Jump to content

Ok guys, what about the OTUS lenses?


NB23

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yeah- their markup is the reason they were on the brink of bankruptcy in 2005 and that their profits are in line with healthy similar-sized companies now... :rolleyes:

 

Actually the Outs 55/1.4 is 195$  more expensive than the Summilux 50/1.4 asph ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

You got a marketing degree? Or you like to roll eyes for the fun of it?

 

Perspective:

summicron-C weren't available then. That lens lineup is born from thriving times. You forgot this? Or simply overlooked this fact while trying to sound knowledgeable?

Back then, before digital, and the M8 fiasco, their prices were low.

 

A 50mm asph was 1500$. Same quality, same performance, and no crazy markup to speak of. Get it? Same lens than the "only 195$ more expensive Otus" you are refering to.

 

This, is a Massive markup. A markup that has nothing to do with optical performance (especially not with incremental=expensive) but everything to do with having to pay for the new Leitz park and all the marketing surrounding all of their other products (where marketing = R&D, publicity, T & Q & M & SL lines and so on).

 

The difference between the 50 lux asph at 1500$ 8 years ago and today's 3500$ Is pure markup.

 

I repeat: pure markup.

Edited by NB23
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The 50/1.4 asph price was 2400 EUR in Europe 10 years ago i.e. around 2800 EUR now including inflation. Markup in then 3550 - 2800 = EUR 750.

 

Which is consistent with bringing the price to a level that can sustain the company in a gradual way. the financiers cannot be expected to finance the customers indefinitely. I see no signs of a company indulging is profiteering in the development of the company results as they are published.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It was 1500$ as I recall when the M8 was announced, or just before. Any higher price than 1500$ and we're into markup treritory, which kinda proves this whole debate, anyways.

 

That's when I was wondering wether to buy a used 50 lux asph for $1100-ish or a Noctilux for 1600$.

 

And then Leica became healthier and started to markup like crazy. The M9 was 2 or 3 generations behind anything on the market but was sold at a huge premium.

 

Now, the term markup doesn't mean that it's bad practice. It helps with R&D. But it doesn't mean, either, that it's because they are the masters of excellency.

 

In a wrap, it can simply mean "niche". Where Leica lens equally performing to a 50mm nikkor f1.8 will be accepted as being worth 2000$.

Edited by NB23
Link to post
Share on other sites

1500 $ was the price you told your wife... I paid 1200 Euro for an Elmar-M 2.8-50 in 2006.

The M9 in 2009  was 5500 Euro over 4200 Euro  for the M8 in 2006 - and full frame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

..... it can simply mean "niche".

 

And niche can in turn impose significant restrictions on how equipment can be both designed and produced. In the case of Leica M series lenses, there are limits on size, specific requirements due to bayonet size and placement and an expectation that a lens will have an extremely long life and can be serviced during that life. Many otherwise excellent lenses fail on the last point due to lack of spares, inability to be economically dismantled (or even viably dismantled at all) and relative ease of significant damage (cracked plastic casing as an example). My own currently used lenses includes one nearly as old as myself which can still be serviced by Leica (I'm not that old, but....). So whilst I take you point about markup being high, so are expectations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And niche can in turn impose significant restrictions on how equipment can be both designed and produced. In the case of Leica M series lenses, there are limits on size, specific requirements due to bayonet size and placement and an expectation that a lens will have an extremely long life and can be serviced during that life. Many otherwise excellent lenses fail on the last point due to lack of spares, inability to be economically dismantled (or even viably dismantled at all) and relative ease of significant damage (cracked plastic casing as an example). My own currently used lenses includes one nearly as old as myself which can still be serviced by Leica (I'm not that old, but....). So whilst I take you point about markup being high, so are expectations.

And?

 

Leica charges so much for one single reason: because they can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And?

 

Leica charges so much for one single reason: because they can.

 

What do you suggest - a return to the good old days of having a company with financial instability? Leica sell high quality products which are expensive - hardly rocket science is it? If you are suggesting that they are profiteering then that's your opinion and so be it, but I'm not sure otherwise what your point is. FWIW some of the glass types used by Leica are very expensive, and other products have a very finite sales life (digital bodies) in today's world. I would prefer Leica to sell stuff cheaper, but I'd rather take a longer view and see them still producing stuff for many years to come. At a recent local photo show I was impressed to see that Leica were the most innovative camera company showing stuff - I am well aware that innovation is risky and costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you name any producer of cameras or, indeed, any goods who doesn't?

Sure.

Nikon, for example, can't charge 3490$ for a 50mm f1.8 even if it was on par, optically with a summicron asph. This fact alone negates photoskeptic's "What it demonstrates is that incremental improvements in image quality cost big bucks."

 

My simple argument was as follows: there are markups and, in Leica's case, there is a final extra markup on top of it all only because of the brand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure.

Nikon, for example, can't charge 3490$ for a 50mm f1.8 even if it was on par, optically with a summicron asph. This fact alone negates photoskeptic's "What it demonstrates is that incremental improvements in image quality cost big bucks."

 

My simple argument was as follows: there are markups and, in Leica's case, there is a final extra markup on top of it all only because of the brand.

It's indeed a simple argument. It may not be a true one, though. Who knows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was 1500$ as I recall when the M8 was announced, or just before. Any higher price than 1500$ and we're into markup treritory, which kinda proves this whole debate, anyways.

 

That's when I was wondering wether to buy a used 50 lux asph for $1100-ish or a Noctilux for 1600$.

 

And then Leica became healthier and started to markup like crazy. The M9 was 2 or 3 generations behind anything on the market but was sold at a huge premium.

 

Now, the term markup doesn't mean that it's bad practice. It helps with R&D. But it doesn't mean, either, that it's because they are the masters of excellency.

 

In a wrap, it can simply mean "niche". Where Leica lens equally performing to a 50mm nikkor f1.8 will be accepted as being worth 2000$.

 

Poor Alfred Marshall must be turning in his grave

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Otus lenses are optically better. The Leica lenses are nicer to use because they are a lot smaller and lighter. Both are very expensive.

 

I rather have the Leica lenses because I value the compactness more. And because I like rangefinders. And because I think the quality is more than good enough for my use. Maybe as soon as I take my first really great image I will change my mind (it will happen any day now...).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

You got a marketing degree? Or you like to roll eyes for the fun of it?

 

Perspective:

summicron-C weren't available then. That lens lineup is born from thriving times. You forgot this? Or simply overlooked this fact while trying to sound knowledgeable?

Back then, before digital, and the M8 fiasco, their prices were low.

 

A 50mm asph was 1500$. Same quality, same performance, and no crazy markup to speak of. Get it? Same lens than the "only 195$ more expensive Otus" you are refering to.

 

This, is a Massive markup. A markup that has nothing to do with optical performance (especially not with incremental=expensive) but everything to do with having to pay for the new Leitz park and all the marketing surrounding all of their other products (where marketing = R&D, publicity, T & Q & M & SL lines and so on).

 

The difference between the 50 lux asph at 1500$ 8 years ago and today's 3500$ Is pure markup.

 

I repeat: pure markup.

 

 

I don't know what your point is.

 

Are you saying that Leica would be adequately profitable if they kept everything else the same but charged far lower prices?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...