> From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > As a Leica user, and an owner of some and a user of many of > their lenses, I can assure you that, while many are > exemplary, quite a few are not. I'm sure you don't equate > price with quality ... or do you?
There is often a high degree of correlation. The market economy is supposed to punish those who sell low quality goods at high prices and reward those who do the reverse. Of course, one could argue that there is "value" in a camera for reasons other than its ability as a photographic tool. There are certainly important features in a camera other than the quality of the lenses that mount on it--if not I'd still be using Pentax at work. > Offhand, I can't think of a single Leica lens that uses a > 55mm filter. You might be thinking of the Noctilux which is > the only Leica 50mm lens that I know of that takes large > filters - 58mm and 60mm depending on the model. That's a > very spendy lens because it's rather fast ... F 1.0. OK, I haven't kept current with Leica since I wasn't in the market, but I remember reading a catalog in the late 80s or early 90s that showed most of their R lenses taking larger filters than anybody elses with the same specs. I'm thinking SLR, not rangefinder, because it's apples and oranges otherwise. > While other leica lenses are also expensive, that price does > not always equate to quality. In fact, many Leica users > have chosen to go with a variety of Cosina lenses instead of > their Leica counterparts. They are, in many instances, > every bit as good, and sometimes better (depending on how > you define all those terms). So why buy Leica in the first place? I suppose I am thinking primarily SLR rather than rangefinder (since I'm an SLR user), but if Minolta can make a lens every bit as good why not just buy the much cheaper Minolta? "Why buy Leica rangefinder?" is a somewhat simpler question to answer of course. > And, while it may not be generally known, some of that > spendy leica glass has, at times, been made by Sigma or > Minolta. Legally, made in a factory owned by Sigma but under contract to Leica and using Leica quality standards is "made by Leica"--they are just using somebody else's tools to make it. Nikon and Canon do this too. I know there was at least one Minolta lens that was rumored to be optically identical to an equivalent Leitz lens, but I'm assuming in general we're not talking about the old Vivitar phenomenon where the same lens just got different nameplates. > You're paying a premium for the Red Dot in some cases ... > and in others you're getting outstanding quality. So it's all about cachet? You'd think that if the users cared about optical quality they'd give Leica hell about the dogs. Isn't the POINT of brand identity that you can usually judge quality of a product by the standards that the manufacturer chooses to uphold for the entire brand? Pentax users are not particularly forgiving of Asahi Optical's bad choices, and Nikon users don't cut Nikon any slack at all. Or perhaps Leica has a special "says Leica on it but we won't tell anybody how little you actually paid for the prestige" line of lenses? If so, presumably Leica insiders know to stay away from the "cheapotars" if they actually want to take pictures with them. > Some years ago Keppler compared a Leica 50mm with a Pentax > 50mm ... don't recall the versions though, and guess what. > That spendy Leica glass didn't surpass the $50.00 Pentax > lens until the prints were quite big, and then only in the > corners. Sure. Leica quality is way up into the area of declining returns. If you absolutely have to have THE BEST, it probably is a Leica lens. For most of us, the extra couple of percent superiority is not worth an order of magnitude difference in price. I've often said that the likely reason for the decreased optical and mechanical quality of modern photo equipment is that the quality that used to be built in was excessive for the needs of the users. >From a financial point of view, the Pentax M lenses and cameras might be deemed their finest achievement because they sold a lot of them and Pentax is ultimately out to make money, not lenses. > I don't shoot leica for the "superiority" of their lenses > ... I shoot Leica for other reasons, and because the lenses > are quite good ... but then, that's why I shoot pentax, too. I remember somebody saying "it's all about the glass" as an answer to "why buy Pentax?". I don't think that was ever really the case--it's more complex than that. DJE
