35/1.2 Nokton price raise?

[ferider]

Strange times for Cosina, lately they have discontinued lenses people praise almost universally and replace them products that are quite controversial.

IMO, it's a matter of changed perception: the new lenses (35/1.4, 28/2, 50/1.1, 75/1.8) and their higher prices are in more obvious competition to the respective Leica lenses, and are more used on digital Ms, instead of on film (the target of the discontinued LTM lenses). Lenses that were out of competition due to very different specs (like the 35/1.2) always had a good reputation.

Nobody ever talks about "focus shift" and barrel distortion of a pre-asph Summilux 50/1.4, for instance. But it's there ....

 

[FrozenInTime]

Anyone also find it strange that large suppliers like B&H have a good supply of Zeiss lenses, but virtually no supply of Voigtländer lenses.

Zeiss = more profit for Cosina ?

 

[Keith]

Strange times for Cosina, lately they have discontinued lenses people praise almost universally and replace them products that are quite controversial.

It seems strange to take such a unique lens as the 1.2 from their lineup ... it has a huge reputation here and aside from size and weight it has no issues aside from some barrel distortion. The 1.4 seems to really please some shooters while many think it's pretty ordinary and wouldn't own one.

I wonder how much influence the traffic in threads here has at Cosina?

 

[leicashot]

Anyone also find it strange that large suppliers like B&H have a good supply of Zeiss lenses, but virtually no supply of Voigtländer lenses.

Zeiss = more profit for Cosina ?

Zeiss and VC seem to be run separately and are sold through different suppliers. Cameraquest does a great job so why upset Stephen and kill his business by supplying the biggest retailer in the world? While some may say 'profit' it appears Mr K cares about relationships and marketing too, which Cameraquest is all about.

 

[FrozenInTime]

Zeiss and VC seem to be run separately and are sold through different suppliers.

I thought all but two Zeiss lenses were made on Cosina's production line.
If it's at capacity - the less profitable or more difficult to produce items could be being pushed aside.

 

[Thardy]

IMO, it's a matter of changed perception: the new lenses (35/1.4, 28/2, 50/1.1, 75/1.8) and their higher prices are in more obvious competition to the respective Leica lenses, and are more used on digital Ms, instead of on film (the target of the discontinued LTM lenses). Lenses that were out of competition due to very different specs (like the 35/1.2) always had a good reputation.

Nobody ever talks about "focus shift" and barrel distortion of a pre-asph Summilux 50/1.4, for instance. But it's there ....

Well yeah, I like the new CV lenses because they use M mount. No more adapters.

Issues with new CV lenses do seem to be magnified. I dont see these problems, maybe because i use film.

 

[leicashot]

I thought all but two Zeiss lenses were made on Cosina's production line.
If it's at capacity - the less profitable or more difficult to produce items could be being pushed aside.

Manufacturing and marketing are two different things and Cosina are obviously seeing some advantage is keeping them separate.

 

[Thardy]

It seems strange to take such a unique lens as the 1.2 from their lineup ... it has a huge reputation here and aside from size and weight it has no issues aside from some barrel distortion. The 1.4 seems to really please some shooters while many think it's pretty ordinary and wouldn't own one.

I wonder how much influence the traffic in threads here has at Cosina?

That is exactly what I was trying to communicate. But man , if almost everybody loves a lens why scuttle it?

As far as internet forum CV discussions : Over at photo.net there are only 2 CV threads, One asking if a VF comes with the new 28mm Ultron, and another ubiquitous Nokton 40 1.4 "ugly bokeh" thread.

If Cosina reads these things you'd figure the Nokton 50 1.1 would cost about $450 now!

 

[lilmsmaggie]

A thought just occurred to me while reading these recent posts concerning CV pulling obviously a good product off the market. The latest issue of Shutterbug Mag may as well be called the Roger & Francis edition. This issue focus on new and potentially new products shown at Photokina. Not surprisingly, there were virtually no new product offerings offered for film photography save a number of products one could count on one hand.

Perhaps the feverish push to digital, four-thirds formats, etc. is obviously influencing the R&D of lenses for these formats while traditional lens manufacturing is waning. Even big dogs like Schneider and Rodenstock have begun offering more lenses in different focal lengths specifically designed for digital.

Could it be that this move to offer a larger offering in focal lengths that takes advantage of APS-C and four-thirds adversely affect the upward price spiral of lenses designed for film?

 

[lilmsmaggie]

Manufacturing and marketing are two different things and Cosina are obviously seeing some advantage is keeping them separate.

Methinks Zeiss is mandating the separation not Cosina.

 

[ferider]

That is exactly what I was trying to communicate. But man , if almost everybody loves a lens why scuttle it?

My guess is that CV's lens production is optimized for a limited number of short production runs of a few lenses at a few thousand samples. Then, an existing "line" gets reconfigured for another new lens, and that re-configuration costs money.

In other words, you can only get new lenses if old ones are discontinued. Unless somebody else helps financing the setup of the production line (like Zeiss).

And, while reconfiguring the lines, some capabilities might get lost, for example ASPH elements.

Roland.

 

[kevin m]

Have you ever used this lens? It's build quality is unlike any other VC lens and exceeds some Leica lenses.

Owned it and loved it. This lens could tempt me into buying a digital M all by itself. But I think its build quality was pretty middling: So-so finish, and a poorly damped focus mechanism. Still a great value for the money, and the optical performance is in a class by itself, but it's only inexpensive when compared to Leica prices; it still costs $900...

 

[Thardy]

My guess is that CV's lens production is optimized for a limited number of short production runs of a few lenses at a few thousand samples. Then, an existing "line" gets reconfigured for another new lens, and that re-configuration costs money.

In other words, you can only get new lenses if old ones are discontinued. Unless somebody else helps financing the setup of the production line (like Zeiss).

And, while reconfiguring the lines, some capabilities might get lost, for example ASPH elements.

Roland.

Makes sense. I guess we need to get the gear while it's available.

I would love to buy that 35/1.2, but two days ago I scolded my wife for spending too much money. 😱

 

[FrozenInTime]

Perhaps the feverish push to digital, four-thirds formats, etc. is obviously influencing the R&D of lenses for these formats while traditional lens manufacturing is waning. Even big dogs like Schneider and Rodenstock have begun offering more lenses in different focal lengths specifically designed for digital.

Could it be that this move to offer a larger offering in focal lengths that takes advantage of APS-C and four-thirds adversely affect the upward price spiral of lenses designed for film?

µ4/3 and now NEX/APS-C sub 35mm image circle EVIL systems are desperately short of good and/or fast wide primes. It would seem like a logical area to target.

 

[leicashot]

Owned it and loved it. This lens could tempt me into buying a digital M all by itself. But I think its build quality was pretty middling: So-so finish, and a poorly damped focus mechanism. Still a great value for the money, and the optical performance is in a class by itself, but it's only inexpensive when compared to Leica prices; it still costs $900...

I think you're alone in your thinking here. The Nokton is one of the best built rangefinder lenses and compares well next to the Noct 0.95, which IMHO is the best built rangefinder lens to date.

 

[time]

I take back my above statement, the lens has vanished from Adorama's site, "no longer available".
evilBay it is, dammit! 🙁

Sorry, buddy.🙂

 

[steveyork]

It does leave a bit of the bad taste in the mouth, but as someone has already mentioned, that's capitalism (supply and demand). The dealer runs the risk of alienating future buyers -- that whole "matter of principal" thing -- but that's capitalism too. I wouldn't buy the lens when a few short days ago it cost much less, on a matter of principal, but I don't "need" it, was never intending to get it, and fortunately, there are still other dealers on the internet w/o the inflated price.

For the same reasons, I would never purchase Leica stuff at their terribly inflated prices. There's been nearly a 100% price increase, here in the states, on Leica products in the last 6-7 years. That's when I got my Leica stuff, but I wouldn't buy Leica today, unless they made something no one else marketed. And it's not all due to the weakening US dollar.

But I would deal with Cameraquest on items w/ "normal" pricing. By all accounts, he's a reputable dealer.

But all this is just dribble. The real question is why did Voigtlander discontinue the 35/1.2? I thought it was one of their more popular lenses.

 

[richardhkirkando]

I'm not sure why we're piling on Cameraquest here. Photovillage has it listed at the same price. B&H and Adorama are out of stock, but if they ever get more, I'd be very surprised if it isn't also $1199.

Prices of new photo gear changes all the time - Nikon's latest 50/1.4, for example, MSRP'd for $400 when it was originally released, but it was selling for $500 a year later. Obviously not the merchants' fault when everybody increases the price the same amount at the same time.

 

[steveyork]

My understanding is that it wasn't a manufacturer instituted price increase. The lens was discontinued, and the dealers here in the US upped the price by about 25%. They can of course do that, it's just business, but it is somewhat frustrating to the consumer. With a little searching on the internet, the consumer can still find the lens at the old price (outside US).

 

[ZlatkoBatistich]

Price fixing requires an agreement, express or implied. Without an agreement, there is no price fixing. It is the same as when a photographer checks what his competitors are charging for a service, and then decides to charge the same amount. It's not price fixing if you merely copy someone else's price, without any agreement to do so.