Why is a Leica 35mm1.4 more expensive than a Q?

[designdog]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I was warned, my brief experience with the Q has led to Leica GAS. Now I want to move “up” to an M10 kit.

 

This would begin with returning the Q for credit, buying an M10, selling my D5, and getting a 35-40mm first lens.

 

I would proceed with my Leica mania buy selling off my Nikon primes (G and E) and adding probably a 50mm and 70mm. My Nikon kit would be “reduced” to the zoom Trinity and a pristine D3s. Not bad.

 

The problem is IQ from the Leica Q is soooo good! If I got the M10 and the image quality (for that money) was not up to the Q it would be, well, “disappointing”...

 

What a dilemma!

Edited April 15, 2018 by designdog

[Astropap]

I’ve been having the same bad thoughts. Mine are driven by the desire for flexibility with the lens. I find myself cropping a lot of shots from the Q but I love the image quality. It then occurred to me that I might have a difficult time focusing with a rangefinder due to presbyopia. The next time I’m in NYC, I’ll try to get to the Leica Store so I can try an M. For now, I’m enjoying the Q.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

M10 IQ not up to the Q? How so?

[Lonescapes]

Rent first.

 

Or don't buy into the system at the most expensive end. People seem to think the 240 is some kind of mutt, so it's cheap by Leica standards.

 

Also, Zeiss glass and other various current and vintage lenses from other manufacturers can often take the sting out of investing in M-mount glass without significantly reducing your access to top-notch image quality.

 

Putting all that time selling gear into your Leica system will definitely give you a massive dose of sunk costs fallacy, which will either make you love your Leica kit irrationally forever, or become disappointed and paranoid about it, but you may find over time that your feelings about individual pieces of it change, and that the cheaper stuff turns out to be your favorite. My favorite Leica setup at present is my 50mm Summicron-R f2 (chipped and Leitax'd) on my Nikon Df.

[designdog]

Thank you for reminding me about the Df. Not long ago my "get out and around" kit was the Df and the family of Zeiss ZF.2 lenses, ranging from 21mm to 135mm. the 28, 50, and 85 were my go-to lenses for the Df. However, I gave up on the Zeiss and sold them (and the Df) - and perhaps now I should remember why.

 

It was the manual focus. Not that I had problems with it - I have been primarily MF for many years, with the Zeiss and Nikon AIS lenses. No, it was more the consternation with MF: was it in focus, did I get the shot, should I take a few more, etc. This was taking some of the joy out of it for me, and on the Nikon at least I had the electronic focus confirmation - which I would not have with the M10.

 

Perhaps I should stay where I am. All autofocus, primarily...

[Belle123]

Consider this. The m with Summilux is a very heavy camera compared to the Q, plus no autofocus or built in EVF. Not to dismiss the M because I love them, but you have to really want an M and be happy with that choice. A serious investment. I personally have owned a couple Summilux lenses for my M. Good lenses but heavy. My preference is Summicron on the M. The Q with built in Summilux is excellent and so much easier to carry around than an M. Try an M first before buying. Rent one.

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm responding to the title question rather than your purchasing strategy which seems to be getting more attention. Here's what I think:

 

I think Leica lenses are way overpriced for a very good economic reason. Namely, that Leica tries to keep all its mounts useful for a very long time. That means that there is no planned obsolescence. And, so, the lenses keep most their value as second-hand purchases. But Leica doesn't make any money off repurchased lenses, which, because they don't become obsolete, compete with the new lenses that Leica does sell. So, effectively, Leica has to raise the original price of the lens to a point where it can effectively also recapture some of its future value as a used lens.

 

The Q, however, has a lens that can never be resold as such. And, it does have technology that will eventually become obsolete. So, unlike other "lenses," the Q is far more closely priced to its original market value.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say the "guts" of the Q is worth c. $2000. If that's ballpark correct, then its 28mm summilux is also worth c. $2000, rather than nearly 3x that amount, if you were to buy it as an independent lens (that you could eventually resell). And that's also why the 35mm 1.4 alone costs more than the entire Q, which was the question you asked.

Edited April 17, 2018 by bags27

[fsprow]

I use M's a great deal but also other cameras from Hasselblad and Nikon.  I'd be slow to sell your D5 - which does some things much better than the M's (extremely good and fast autofocus and terrific exposure metering) - until you are sure your needs are met by an M.

[jonatdonuts]

I'm responding to the title question rather than your purchasing strategy which seems to be getting more attention. Here's what I think:

 

I think Leica lenses are way overpriced for a very good economic reason. Namely, that Leica tries to keep all its mounts useful for a very long time. That means that there is no planned obsolescence. And, so, the lenses keep most their value as second-hand purchases. But Leica doesn't make any money off repurchased lenses, which, because they don't become obsolete, compete with the new lenses that Leica does sell. So, effectively, Leica has to raise the original price of the lens to a point where it can effectively also recapture some of its future value as a used lens.

 

The Q, however, has a lens that can never be resold as such. And, it does have technology that will eventually become obsolete. So, unlike other "lenses," the Q is far more closely priced to its original market value.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say the "guts" of the Q is worth c. $2000. If that's ballpark correct, then its 28mm summilux is also worth c. $2000, rather than nearly 3x that amount, if you were to buy it as an independent lens (that you could eventually resell). And that's also why the 35mm 1.4 alone costs more than the entire Q, which was the question you asked.

 

You hit the nail on the head there. To continue with this logic, the Summilux-M lens, or any Leica M lens for that matter, will last for another 70 years or more, providing that you don't drop it (too may times). If you did buy the 28mm Summilux, you would never have to buy another 35mm again. 

 

The Q's Summilux is fixed to an electronic camera, which due to its wired internals, will eventually fail or be in need of a costly repair. In this case you would have to purchase a new Leica Q every 7-10 years, meaning that over the course of a lifetime, you would have to shell out more. 

 

Leica M lenses are very pricey up front, but when you consider that they will stay with you for life (and your children's lives), it seems very much worthwhile...

[Lonescapes]

Perhaps I should stay where I am. All autofocus, primarily...

 

A properly calibrated rangefinder is a better, faster, more accurate manual focusing instrument than a Nikon Df (or any DSLR)--by far, no contest.

 

My Df had the focusing screen switched, and I paid my camera tech to do it so that it would be shimmed-in at the most accurate level possible. So I do have a very accurate split prism in my Df. Furthemore, I use the 1.2x eyepiece. I've also had the camera micro-calibrated to ensure no front or back focus specifically with my Summicron, which has been chipped to improve the green dot confirmation performance, and which has the quasi-auto-aperture version of the Leitax mount, allowing me to instantly open the iris to its maximum width for focusing purposes.

Even having done all that, it does not match a well-calibrated rangefinder in manual focus speed and hit rate.

 

You can try renting a rangefinder, or you can buy (and then resell; they hold their value) an Epson R-D1 if you want to experience the difference.

 

Autofocus, especially if it's good, is absolutely a fundamentally revelatory technology. I would never shoot, say, a street festival including lots of fast-moving performers with MF lenses if I had to deliver it for publication (I would do it for fun, just to practice and sharpen my skills). But if I were primarily doing, for example, environmental portraiture of subjects who know I am photographing them and are willing to stand there or simply aren't moving too fast in the course of their normal activity, then I would gladly take an MF system, and if I planned to deliver the results for publication, would probably choose the rangefinder, because it would give me the best likelihood of hitting focus quickly and repeatedly.

 

You also have to bear in mind that zone focus is a great substitute for autofocus. If you think you're going to be in conditions where you can use hyperfocal techniques, then autofocus is less important. If, however, you need very snappy focus on very dynamic subjects in low light, then it's tough. Or if you always want to be shooting in dynamic conditions wide open for subject isolation. This last one doesn't strike me as super important. Everyone's got a 1.4 lens on an autofocusing body these days and within a few years no one is going mistake shallow DOF for a good/professional picture anymore.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Lonescapes

[Hazesus]

The  Leica Summilux-M 28mm f/1.4 ASPH Price new is even higher than the 35mm f/1.4 and the Q. The 28mm f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4 are for people who own or wanna get in the M system. 

 

The Q's 28mm doesn't render the images just like the 28mm f/1.4 (based on samples that I've seen on the net)

 

Also the Q was target it at a different market and the camera it self has it's limits that you gotta deal with. People love the Q but like always "price" is an issue. 

 

Since i shoot just with the Q i gotta defend it, The M also has electric components inside and if that don't break, you also gotta send it in for calibration and to get it back takes months. 

 

Depending on your shooting style and the final result that you would like is what i would choose.  The Q is a great camera some people will love it and some people will hate it, but nothing is perfect, nothing lasts for ever either. Even if you a buy a used Lens you will be within the Leica system and eventually end up buying something new from Leica which is what they want. Leica eventually will make money from the used market since people had a test drive.

 

And below are some samples that I've done with the Q. 

 

TORONTO - LE SIX - SEIS CANADA by dimanatti, on Flickr

 

L1030250 by dimanatti, on Flickr

 

Untitled by dimanatti, on Flickr

 

L02D by dimanatti, on Flickr

 

Untitled by dimanatti, on Flickr

 

LV by dimanatti, on Flickr

Edited April 18, 2018 by Hazesus

[jonatdonuts]

Slightly off topic - may I ask what kind of calibration issues people are having? Every couple of years or so, after a few heavy knocks and a couple of light aircraft rides, I will get horizontal calibration issues, though these can be fixed very simply with a hex key in 10 minutes...

[Hazesus]

Slightly off topic - may I ask what kind of calibration issues people are having? Every couple of years or so, after a few heavy knocks and a couple of light aircraft rides, I will get horizontal calibration issues, though these can be fixed very simply with a hex key in 10 minutes...

 

 

What i saying is that M cameras if you shooting hardcore they will eventually need Rangefinder Calibration, Alignment, Lens Calibration and Focus shift, sensor clean up etc. And if you can't do them your self you gotta send it out for service, which is good because it will make the camera last longer like anything. If someone never had none of these issues either they sooooooo lucky or they just simply not using it as much. Yes the Q will have issues eventually that's why am here   .

[Lonescapes]

Slightly off topic - may I ask what kind of calibration issues people are having? Every couple of years or so, after a few heavy knocks and a couple of light aircraft rides, I will get horizontal calibration issues, though these can be fixed very simply with a hex key in 10 minutes...

 

I've never had a single serious calibration issue with a rangefinder camera that is less than 15 years old. I recognize I've probably been lucky and have owned good specimens, but you're not the only one who hasn't had to contend with the problems others are always reporting.

[prk60091]

not wanting to hijack the thread. .  .  but you gotta shoot what is right for you now and not worry about what might or could happen in the future. . .

 

i made my decision almost 3 years ago when i bought the Q. . .

 

sure like all of us i have GAS but i keep coming back to the images and ease of use of the Q. . . 

 

Maybe if i had been an M user just before i bought the Q i would think differently-- but i have never shot w/a digital M and the last M i shot was a beautiful SS M3 w/ 50mm DR 'cron about 40 years ago (I shudda kept it) and for me now the Q is the perfect camera

Edited April 19, 2018 by prk60091

[jaapv]

The  Leica Summilux-M 28mm f/1.4 ASPH Price new is even higher than the 35mm f/1.4 and the Q. The 28mm f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4 are for people who own or wanna get in the M system. 

 

The Q's 28mm doesn't render the images just like the 28mm f/1.4 (based on samples that I've seen on the net)

 

Also the Q was target it at a different market and the camera it self has it's limits that you gotta deal with. People love the Q but like always "price" is an issue. 

 

Since i shoot just with the Q i gotta defend it, The M also has electric components inside and if that don't break, you also gotta send it in for calibration and to get it back takes months. 

 

Depending on your shooting style and the final result that you would like is what i would choose.  The Q is a great camera some people will love it and some people will hate it, but nothing is perfect, nothing lasts for ever either. Even if you a buy a used Lens you will be within the Leica system and eventually end up buying something new from Leica which is what they want. Leica eventually will make money from the used market since people had a test drive.

 

And below are some samples that I've done with the Q. 

TORONTO - LE SIX - SEIS CANADA by dimanatti, on Flickr

 

L1030250 by dimanatti, on Flickr

 

Untitled by dimanatti, on Flickr

 

L02D by dimanatti, on Flickr

 

Untitled by dimanatti, on Flickr

 

LV by dimanatti, on Flickr

 

Please limit the number of such samples in the technical threads. The Forum provides image threads and photo-forums for the purpose.

Images in other threads should be intended to explain a point and not just be for display.

[low325]

Keep the q. Get the m. I think it’s a rest combo

[Tailwagger]

From an IQ standpoint, these things are a matter of degree, taste and preference. I find the M a bit superior to the Q, less noise in low light, but in general, I'm happy with both cameras and typical carry them both.

 

As far as AF is concerned, while the advantages are obvious, there is at least one drawback in my view.  Having spent several years shooting only with Ms before picking up a  Q, I can say that MF has, for those who all too often shoot under more difficult lighting circumstances, one advantage over AF. Namely, the focus point is completely decoupled from the metering.  Given both cameras, most really, have problems with blown highlights, this is a constant irritant for me with AF. Locking exposure independent of focus is certainly possible with AF camera, but personally I find it quite a fiddly and often frustrating process.  When in such situations with the Q, I wind up focusing manually anyway. Focus, point, half press, recompose, shoot. Pretty much exactly what I go through with the M. 

 

As to the cost considerations, there are likely numerous factors in play.  The singular lens assembly, where the camera is physically assembled, ease of assembly, shared componentry with Panasonic, etc. But it also is probably true there is some measure of exclusivity up charge with M mount lenses as well, coupled to paying more due to lower volumes. 

 

In the end, it rarely pays to fixate on cost as opposed to value for $$$ spent. Some find the RF experience, unmatched  range of optics, simplicity of operation to be worth the premium. Other don't.  In my case, I felt the Q at 2/3rds the cost of a Summiux 28mm, represented a far stronger value proposition when I went to add a 28mm to my gear bag, given I already possessed both an M and a bagful of optics. But if could have only one lens and it had to be a 28mm, it would be a Summilux-M on an M10, despite the reality that the combo costs 3.5x that of a Q.  Gulp.