Why are M mount lenses so expensive?

We like to rationalize paying high prices on our lenses by quality differences (there is no correlation when you compare Leica M to R, or Leica to Zeiss or CV, etc. - most quality processes come from Japan), German labor costs (which are NOT higher than Japanese), higher IP (questionable, check MTF charts), etc.

Leica M lenses are simply as expensive as they are, because we buy them for that price.

It's not "You get what you pay for", it's "You get what you/others want".

BTW, there are expensive used Japanese classic lenses, too. For example the OM Zuikos 40/2, 50/2, 90/2, are up there with Leicas. And justifyably so 🙂

Roland.
 
Last edited:
For the Hexanon lenses, I'm guessing that the lenses for M might have cost more to begin with than the non-M ones. I don't even know what mount the non-M lenses are which probably has something to do with their rock bottom prices. There are probably a lot of them out there for a camera system that few people shoot anymore.

I don't know why the R lenses are cheaper than the M ones. Are R lenses cheaper new? Also. there are several versions of many R lenses, and they just don't have optical differences. They have differences in cams and chips, so if you shoot an R8 or an R9, some of the older lenses won't work or won't work with all the features. I think. Which probably drives the price down some. M lenses on the other hand, work with no mods no matter what the age of the lens.
 
blue4130 said:
I think the point though is not comparing a Zeiss to a Leica lens, but two Leicas...

Why is an M mount Summicron 35/2 WAY more than a Summicron-R 35/2

Both SHOULD be made to the same quality standards. They should be near identical in performance and all that other crap, but why is there a price gap of such proportions? Demand is my guess.

Vance
www.photogeek.ca
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you are the only one who read the O/P's post. EDIT: Correction, the FIRST one. I see others have now twigged to the dealio. The point was NOT that he was comparing Hexanon lenses to Leica lenses, the point was that he was comparing Leica M-mount lenses to Leica R-mount lenses, and Hexanon M-mount lenses to Hexanon R-mount lenses.

I appreciated reading the other responses - more knee-jerk emotionally-charged twaddle, as usual. Always good for a morning chuckle.

However, a few people touched on the answer, I believe. My opinion is, along with theirs, simple supply and demand. In the case of Leica M-mount lenses versus Leica R-mount lenses, I suspect that there are actually MORE m-mount lenses out there, that is after all Leica's forte, but the demand remains high. Yes, there are people who appreciate the Leicaflex SL and the SLR's that came later, but not as many as those who value the M-series cameras. Also bear in mind that the Leica M-mount lenses will fit and function correctly with ANY M-mount Leica - not always true with the SLR's, which I believe had various cams added at various times to add functions, etc.

In the case of the Hexanons, I believe that they made more SLR lenses than M-mount lenses AND demand for the M-mount lenses is high, so demand would be MUCH higher for the M-mount Hexanons.

Elves and manufacturing techniques are not part of this particular comparison, I think.
 
Roger Hicks said:
And ground-and-polished glass aspherics, not hybrid (plastic moulded on glass).
Click to expand...

Hi Roger,

I have read that comment from you before. Do you have references about polishing methods used by other companies than Leica ? I was specifically wondering about Cosina/Voigtlander. No criticism of your statement, I really was looking for info.

Thanks,

Roland.
 
The demand [and the "reputation"] for RF lenses made by Leica is simply higher than the demand for the Leica SLR lenses [that may be great lenses too]. If many users switched from RF to SLR, then the prices of RF lenses will/should eventually go down.
 
Last edited:
David Murphy said:
...recently made optical technology from Leica or Zeiss, from a purely technical perspective, is hard to beat if the highest level of performance is demanded in 35 mm (a cheaper route is to move up to medium format if the weight and bulk of the equipment can be tolerated).
Click to expand...

Touche'

...recently picked up a Rolleiflex 2.8GX ...nice to use when you have a little extra time on the shoot. Shooting at f/4.0 my 11x14 enlargements are remarkable. There are multpile options but the larger negs really hold when going for the larger prints.
 
raid said:
The demand [and the "reputation"] for RF lenses made by Leica is simply higher than the demand for the Leica SLR lenss [that may be great lenses too]. If many users switched from RF to SLR, then the prices of RF lenses will/should eventually go down.
Click to expand...

There is a fellow making a custom mount for the Sigma SD14 dSLR that replaces the SA-mount with a Leica-R mount. The camera will then mount most (but aparently not all) Leica-R lenses. His opinion is that the Leica glass (and Zeiss) are one of the few lenses made that will take full advantage of the Foveon sensor - he believes the lenses are simply overkill for most dSLR applications, they're that good.

If I won the lottery, I'd love to put his assertions to the test.
 
Again, it's production numbers and quality of the glass and the finish. Not many lenses were produced in Alpa mount, and they marketed lenses by several manufacturers, probably choosing the best lens available in each focal length.
 
A Tachar LTM lens sold for "only" $365 or so a few days ago. This is not bad for a LTM lens by Asto-Berlin. I was wathcing the auction for a few days, but then I had exams to grade, and I forgot about it.
 
Back to the M- vs. R-mount price difference question. As fas as I can tell prices for new lenses are the pretty close between the two systems, with the R lenses being more costly on average:
50mm Summilux $3,600 (M) and $3,400 (R),
35mm Summicron $2,800 (M) and $3,000 (R),
35mm Summilux $4,200 (M) and $4,700 (R).
90mm APO Summicron $3,500 (M) and $3,900 (R).
So it is in the USED market where the price differences show up. The fact that not all R lenses work on all R bodies is a factor that drives used prices down. But also - maybe I don't get out much, but I know exactly one guy who uses a Leica R (R9 with modul-R).
I suppose that Leica sells enough R systems to justify keeping them in production, but not enough - and not enough to collector-types - for the lenses to maintain resale value.
 
I wouldnt even consider newer Summicrons to my M-setup, price is out of my reach. but after holidays plan is to buy used 5D, and for that there are already 3 red dot R-lenses (used, ofcourse) waiting: 28/2.8, 35/2 and 50/2. together all well under 1k Euros 🙂
 
Al Kaplan said:
If you want to see some high priced lenses check out Astro Tachar.
Click to expand...
Yes, well, a lot of the exotic lenses by high-end collector-type dealers sold (or at least listed) on eBay are really astonishingly expensive and sometimes beautiful creations. For instance, I am constantly amazed at the number and variety of nearly unique and rare lenses out there for Zeiss Ikon Contax rangefinders, all made in small numbers decades ago, often by obscure firms. Only a few Contax lenses, mostly by Zeiss (and Russian copies) are even close to being affordable and common. It looks as if Voigtlander has contributed to this interesting abberation of photography by introducing, then promptly withdrawing, their own line Contax/Nikon lens mount beauties (which I am trying to collect before they rocket up in price).
 
Goldorak said:
It's simple economics. It is not a quality thing. It's demand versus production cost. There is no economy of scale for rangefinder lenses. For instance, why are voigtlander lenses so expensive? The answer is because there is no economy of scale. A AR-Hexanon lens is just as good a quality lens then a M-Hexanon. Don't go thinking there's more engineering or quality materials into M lenses. Economy 101 🙂
Click to expand...

Plus M mount lenses are more compact - they are required to be based on the physics of the camera. This alone makes them more expensive to engineer and build.
 
CV lenses are also compact, but they cost less than their Leica counterparts.

David: Which lenses will you collect?
 
The real question is whether the CV lenses are going to be collectible or not. Are there limited quantities of them made? Is the built quality going to last as long as [say] Leica lenses from the 1950's? Is the optical quality extremely high? Is there "something missing" from CV lenses that is "somehow present" in Leica lenses?
Should we get CV lenses as collectibles?

In a nutshell, what do we get with CV lenses?
 
There seems to be a few classic SLR lenses out there that command high prices also. Apparently Zuiko make a 40mm f2 for the Om's that pulls big dollars if you can find one and I spent a lot of time looking before I eventually found a 50mm f1.2 Zuiko for my own Om's. From memory it cost me over $500.00 US and while that's not hugely expensive it was a lot more than I paid for my f1.2 50mm Canon for my RF's.

I was puzzled that I had to pay ten times what the camera body cost me for the Zuiko 1.2 lens ... were they made in that small a quantity ... being Japanese SLR gear I wouldn't have thought so!
 
why? It really is simple. People pay it. If everyone quit buying Leica The company would go out of business period. I want one myself but will never pay the price unless I win lottery. I take just as good a picture with a cheap Auto S2 as I could with a Leica. So quality doesn't mean much to me. Money does. Quit buying Leica and price will come down. It doesn't cost that much to make
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom