Leica could have their name screen printed onto generic caps and get them for pennies. Or just use stickers on the cap like their red dot.

 

There are Chinese knock off lens caps. I found some on Ebay for $10.

 

Here's a Nikon comparison video.

 

It just shows that the Leica brand name is worth about $35 to $45 additional on a lens cap so I'm not sure what it adds to other things. Whereas Canon only adds about $4 over generics and for all I know Canon caps might be better and could cost a few more cents to make.

 

It is sort of like car companies making a good profit on the floor mats.

 

Hand made lens caps do exist:

 

http://www.skgrimes.com/products/lens-caps