M9 or M10 Full Frame - Why buy new lenses?

[Guest BigSplash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

.... along with some bellows, and don't forget the Visoflex, Frank.

 

I've just bought an 18mm, great little lens, I like the way they've copied the filter design we developed here for the WATE, though it's a bit cheeky of them to have patented it. Perhaps John Milich and I should ask for a royalty...

 

I don't think you'll see a 15mm from Leica, a 16mm Super-Elmar is more likely IMHO.

 

A 16mm is better than 18mm and will do just fine. I like very much the occassional dramatic effect of my 21mm on the M6 with something in the foreground like a yachts winch and the rest as a backdrop. On the M8 the 21mm is less dramatic due to the crop effect....basically on any camera my feeling is the wider the better.

 

Do not know what is special about the filter design and where is "here" do you develop photographic stuff?

[marknorton]

By here, I mean this forum.

 

In early 2007, we recognised the usability problems of the WATE after the need for full time filters had emerged. The official Leica solution - the big 67mm adapter and filter - meant there was no hood or even lens cap and constantly taking off the filter adapter and putting it on made problems for the rubber o-ring which tightens the thread.

 

I first showed a drawing of how such a filter adapter might work and some maths to prove it wouldn't vignette but the credit for turning the idea into real metal goes to John Milich who, as I recall, borrowed Guy Mancuso's lens to measure against and produce the adapter which has made our lives with the WATE much easier.

 

The 18mm Super-Elmar filter adapter is identical in concept and adds a plastic black-out ring to prevent the lettering on the front of the lens reflecting into the filter. It's a pity in some ways that Leica have not swallowed their pride and done the same for the WATE.

 

By not communicating the selected focal length to the camera (which could have been done either by a sliding lens code to preset 3 different values to the camera or by using the frameline coupling lever), the WATE remains a cumbersome lens to use. I can easily see I will use the little Super-Elmar more than the WATE.

[offshore]

If all of you would just start ignoring this guy and stop pandering to him he will eventually stop this kind of nonsense.

[gwelland]

M10? It's not enough to speculate about an M9 now?

[john_newell]

This question hadn't occurred to me until I was scanning the posts above and I hesitate even to ask - I assume that it is true that none of the recent Leica lens designs were designed with a reduced image circle that would work well on the M8 sensor but might not work as well on a traditional 24x36ish sensor size?

[andybarton]

The M8 is but one part of the M system, going back to 1954

 

All M lenses, with very few exceptions, work as designed on all M camera bodies. Leica do not make digital M lenses. They make M lenses.

[lxlim]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

.... along with some bellows, and don't forget the Visoflex, Frank.

 

I've just bought an 18mm, great little lens, I like the way they've copied the filter design we developed here for the WATE, though it's a bit cheeky of them to have patented it. Perhaps John Milich and I should ask for a royalty...

 

I don't think you'll see a 15mm from Leica, a 16mm Super-Elmar is more likely IMHO.

 

Well, it just might be a minor offshoot of the marknorton proofing process on the part of Leica. BTW thanks for the bit of genius by John and yourself. If it weren't for both of you I would not have gotten the WATE.

 

Won't tell my wife though, you might not survive Christmas.

[marknorton]

Thank you for your kind words. What's clear already from the 18mm Super-Elmar is that it's a fantastic lens which really questions why spend more on the WATE.

[gwelland]

BTW thanks for the bit of genius by John and yourself. If it weren't for both of you I would not have gotten the WATE.

.

 

Ditto. If it wasn't for the Milich adapter I wouldn't have considered the WATE with the impractical filter assembly. The Frankenfinder I don't mind at all but the Leica reflection & dust trap would be like trying to walk around with a LEE filter holder and grads on the front.

 

Thank you Mark & John! I'm just a little surprised that Leica didn't come out with their own version at $500 a pop.

[john_newell]

The M8 is but one part of the M system, going back to 1954

 

All M lenses, with very few exceptions, work as designed on all M camera bodies. Leica do not make digital M lenses. They make M lenses.

 

That was my belief. Thanks for confirming.

[redbaron]

Who's paying you to write this drivel Frank? Your consistent and provocative attacks on Leica smell very fishy to me.

 

A small selection of your 'work':

 

"I was trying to provoke.

 

I would suspect many people will rush out and buy old lenses secondhand and that would not be good news for the finances of Solms.

 

I see this as an issue as selfishly yet again I see my Leica investment going down the plug hole in value.

 

Still Dr Kaufmann has apparently personally injected 60M€uros of his own money, but then he has considerably more available...several hundred million €uros apparently....presumably from his savings as a school teacher for 15 years ..or was it from the family business?

 

I do not believe that at this "introductory" price S2 is viable...

 

I hope you are correct and that the Canon & Nikon deserters leave in sufficient numbers to support the 250M€uros annual revenue that is required for continued R&D and a healthy company.

 

I think the point is that there are difficult times ahead for Leica management,

 

On the Leica business plan it would be fascinating to know not just the price of their lenses but the cost to make them. If APO base material glass is we are told more expensive than silver, and has to be bought in two year batches, has to be machined as a ASPH rather than as a simple spherical shape....well cost to manufacture may be an issue when compared to the price

 

In my view we do not have the data to advise Leica on their lens portfolio as we do not know if they make more profit % , and more importantly for Leica actual profit on a £6795 Noctilux ...that they have had difficulty making at all, or on a 50mm Summarit at £849.

 

I keep hearing that Leica is a small company unable to take on the mighty Japanese so I was surprised that:

 

The issue is not company size it is the credit rating that Leica has. In my view the Leica bankers will be wanting to see evidence of:

1 Recent business performance since they had the credit issues some years ago that caused Hermes to sell, and the company was split up.

2 A clear believable strategy that suggests that Leica will enjoy a brilliant future, and be able to repay any credits given.

3 Evidence that the executive team is driving the company forward as per the plan .

 

Frankly this thread and others show how difficult it will be in my view to woo the bankers as there is so many issues surrounding Leica's plan at both a product and commercial level.

 

If you mean speciality as a CEO it is turning around sick high tech companies by looking at the issues, listening to the workforce and clients and acting on this to effect change as opposed to financial engineering. (I have done 7 very successfully in the last decade and had one liquidation that actually was also deemed successful by the investors as I saved them a lot of money, and returned some of their IPR.)

 

What is all this about bringing the company into disrepute?

 

They also could get better organised to do all repairs at Solms for example with a full comprehensive spare parts inventory for anything they may need.

 

If Leica Shop follows concepts as per B&O, Loewe (high end), New Bose Boutiques, Festool workshop materials and other high end kit then the existing dealers will like it.

I would suggest the rules should be:

1) All Leica products on show & demo .

2) If certian items are in short supply (eg Noctilux) then it should be available to handle and demo at the Leica shop, but NOT available for purchase..that should be on a fair basis across the shop and existing dealers worldwide

3) The Leica shop should have on premises repair, including sensor cleaning and small parts such as filters and flash socket buttons......try getting one of these from most dealers!

4) The Leica shop must have fully trained staff on hand, and ideally a room set aside for seminars / teaching.

5) I guess they also need to address discounting and mail order plus grey imports in a clear way.

 

The way Leicas and their accessories are sold needs significant improvement.

 

Leica need lower costs and this means higher volume manufacture and continuous improvement / capital investment

 

I was told by the Photography dept. of a well known superstore in London that sell Leica that the camera was useless and could not do multiple shots, without a 10 second interval between shots, and they did NOT recommend Leica M8 for this reason.

 

I really do not understand why you and some others on the thread do not focus the real issues and positively make suggestions to help the new CEO as he settles into his new job.

 

I do not see this as being an armchair CEO. As someone who has as CEO successfully turned around 7 companies, some of which where of same size as Leica. All were in high tech (electronics and software). I know this can only be achieved if you listen to your clients and then try to consider this in business terms. It seems that several forum members do not agree and are quite critical of even trying to give an input. They are wrong! I only wish I had the benefit of an active forum when I joined the companies that I have helped.

 

In my case I of course look at financials but I also emphasize a close look at the strategy, business direction, technical issues through to R&D, manufacturing and as you say market segmentation plus product positioning....This is what I focus in my day job, but NOT as a Forum member.

 

Leica are very unclear about their product roadmap, and this is worrying me as a user since if they get it wrong the value of my kit will implode, and new items will not be available

 

The Leica stratgey is BAD as it does not seem to protect currentl Leica owners investment, and it is not obvious why new clients would go Leica."

[leicashot]

Well I was tempted to buy the 24mm Lux until I heard about the, dare I say 'rumours'.

 

28mm is the widdest I like to go when shooting with an M. I save ultrawide and telephoto work for SLR's. 28-50mm is where the M excells....but lets wait and see what Leica does with the M9 before we make any rash decisions.

[Guest BigSplash]

By here, I mean this forum.

 

In early 2007, we recognised the usability problems of the WATE after the need for full time filters had emerged. The official Leica solution - the big 67mm adapter and filter - meant there was no hood or even lens cap and constantly taking off the filter adapter and putting it on made problems for the rubber o-ring which tightens the thread.

 

I first showed a drawing of how such a filter adapter might work and some maths to prove it wouldn't vignette but the credit for turning the idea into real metal goes to John Milich who, as I recall, borrowed Guy Mancuso's lens to measure against and produce the adapter which has made our lives with the WATE much easier.

 

The 18mm Super-Elmar filter adapter is identical in concept and adds a plastic black-out ring to prevent the lettering on the front of the lens reflecting into the filter. It's a pity in some ways that Leica have not swallowed their pride and done the same for the WATE.

 

By not communicating the selected focal length to the camera (which could have been done either by a sliding lens code to preset 3 different values to the camera or by using the frameline coupling lever), the WATE remains a cumbersome lens to use. I can easily see I will use the little Super-Elmar more than the WATE.

 

Thanks ...very informative. Also surprising that Leica do not do the same for the WATE.

 

Actually I do not see why I would buy a WATE and would preference a 18mm or 16mm . My reasons are:

1 I am really after a super wide angle....the wider the better

2 I cannot see the need for 3 super wide focal lengths ....surely one would do and it seems that most people who have the WATE just use it at its widest setting of 16mm. They do not use 16 /18 /21mm

3 There is a significant price differential WATE is £3629 and 18mm is £1849

4 Ideally I guess with the WATE you would need the huge viewfinder which with a huge WATE lens is not exactly a small kit to carry around for the few shots one makes with such a duper wide angle.

[Guest BigSplash]

Who's paying you to write this drivel Frank? Your consistent and provocative attacks on Leica smell very fishy to me.

 

A small selection of your 'work':

 

"I was trying to provoke.

 

I would suspect many people will rush out and buy old lenses secondhand and that would not be good news for the finances of Solms.

 

I see this as an issue as selfishly yet again I see my Leica investment going down the plug hole in value.

 

Still Dr Kaufmann has apparently personally injected 60M€uros of his own money, but then he has considerably more available...several hundred million €uros apparently....presumably from his savings as a school teacher for 15 years ..or was it from the family business?

 

I do not believe that at this "introductory" price S2 is viable...

 

I hope you are correct and that the Canon & Nikon deserters leave in sufficient numbers to support the 250M€uros annual revenue that is required for continued R&D and a healthy company.

 

I think the point is that there are difficult times ahead for Leica management,

 

On the Leica business plan it would be fascinating to know not just the price of their lenses but the cost to make them. If APO base material glass is we are told more expensive than silver, and has to be bought in two year batches, has to be machined as a ASPH rather than as a simple spherical shape....well cost to manufacture may be an issue when compared to the price

 

In my view we do not have the data to advise Leica on their lens portfolio as we do not know if they make more profit % , and more importantly for Leica actual profit on a £6795 Noctilux ...that they have had difficulty making at all, or on a 50mm Summarit at £849.

 

I keep hearing that Leica is a small company unable to take on the mighty Japanese so I was surprised that:

 

The issue is not company size it is the credit rating that Leica has. In my view the Leica bankers will be wanting to see evidence of:

1 Recent business performance since they had the credit issues some years ago that caused Hermes to sell, and the company was split up.

2 A clear believable strategy that suggests that Leica will enjoy a brilliant future, and be able to repay any credits given.

3 Evidence that the executive team is driving the company forward as per the plan .

 

Frankly this thread and others show how difficult it will be in my view to woo the bankers as there is so many issues surrounding Leica's plan at both a product and commercial level.

 

If you mean speciality as a CEO it is turning around sick high tech companies by looking at the issues, listening to the workforce and clients and acting on this to effect change as opposed to financial engineering. (I have done 7 very successfully in the last decade and had one liquidation that actually was also deemed successful by the investors as I saved them a lot of money, and returned some of their IPR.)

 

What is all this about bringing the company into disrepute?

 

They also could get better organised to do all repairs at Solms for example with a full comprehensive spare parts inventory for anything they may need.

 

If Leica Shop follows concepts as per B&O, Loewe (high end), New Bose Boutiques, Festool workshop materials and other high end kit then the existing dealers will like it.

I would suggest the rules should be:

1) All Leica products on show & demo .

2) If certian items are in short supply (eg Noctilux) then it should be available to handle and demo at the Leica shop, but NOT available for purchase..that should be on a fair basis across the shop and existing dealers worldwide

3) The Leica shop should have on premises repair, including sensor cleaning and small parts such as filters and flash socket buttons......try getting one of these from most dealers!

4) The Leica shop must have fully trained staff on hand, and ideally a room set aside for seminars / teaching.

5) I guess they also need to address discounting and mail order plus grey imports in a clear way.

 

The way Leicas and their accessories are sold needs significant improvement.

 

Leica need lower costs and this means higher volume manufacture and continuous improvement / capital investment

 

I was told by the Photography dept. of a well known superstore in London that sell Leica that the camera was useless and could not do multiple shots, without a 10 second interval between shots, and they did NOT recommend Leica M8 for this reason.

 

I really do not understand why you and some others on the thread do not focus the real issues and positively make suggestions to help the new CEO as he settles into his new job.

 

I do not see this as being an armchair CEO. As someone who has as CEO successfully turned around 7 companies, some of which where of same size as Leica. All were in high tech (electronics and software). I know this can only be achieved if you listen to your clients and then try to consider this in business terms. It seems that several forum members do not agree and are quite critical of even trying to give an input. They are wrong! I only wish I had the benefit of an active forum when I joined the companies that I have helped.

 

In my case I of course look at financials but I also emphasize a close look at the strategy, business direction, technical issues through to R&D, manufacturing and as you say market segmentation plus product positioning....This is what I focus in my day job, but NOT as a Forum member.

 

Leica are very unclear about their product roadmap, and this is worrying me as a user since if they get it wrong the value of my kit will implode, and new items will not be available

 

The Leica stratgey is BAD as it does not seem to protect currentl Leica owners investment, and it is not obvious why new clients would go Leica."

 

Thanks very much for this synopsis, which is excellent as far as it goes. Several of the comments are recognised by Leica and they are addressing.

 

You have however omitted various other areas that I have mentioned on several occassions that I think Leica would do well to address.

I would for example mention:

> My earlier threads on the Visoflex, or equivalent accessory such as EVF which despite huge critique towards me from members in the forum about the Viso it seems that Leica have an alternate plan, and do recognise the need ...Their solution is apparently based on EVF which other forum members have heavily critiqued...however not me I think it could be good for Leica to embrace such new technology

> Many comments that I have made about the need for Leica to improve after sales quality, price, turnaround time

> Many comments about Leica Quality control of new lenses that are shipped and then do not focus on a M8, or with defective aperture rings etc (eg a New Noctilux with problems etc etc).

> Leica marketing and positioning when new products are announced it would appear can be improved (eg S2 release this week)

 

I am doing this for free and I have no business interest with resepect to Leica.

 

I do not think it is drivel, but it is I believe very factual.

 

My earnest hope is that Leica will listen to their clients and use the kind of comments above as a way to achieve continuous improvement. I have £30K of Leica kit (secondhand value) plus will buy more. I sincerely want Leica to succeed and address the above issues. I do NOT want them to have the kind of difficluties they had when Hermes pulled out.

 

I think Dr Kaufmann has saved Leica by injecting his own money and managing the company during the last year. He has made clear that he is i for the long haul and that is great. He is not in for a fast buck, or a bit of financial engineering he is trying to fix the issues and he has a five year timeline as I understand it.

 

Now it seems to me that you actually object to raising issues, you do NOT say that the issues I have raised are untrue, or not relevant. If I have made any errors please let me know and I shall certainly apologise and correct my misconceptions. Otherwise I believe that since Leica management apparently read the forum they will benefit from the feedback.....that certainly was Stefan Daniel's view when i spoke to him recently.

[adan]

First, an aside to Andy Barton: Leica does not make digital-ONLY lenses in the M line, but I will bet they are taking digital requirements into consideration as they design new lenses, while also maintaining the lenses' capabilities with film. And probably have been at least as far back as the 28 Summicron.

 

Frank: as to your original question - why would anyone buy new lenses when they can buy used ones? I don't know that that is specific to an M9 or to full-frame. Most of my lenses are the same era as yours and I love 'em too. And yes I think they have a special quality (for me, mostly lower contrast and less magenta bias) that I prefer.

 

Are the new lenses better? It depends on what you count as better.

 

The current 28 'cron and Elmarit ASPHs are much smaller than my 1982 28 v.3, and contrastier (and a stop faster in the case of the 'cron). The 21 f/2.8 ASPH is smaller than the 1980 21 f/2.8.

 

The 35 ASPH f/1.4 is a huge improvement over either of the 1980's 35s in terms of off-center resolution and avoidance of coma (point light sources reproducing as butterfly shapes - extremely obvious in the pre-ASPH 35s at full aperture). The 35 f/2 ASPH's image improvement is more subtle, but the build is a bit better.

 

Leica, I believe, still passport-warranties new lenses. For 3 years, so long as you can return a piece bearing the serial number, Leica will repair or replace the lens free regardless of fault.

 

And, of course, there are lenses that never existed before: no such thing as a 30-year-old 21 f/1.4 or 75 f/2 or 18 f/3.8 or 16/18/21.

 

So the reasons to buy new are about what they've always been. Something new and/or different, pride of ownership, warranty security.

 

I don't see full-frame changing that much. I had a 15 c/v prior to the M8, and also a 21 f/2.8. I've used both on the M8, with the 15 getting more use than it used to and the 21 getting less. If I get a 24 x 36 M-whatever, the 21 will get more use again and the 15 will revert to "special-purpose" lens.

 

As to the advantages of FF (for me) - the lens I use for a "21" FoV will suddenly gain almost 2 stops. I'll be able to get a lens the size and FoV of the 28 Elmarit ASPH and a stop faster (35 'cron of whatever vintage). I'll either get more pixels or bigger pixels or a combination - better resolution or better low-light performance. I might even consider some of Leica's newer offerings more realistic - to my taste a "28" f/1.4 is ludicrous at $6000, but a "21" f/1.4 is only mildy psychotic at the same price (considering that used Nikon 28 f/1.4's go for $3600). At f/2.8, a Nikkor 20 is twice the price of a Nikkor 28, so the Leica price is below what a used Nikkor 20 f/1.4 should run (if such a thing existed).

[andybarton]

First, an aside to Andy Barton: Leica does not make digital-ONLY lenses in the M line, but I will bet they are taking digital requirements into consideration as they design new lenses, while also maintaining the lenses' capabilities with film. And probably have been at least as far back as the 28 Summicron.

 

That's really what I said.

 

The implication of the question was that Leica was/is making digital only lenses. They don't.