Cost of 75 and 90 SL lenses...

[Donzo98]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently purchased a 90 SL (which will be here next week).

 

As I wait for for it... I was thinking about crazy the Leica prices are.

 

As an amateur who likes to have the "best"stuff... I moved from Nikon a few years to a Q and SL combo. I had a ton of Nikon stuff so I didn't really mind buying the Leica gear.

 

I love mirrorless... and TOTALLY love the SL glass. The SL build quality is awesome, much better than the Sony stuff. That's a big reason I love the SL. Sad though, that the AF is not up to the same standard as the A9. Hopefully the SL2 will be.

 

I just can't help thinking that I could go Sony for WAY WAY less money.

 

Do you guys really think the incremental increase in resolution is really even close to being justified??

 

I'm happily in the Leica camp... but geez... this stuff is crazy expensive.

[bherman01545]

Don;

 

You are paying for an object made in Germany, from a low-volume company, primarily assembled and finished by hand. The optics are the best available, bar none (especially the new SL lenses)

 

The Sony technology is great, but they are still not a camera or optics company. While they have come a long way over the past few years,

they are still an electronics company who outsources their repairs to a third party company.

 

Leica's "Das Wesentliche" approach to cameras - my understanding is that it translates to "the essence of what matters" is what resonates with certain photographers.

The build, the simple interface and the optics all make you want to pick the camera up and shoot with it. Nothing gets in the way between the photographer and their subject.

 

As much as I like Leica products for what they are, I like them even better for what they are not. 

 

I had a Sony A7II several years ago, and the menu system drove me crazy

[Advertisement]

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

[Donzo98]

Brad.... I agree completely, and love the system as you do.

 

It does get to a point when it’s just nuts though.

[Stuart Richardson]

Leica lenses are best bought used or as demos. This is harder with newer systems like the SL, but you will save thousands by being 1-5 years behind. I have bought new cameras and lenses from Leica, but it is usually for lack of finding a used one in pristine shape. At least from my perspective, better to let someone else take the markup and depreciation hit. Lenses generally do not really age, so they are ideal to buy gently used...save your money and put it towards the next gen camera, where getting it new makes more of a difference.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Stuart Richardson

[Stuart Richardson]

The other trick which I probably should not promote would be to buy the camera in the country with a high VAT, like Denmark. If you buy and have them ship it to you outside the E.U., they will take the VAT off. In Denmark that is 25%. People in Europe often bought in NYC to save the VAT, so Leica tried to even out the prices across the world. That means that sometimes if you are in the US it can be significantly cheaper to buy the camera in Europe and ship it in. It's not always the case, but another way you can stand to save. Since Iceland is stuck in the middle of the ocean, I generally look on both sides of the Atlantic before I buy something, as it can vary substantially depending on the product and the timing (especially with respect to forex markets etc).

Edited June 30, 2018 by Stuart Richardson

[Donzo98]

I have the 24-90, 90-280, 50 SL and the incoming 90.

 

Bought the 90-280, 50 and now the 90 used... significant discount off new.

 

Still crazy expensive compared to Sony, Nikon or Canon equivalents.

 

Yes.... image quality is outstanding!!! No doubt

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the 24-90, 90-280, 50 SL and the incoming 90.

 

Bought the 90-280, 50 and now the 90 used... significant discount off new.

 

Still crazy expensive compared to Sony, Nikon or Canon equivalents.

 

Yes.... image quality is outstanding!!! No doubt

 

As someone who owns the Sony GM glass as well as the Sigma Arts I can say confidently, they're not equivalents.

 

If you've not use the SL lenses then you'd be justified in thinking how brilliant the GM glass is. But if you have use the SL glass you'll always see the others as the second best.

 

The SL will never focus like an A9. Sony tech is too heavily invested in that area for Leica to be a player. It's a more general use system with the best glass.

 

Gordon

[Donzo98]

As someone who owns the Sony GM glass as well as the Sigma Arts I can say confidently, they're not equivalents.

 

If you've not use the SL lenses then you'd be justified in thinking how brilliant the GM glass is. But if you have use the SL glass you'll always see the others as the second best.

 

The SL will never focus like an A9. Sony tech is too heavily invested in that area for Leica to be a player. It's a more general use system with the best glass.

 

Gordon

 

That's great to know Gordon... I have never used the Sony lenses. I am so happy with the performance of the SL glass.

 

Just venting a bit about prices...

[Bill W]

I have been using Leica since 1985 and it would probably kill me to know what I have spent on equipment. I tried a Nikon system when the R was discontinued and I wanted digital. There is no comparison in my view. The Nikon interface is ok but it is still a lot of levels. I rid myself of it when I picked up the SL. I am all in with the SL. I have shot the M since 1987 and am still all in with it as well. FWIW

[Donzo98]

I have been using Leica since 1985 and it would probably kill me to know what I have spent on equipment. I tried a Nikon system when the R was discontinued and I wanted digital. There is no comparison in my view. The Nikon interface is ok but it is still a lot of levels. I rid myself of it when I picked up the SL. I am all in with the SL. I have shot the M since 1987 and am still all in with it as well. FWIW

Bill... what SL lenses do you have??

[Bill W]

Bill... what SL lenses do you have??

 

Like a lot of folks I am waiting on the 16-35. I first bought the 24-90 and actually had it long before I was able to get my SL. I then acquired the 50 and just recently got the 90-280. I am looking at getting the 75 and possible the 50 cron when it comes out. I would like the lighter size and weight of the 50 cron and could not care about the extra stop of the lux. I am not a wide open shooter for the most part. I took the SL with 24-90 with me for two weeks in Scotland last fall and it was all I really needed. I also had the M10 with 50APO and 28 cron.

[ramarren]

I never understand the business of venting about prices. When I couldn't afford Leica prices, I didn't buy Leica equipment. When I can, I do. It's quality and desirability has never been in question, and it's always delivered top notch results for me.

 

There are lots of things in the world that I can't afford but I'd enjoy. I set my priorities and buy what I want that I can.

 

That's all...

[Bill W]

Yep, complaining about prices reminds me of the saying "everyone complains about the weather but no one does anything about it" 

[Peter Branch]

Like a lot of folks I am waiting on the 16-35...…….

 

I'm one of the lucky ones - put my name on Red Dot's waiting list on the day it was announced.

 

In my opinion the 16-35 is the best of the SL lenses particularly at the widest settings - nothing I ever owned in the M range of very wide angle lenses, 18, 21, 24 & 28, comes close.

 

No distortion, no CA, no Vigneting, pin sharp corner to corner and very close focusing.  The out of focus imaging is less obtrusive than the "Onion Ring" style of the 24-90. 

 

Even at 35mm it's a top performer but, of course, limited in aperture.

 

It's the most expensive of the SL lenses but I'm happy to have one in my bag. 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Peter Branch

[helged]

I'm one of the lucky ones - put my name on Red Dot's waiting list on the day it was announced.

 

In my opinion the 16-35 is the best of the SL lenses particularly at the widest settings - nothing I ever owned in the M range of very wide angle lenses, 18, 21, 24 & 28, comes close.

 

No distortion, no CA, no Vigneting, pin sharp corner to corner and very close focusing. The out of focus imaging is less obtrusive than the "Onion Ring" style of the 24-90.

 

Even at 35mm it's a top performer but, of course, limited in aperture.

 

It's the most expensive of the SL lenses but I'm happy to have one in my bag.

Plus - and this is a big plus in my book: The 16-35 SL is very, very fare resistant. It's in another league compared to, e.g., Nikon 14-28 f2.8G and Sigma Art 14mm f1.8, and most of the wider Leica offerings, the wide S-lenses included (e.g. the 24mm-S and 35mm-S).

[Peter Branch]

Plus - and this is a big plus in my book: The 16-35 SL is very, very fare resistant. It's in another league compared to, e.g., Nikon 14-28 f2.8G and Sigma Art 14mm f1.8, and most of the wider Leica offerings, the wide S-lenses included (e.g. the 24mm-S and 35mm-S).

 

I can confirm that it is, as you comment, the most flare resistant lens I've ever owned.

 

This has a very beneficial impact on IQ.

[Donzo98]

I never understand the business of venting about prices. When I couldn't afford Leica prices, I didn't buy Leica equipment. When I can, I do. It's quality and desirability has never been in question, and it's always delivered top notch results for me.

 

There are lots of things in the world that I can't afford but I'd enjoy. I set my priorities and buy what I want that I can.

 

That's all...

 

 

Just because someone can afford something doesn't make it a good value...

 

These goods are luxury items....

Edited July 1, 2018 by Donzo98

[ramarren]

Just because someone can afford something doesn't make it a good value...

 

These goods are luxury items....

 

 

And as such, why complain about the price? It's a luxury ... not something essential. Luxury things are not traded on the expectation of "value." 

[Donzo98]

And as such, why complain about the price? It's a luxury ... not something essential. Luxury things are not traded on the expectation of "value."

Why do you care?? You could just not reply or even read the thread.

 

I was just wondering what other people thought about the prices.

 

I wanted to see if others felt the “value” was there, or actually if they felt the Leica IQ was that much better than Sony.

 

Gordon answered very appropriately.

 

You seem to be replying to my question by saying... “People shouldn’t care about the astronomically high prices”. That my be your opinion... but it’s not mine.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[mmradman]

Just because it is there doesn’t mean one need to buy it unless itch is irresistible or there is real need, like making money/living with the tools.

 

When I drifted from Nikon some 8 years ago I did it not because optics of AF were poor (on the contrary they were and still are excellent) but because I developed liking for manual focus optics, SL601 was real God send for me as universal digital back fully compatible with all M and R lenses - at least ones I have.

 

As I already have superb Summilux M 75mm, and APO Summicron M 90mm, both smaller than latest SL counterparts, also work on M camera, there is only curiosity but no real desire to acquire any of the new AF lenses.

 

Typical M or R lens will outlive any SL lens, simple reason no electronics.

 

Edit; prices are outrageous, especially being electro-optical, so shorter service life than fully mechanical counterpart and probably easier to adjust through software tweaks.

Edited July 1, 2018 by mmradman