Leica Plasti line (Plasticron, Plastilux...)

[Robert Blanko]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

According to a colleague of a friend of my wife, we might see a Leica 35 APO Summicron Kevlar/Reporter edition soon…

[adan]

Where's lct with his photo of the plastic parts in the v.4 35mm Summicron-M?

Anyone remember artificial-rubber focusing rings, not just on the Summarit-M teles, but numerous R lenses?

.....................

Does the OP actually know the wholesale cost of brass - or aluminum - per pound (454g)?

Hint: brass commodities-futures price July 2022 = about $/€322 per metric tonne. Or about $/€0.16 per 500g.

Even commodity aluminum is far more expensive than brass (about $/€ 2300/tonne right now.) Owing to its strange and difficult properties (see Bayer and Hall-Héroult processes: https://blog.boydmetals.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-aluminum ).

Most Leica M lenses weigh less than 454g. So Leica changing from brass to plastic would reduce the cost of the M lenses by about 16¢ at most.

(It is true Leica would save something on extruding/casting/snapping-together/printing plastic vs. machining, hand-assembling, and engraving/painting metal. But not $/€1000s per lens.)

Additionally, most "plastic" lenses are only plastic on the outside - inside they are still mostly metal framework, mounts and threads, to hold and move the glass securely and precisely. See all the silvery stuff in the cutaway here - that's metal.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-d5-dslr-hands-on-preview-28654

The price of Leica lenses is not because they are machined metal. A lot of machined and engraved brass or aluminum in the TTArtisans and 7Artisans and Voigtländer lenses - which sell for $300-$1000.

It is because of what Leica does with the metal: the lenses are made with poor economies of scale (dozens a day, not hundreds), by hand, by expensive European workers. And because in some cases Leica does go the extra mile (which always costs as much as the preceding 10 miles combined) in the design, choice of glass*, engineering, and/or production precision and fit-and-finish. As well as brand image, and Veblen-goods effects.

.......................

I prefer mostly-metal lenses myself, regardless of who makes them. Some plastics can degrade under UV (i.e. sun) light. Some plastics don't wear well with constant rubbing (e.g. focusing and aperture movements) - they lose their fine edges (i.e. helical threads). Some metals or pairs of metals are self-lubricating (no remarks, please .

OTOH some plastics are stronger than metal - it just depends on whether the strength needed is tensile, compressive, or shearing strength. Some plastics will break - but not dent. A lot of high-end aircraft (and cars, and boats) are now made with plastic components (usually carbon/Kevlar-reinforced resins). As were boats and cars long before that, of glass-reinforced-resin (Fiberglas™).

Helmets on which lives depend are made of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) or polycarbonate plastics. With or without fiber reinforcement.

_______________________

*although remember that Leica molds its aspheric glass surfaces these days, just as though they were plastic.

[Capuccino-Muffin]

I once dropped a brand new nikon 35mm f2D from a second floor and watched it bounce about 10 times like a basketball, down the stairs.

Was during a wedding. 150 people watched and applauded.

I Picked the lens, slapped it on my camera and used it like nothing happened. Zero damage, the lens worked just fine.

 

But that’s not the point. Seems like a lot of people completely missed the point of this thread. 

Edited August 21, 2022 by Capuccino-Muffin

[Capuccino-Muffin]

1 minute ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

Double post

Edited August 21, 2022 by Capuccino-Muffin

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

But why oh why has this forum become a one-upmanship place?

Please stick to my original post which is clearly about cheapening a lens. It is NOT about space aircraft science not about super-plastics.

I repeat: my original post is NOT about space aircraft science, space age materials or advanced science. It is about cheapening lenses with plastics because the next material in line for that specific purpose would be cardboard, and that would be out of the question.

 

(Now please, cardbord lovers, no need to one-up me on the subject of cardboards. Yes, there are super advanced cardboards out there, for which I do not care one penny.)

Didn’t you read my posts or by other participants in this thread? Using the appropriate plastics would not cheapen a lens. It would probably make it more expensive. Even if there were a few cents price difference in the basic material, the cost of turning into precision parts is magnitudes more and near to impossible with plastic -AKA über-expensive, provided one would maintain image quality You may not be aware that the IQ of a lens is determined for 50% by the optics and 50% by the mechanical part. There are many reasons why a Leica lens is expensive but the cost of the material of the barrel is not one of them. 

[rramesh]

Go Green! Pick glass and aluminium over plastics.

Maybe one can, at some time in the distant future, walk into a store, tap a credit card, punch a button and a 3D printer will print all lens parts, assemble them and spit out an assembled lens, while you wait at the coffee bar.

A Leica Shoot to match the Paper Shoot launched elsewhere.

[Erato]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, rramesh said:

Go Green! Pick glass and aluminium over plastics.

Maybe one can, at some time in the distant future, walk into a store, tap a credit card, punch a button and a 3D printer will print all lens parts, assemble them and spit out an assembled lens, while you wait at the coffee bar.

A Leica Shoot to match the Paper Shoot launched elsewhere.

I'd like to share what I know about some open source(Github) 3D printing camera.

It's a  series of real camera body against various film format and it's an ongoing project but not for the lenses at the moment -- Chromium

This project initiated by Oscar Oweson

 

Ref URL:

- Official website

   https://www.panomicron.com/chormiummain

 

- Instagram with many finished samples

   https://www.instagram.com/panomicron/

 

@Capuccino-Muffin

 

BTW, to the OP, your motivation is so obvious and please disarm yourself. Put down your armor. 

Leica is not the one to blame. If you learn Leica history good enough then you'd understand why the Leica became a Hermes. Leica is a treasure to most of us even they're over pricing and barely hard to get one on a reasonable price tags but it doesn't mean that you can picked the bone cost as a soap box and release your fury and vitriol. 

We've noticed your points on the other threads. And it won't change their thoughts unless you change your attitude(even some of them may misjudged you and did not treat you fare enough as it should be). 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Erato
Please forgive my comments if I missing something that I should be aware.

[Cattoo]

With respect, your question is nonsense. You’re asking us to imagine a world in which Leica makes a line of cheap, shitty products, then asking us whether we’d buy them simply because of the red dot.

ill say no. While there are doubtless a lot of people here who do view the dot as some kind of male fashion accessory, I think most here buy Leica at least partially   because of the difference in quality—the build, the craftsmanship, the materials. I’m sure that you’d get a few buyers though. 
 

 

[lct]

3 hours ago, adan said:

Where's lct with his photo of the plastic parts in the v.4 35mm Summicron-M?

Here i am and i still don't want to pay Leica prices for things like that. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[rramesh]

And the many photos of the Visoflex 020 disintegrating. 

[kivis]

I like the Leica lenses as is. They are awesome. Some the Voigtländers are pretty damn good, too. All metal and I like it.

[Jeff S]

Jeff

[Erato]

23 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Jeff

No way, it's not plastic, it's classic!!

Edited August 22, 2022 by Erato
Remark: such a timeless, iconic scene.

[pop]

6 hours ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

a lot of people completely missed the point of this thread

How can we miss something that's not there. As far as I can see it's more an agenda than a point.

[jaapv]

It is so obvious that even if Leica should decide to build reduced-quality mass goods, which they never would, it runs counter to everything they stand for, that it would never be sold under the Leica brand.
This is an “if” question. If I were green and small I would live on Mars And use a plastic Aciel lens. 

[lct]

9 hours ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

I once dropped a brand new nikon 35mm f2D from a second floor and watched it bounce about 10 times like a basketball, down the stairs.

Was during a wedding. 150 people watched and applauded.

I Picked the lens, slapped it on my camera and used it like nothing happened. Zero damage, the lens worked just fine.

But that’s not the point. Seems like a lot of people completely missed the point of this thread. 

I had a similar experience with a Nikon camera and some of my lenses are made of polycarbonate or whatever plastic. I don't mind at all provided i don't pay Leica prices for that but if it's not your point i totally missed it indeed sorry. Or are you pulling our leg?

[Viv]

I don't buy Leica lenses. I can get much the same performance from Zeiss and Voigtlander.

I don't care what lenses are made of, as long as they perform.

[pgk]

Glass is sometimes considered to be a liquid .....

[Stuart Richardson]

10 hours ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

 

But that’s not the point. Seems like a lot of people completely missed the point of this thread. 

I think it was pretty clear. You wanted a thought experiment about whether people value optical performance over build quality and user experience. Most people did not want to play the game, because it is a bit detached from reality, and feels kind of like you are ready to insult them for valuing build and feel alongside optics. I think most people who use Leica would like them to be less expensive, but not at the expense of build quality or premium feel. The Summarit line did tell us that, but they were not optically equal...they were optically very close. I think the main knock on the Summarits were that they did not look the same, so they were treated by customers as something like training wheels.

If you want Leica-like performance at a lower price, there is always Sigma and Voigtlander, depending on the mount.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[250swb]

I think @Capuccino-Muffin makes some interesting points and I agree with many. I've long thought I'd buy a plastic M if one were available and probably plastic lenses as well. One of Nikon's cheapest zoom lenses at the end of the film era was the 28-80mm G kit lens, made with all the knowhow they'd accumulated up to that point but built in plastic for a budget price. I got one recently for £30 and it came with a free camera. It's a remarkable zoom lens, sharp as anything on film but naturally it wouldn't hold up on a digital sensor. Yet Nikon continue with a similar philosophy, the 24-70 f/4 Z7 kit lens is largely plastic but there isn't really much point in upgrading it unless you needed the extra stops.

So the point is plastic doesn't have to mean a lack of performance, it only means cheap. And if cheap is the quibble then you aren't actually talking about lenses but something entirely different to do with perception and the Leica journey where the stress is always on good things must be expensive.