Jump to content

New Summicron


Fgcm

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 382
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I really look forward to seeing an analysis from Erwin Puts on this lens. I have a feeling that this lens combined with the M10, when we do see it, will create Medium Format quality and I will not hesitate to invest. I also, of corse, look forward to seeing how it works with the M9, as heck, the M9 already has a Medium Format look about it.

 

I do believe this lens is there for a higher megapixel M successor and we're going to see things taken to a new level sometime in the near future. And as ludicrously expensive as it may seem i would imagine they again won't be able to keep up with the demand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think it is. Professional photographers are well aware that no matter how much detail this lens resolves the differences between this and any other decent lens will be marginal in print.

 

No difference in print, maybe. But that's where it ends.

 

I don't get rebooked for work in print. I get rebooked, quite often a couple times again, by the same client before the job has even come out in print.

 

My work is not judged for what is in print. My work is judged the moment they view it on a 30" monitor. And it's usually on the day of the shoot. It's even been, on occasion, that I've been rebooked right here and then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to the 'girl' tip, I was struck that the whole thread has a ring of Barry Manilow about it:

Some girls will, some girls won't

Some girls need a lot of lovin', and some girls don't

Well, I know I've got the fever but I don't know why

Some say they will and some girls lie

So here I am in front of you

Not really knowing what to do

My heart is feeling something new

Nervously I turn away from you

I see those looks you're sending me

Is this the way it's meant to be?

It's something we should talk about

Just give me time to work it out

 

I think you will find that SomeGirls was by Racey not Mr Manilow.

 

I have no opinion on the new Summicron.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That, and the fact that it would unbalance the price structure of the fifties if they dropped it.

 

I agree... imho it could me more even they quietly put apart the Summarit, which probably is the less sold of the Summarit family. A honestly priced (within Leica standards...) 50 f2 is a lens to have on pricelist... it has been like that from the Summar intro in the '30s...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many words to complain about the lens, the price, the future strategy of Leica.

 

My few words are: tomorrow I post my order.

 

I'll let you know if the lens is just fantastic or is the true masterpiece it seems to be :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I pre-ordered it at B&H.Probably won't see it till September. Heck, I can always send it back, or perhaps put it up on E Bay and make a dime. However, if I really want to go small kit, I'll sell my 28 Cron and the 50 Lux ASHP.

 

I do kinda wonder if it's going to make imagery with the M9 even better than it already is with the 2 lenses I've got. That's the big question in my mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I pre-ordered it at B&H.Probably won't see it till September. Heck, I can always send it back, or perhaps put it up on E Bay and make a dime. However, if I really want to go small kit, I'll sell my 28 Cron and the 50 Lux ASHP.

 

I do kinda wonder if it's going to make imagery with the M9 even better than it already is with the 2 lenses I've got. That's the big question in my mind.

 

The performance by MTF's suggests the 28 is as far ahead of the 50 Lux asph and the Cron as the Apo 50 is from the 28 summicron.

 

Anyone find other lenses look soft after shooting with the 28 Cron ? I don't, although I know it's sharp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That list of Leica products just keeps on growing! :rolleyes:

 

Is Leica's business strategy to relentlessly pursue the bottomless pockets of the mega-rich elite few who haunt the Asian market while consigning the majority of Leica connoisseurs and working photographers who use Leicas to scavenging on the used market?

 

It is certainly starting to look that way...

 

If you look at the prices of Leicas from the past you might notice that the escalation of prices parallels with the escalation of wages of their intended customers - other than Hermes, etc.. buyers.

 

In other metrics, in 1974, for example, an M4 body was close to the price of a brand new VW Bug or Pinto, and the lenses brought a kit to more money than that. So, for some in 1974 their Leica cost more than an inexpensive car. That does not hold today: cheap cars of any quality cost more than an M9. If you were a working photographer who used a couple Leicas and lenses, you would have spent more than a new Corvette of 1974. I did.

 

What makes this comparison almost invisible is the fantastic escalation of computer sophistication along with its diminishing prices. The perspective is one factor that creates something of a paradigm divide between traditions, even generations.

 

So last year an M9 would be X% of my annual income, and in 1974 it would be the same percentage!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the prices of Leicas from the past you might notice that the escalation of prices parallels with the escalation of wages of their intended customers - other than Hermes, etc.. buyers.

 

In other metrics, in 1974, for example, an M4 body was close to the price of a brand new VW Bug or Pinto, and the lenses brought a kit to more money than that. So, for some in 1974 their Leica cost more than an inexpensive car. That does not hold today: cheap cars of any quality cost more than an M9. If you were a working photographer who used a couple Leicas and lenses, you would have spent more than a new Corvette of 1974. I did.

 

What makes this comparison almost invisible is the fantastic escalation of computer sophistication along with its diminishing prices. The perspective is one factor that creates something of a paradigm divide between traditions, even generations.

 

So last year an M9 would be X% of my annual income, and in 1974 it would be the same percentage!

 

I think your facts are a bit off. The list price on an M4 in 1972 was $450 (US). In today's dollars that's about $2469. Automobiles were less expensive back then, but not that cheap. In fact, the truth is just the opposite. Leica has always been expensive, but current Leica prices are far in excess of their past relative prices, even with inflation calculated into everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your facts are a bit off. The list price on an M4 in 1972 was $450 (US). In today's dollars that's about $2469. Automobiles were less expensive back then, but not that cheap. In fact, the truth is just the opposite. Leica has always been expensive, but current Leica prices are far in excess of their past relative prices, even with inflation calculated into everything.

 

Additionally, if you look at 50mm f1.4 and some other lenses, Canon and Nikon have held down the prices over those decades and Leica has not. Some of those Nikkor lenses are only about twice as expensive now as they were back then. In the early 70's 50mm 1.4 lenses from Nikon and Leica were close in price whereas today the Summilux is about 10 times the price. ($4000 vs. $400 for a Nikkor manual focus 50mm 1.4.)

 

While tough for new purchases, this price inflation has made Leica lenses good investments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, if you look at 50mm f1.4 and some other lenses, Canon and Nikon have held down the prices over those decades and Leica has not. Some of those Nikkor lenses are only about twice as expensive now as they were back then. In the early 70's 50mm 1.4 lenses from Nikon and Leica were close in price whereas today the Summilux is about 10 times the price. ($4000 vs. $400 for a Nikkor manual focus 50mm 1.4.)

 

While tough for new purchases, this price inflation has made Leica lenses good investments.

 

Canon and Nikon lenses are mass manufactured and, over time, the processes used by both companies in manufacturing have drastically improved. You have to take that into consideration. As costs drop in manufacturing of course they are able to hold down their price points.

 

It would be interesting to know, aside from manufacturing costs, how much money was invested in the R&D for the new cron. I suspect it would be an astounding amount that, when combined with the cost of each lens, would make the price of the lens more understandable.

 

I am buying one. As others have said, what is there to lose? When I eventually get my hands on it I probably won't suffer any seriously loss if I decide to get rid of it (which I doubt I will :D)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canon and Nikon lenses are mass manufactured and, over time, the processes used by both companies in manufacturing have drastically improved. You have to take that into consideration. As costs drop in manufacturing of course they are able to hold down their price points.

 

 

That's the point. By selling higher quantities they have greater efficiencies and it gives most Canon and Nikon lenses much more bang for the buck. Thus Leica has to find other ways to market their lenses. E.g. as superior quality worth the price, to collectors, as investments, etc.

 

On the other hand are the Canon 17 and 24 TSE lenses. I venture to guess that these are not mass produced and required a lot of money for their R&D. They sell for around $2500 and $2300 which is a lot less expensive than similar lenses would cost if Leica made something like them. So they seem to be able to make unique specialized lenses at what I consider to be reasonable prices too. (I am assuming Canon is not selling these lenses at a loss.) So perhaps the scale of Canon and Nikon's operations gives them much more efficiency in various ways or Leica is making a lot more profit per lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more Alan. Although, I think it's safe to say that the TS-E's (great lenses by the way, especially the 24!) aren't hand made :p. Leica would surely be more expensive but I would like to think that their tilt-shift would be better, if they made one of course. I'm not entirely biased, either. I still have a 5DMKII, I just don't use it nearly as much anymore :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more Alan. Although, I think it's safe to say that the TS-E's (great lenses by the way, especially the 24!) aren't hand made :p. Leica would surely be more expensive but I would like to think that their tilt-shift would be better, if they made one of course. I'm not entirely biased, either. I still have a 5DMKII, I just don't use it nearly as much anymore :)

 

I suspect the TSEs are as "hand made" as are Leica lenses. Aren't we talking about hand assembly and testing of the lenses? As nothing ground or machined this critically is done as precisely by hand.

 

I shoot architecture and interiors and the 17 and 24 TSE lenses are about as perfect as any lenses I have ever used. I see no distortion, very little vignetting, high resolution, and very little if any c/a. Considering image quality and the large image circle to allow for shifts and tilts, the very well made dual rotation and shift mechanism, I bet it would really tax Leica to try to match these. I think Canon and Nikon are putting their lens designers to work on very demanding projects but typically targeted in a different direction than most Leica lenses. (Highest quality primes over a narrow range of focal lengths.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...