kevin m
Veteran
You and Ray are both "the usual suspects" just on opposite sides of the fence.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Can't there be any discussion that involves Leica prices that doesn't turn into a battle? (And this kind of fuel for the fire isn't very useful).
Well maybe a thread about "Leica shuts doors, sells all remaining stock at 10% of regular street prices". Then perhaps those who can't see the difference might.
I'd love to have seen a 28 Summilux, but the 21 has my interest for sure. Now, lets see what these new lenses can do in the real world.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
:dance:
Dear Kevin,
Not for complaining...
There are those who can't afford this lens (I'm among them).
There are those who can afford it but don't want it, and best of luck to 'em.
And there are those who can't afford it, but don't want to admit that, even to themselves, and therefore look for excuses.
(I'm not accusing either you or Ray of being in the third camp; but they are a distressingly common breed in many walks of life).
Yes, I could buy one tomorrow (if one were available). But I can't really afford to do so, in the sense that I have many more pressing uses for limited assets. This does not mean either that it's overpriced or that Leica has lost touch with reality.
Cheers,
R.
Dear Kevin,
Not for complaining...
There are those who can't afford this lens (I'm among them).
There are those who can afford it but don't want it, and best of luck to 'em.
And there are those who can't afford it, but don't want to admit that, even to themselves, and therefore look for excuses.
(I'm not accusing either you or Ray of being in the third camp; but they are a distressingly common breed in many walks of life).
Yes, I could buy one tomorrow (if one were available). But I can't really afford to do so, in the sense that I have many more pressing uses for limited assets. This does not mean either that it's overpriced or that Leica has lost touch with reality.
Cheers,
R.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Much more delicately put Roger.
So, has anyone seen images from these new lenses yet? On film preferably?
So, has anyone seen images from these new lenses yet? On film preferably?
veraikon
xpanner
Again don´t hang on prices. European customer prices have a l w a y s to include V.A.T. .
As far as I know it is in France about 18% or 19% . Divide the price with 1.18 /1.19 and convert it than to US$.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
The size of the 21 might be the deal breaker for me- and one reason why I got rid of the ZM 21/2.8- It blocked the RF window when I focussed close- where focus was more important.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Well, the New Noctilux is cheaper than the Humidore'd Last f1 50mm at least! Kudo's to Leica for making this new line up. Yes, they are expensive by comparison to Zeiss and CV, but they are pretty unique and if you really need that speed, you must be willing to pay for it.
I am bit surprised that they did not put the 28f1.4 in the line-up. Probably coming soon though.
From a practical stand point - you better have your M calibrated for the 0.95 as the DOF will be miniscule. The Asph design should allow for a reasonably sharp wide-open image with truly dramatic drop in OOF areas. It might not have the "character" of the old Noctilux (some like it - i didn't) but time will tell. I am also impressed that they could keep it down to a 60mm front. Not much blocking of the finder with a 0,72/0.85 either.
Wonder what the fronts on the 21f1.4 and 24f1.4 will be like though!
I am happy to see Leica doing something that is more "cutting edge" - leave the lower cost alternatives to Zeiss and CV and stick to what they can do best - top notch optics. Now with the 50f1.4 Asph, the 75f2 Apo-Asph and the three new lenses they have a formidable line up.
Now we can only wait and see what Zeiss and Voigtlander can counter with!!!!!
I am bit surprised that they did not put the 28f1.4 in the line-up. Probably coming soon though.
From a practical stand point - you better have your M calibrated for the 0.95 as the DOF will be miniscule. The Asph design should allow for a reasonably sharp wide-open image with truly dramatic drop in OOF areas. It might not have the "character" of the old Noctilux (some like it - i didn't) but time will tell. I am also impressed that they could keep it down to a 60mm front. Not much blocking of the finder with a 0,72/0.85 either.
Wonder what the fronts on the 21f1.4 and 24f1.4 will be like though!
I am happy to see Leica doing something that is more "cutting edge" - leave the lower cost alternatives to Zeiss and CV and stick to what they can do best - top notch optics. Now with the 50f1.4 Asph, the 75f2 Apo-Asph and the three new lenses they have a formidable line up.
Now we can only wait and see what Zeiss and Voigtlander can counter with!!!!!
icebear
Veteran
Yes, I'd expect some serious (in Leica terms) vigetting at 21 and such a speed - maybe not an issue on the cropped M8 but on FFF (full frame film
).Ray Nalley
Well-known
How big would the front element on a 21/1.4 be? Anyone know the math?
kevin m
Veteran
With any luck, CV will counter with a 'Mandler-look' 21/2.0 that's sharp on center but soft in the corners wide open. Price: $899.95
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I disagree. A 21/1.4 lens brings something new to the table- namely shallower DOF in a very wide lens. Quite useful in many situations. And for those M8 users, something along the lines of the DOF the 28/2 brings to film.
Bokeh was something I was curious about in my wondering if anyone had seen what these lenses do. I don't mind the ASPH bokeh I get out of the 28/2 at all, and quite like what I get from the 75/2- but the 35/1.4 ASPH isn't tops in my book. And 21 is a length I like a lot, so this 21 Summilux is a lens I'm quite interested in.
Really? These are made in pretty small runs, more by hand in a very small shop (by modern manufacturing standards). I could believe this is what Leica needs to make on these, considering how many lenses they sell annually. (but then, I'm a moron)
Last edited:
spysmart
Established
The cost rises of the f/1 Noctilux could be attributed to simple economics : Increase the price to reduce demand in order to meet supply ( and stretch out supply till the new model was available ).
The new Noctilux should cost less than the old one ( or only little more ) +ASPH elements -special ED glass.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
If you think that the new lenses are too expensive, you are at perfect liberty to buy any of the other, cheaper current-production 50/0.95, 21/1.4 and 24/1.4 lenses out there.
What's a fair margin, when there's no competition, and that's what the company needs to charge in order to go on making unique lenses?
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
So we agree?
Dear Doug,
Not really. I'd certainly not be inclined to use such phrases as 'last gasp' and 'little to do with the art of photography'. Also, by implication, you appeared not to think that this was not a fair mark-up; I apologize if I misunderstood you.
As Tom said, this is what Leica should be doing: cutting-edge, 'landmark' lenses -- and it's what Zeiss did with the made-in-Germany 15/2.8. I expect to see at least one 'landmark' made-in-Germany lens from Zeiss this photokina, too.
Certainly, these are not lenses for everyone. Many won't need them; many won't be able to afford them. But to snipe at them, as some have done, for these reasons, is fairly pointless.
Incidentally, I'll share something I've heard from both Leica and Linhof: that half their customers buy their cameras as status symbols, and cosset them, and the other half buy them as tools, and use them, sometimes quite hard. This applies both new and used, but obviously, without new cameras, there'd not be any second-hand ones.
To this I'll add that there are those who never buy a new Leica or Linhof camera or lens, and imagine that all Leica and Linhof buyers fall into the first group. Again, I do not wish to suggest that you are among them; but you cannot deny that they exist.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
veraikon
xpanner
again cut off from the posted french prices about 20% V.A.T.
In Europe every consumer price has to be labeled inclusive V.A.T.
M Noctilux 50 f/0.95 : 8000 € =>~ 6400 excl. V.A.T.
M summilux 21 : 5000 € => ~4000
M summilux 24 : 5000 € => ~4000
M elmar 24 f/3.8 : 1800 € => ~1400
Last edited:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Wow, some very interesting high speed wides that Leica has up it's sleeve. No better way to show your prowess in optics design and manufacture. Good for them. As for Leica loosing it's grip on reality, their reality and that of their customers who buy ze best money can buy was never the reality of the vast majority of RF shooters anyway. Nothing has changed and there are reasonable alternatives for the rest of us droolers.
Bob
Bob
Dan States
Established
Leica long ago realized that while very few photographers are rich, plenty of rich men want to be photographers. They continue to walk away from the volume market and toward consumers with LOADS of disposable income.
I'll just say thank god for Cosina and my more than outstanding 35 F1.2! It's looking better than ever!!
I'll just say thank god for Cosina and my more than outstanding 35 F1.2! It's looking better than ever!!
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
Now, how on Earth would you know that? Are you an insider revealing confidential information or are you simply speculating? I suspect it's the latter.
I'll speculate too. I hardly think Leica's survival depends on these 4 or 5 lenses alone, so the markup on this small number of lenses isn't calculated to pull Leica out of any hole you suggest they're in when you write "the ginormus mark-up necessary for Leica to survive."
Leica knows the manufacturing costs of these lenses, they've analyzed the market and have come up with their best estimate of sales quantities at various prices. They compared estimated revenues with costs. They know what sort of return their shareholders expect. The price is fixed at the best convergence of those (and certainly other) key variables.
I wouldn't think of the "$16,000 ‘noctilux in a box’" as a last gasp act of survival or some new marketing model. Increasing prices and thereby reducing sales isn't what a dying business does and I see nothing to suggest that Leica is insanely desperate.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
+ floating elements + other special glass + development costs to be amortized over necessarily small numbers sold...
Do you know what ground aspherics cost? As compared with moulded hybrid aspherics? Do you know what the glasses in the new lens cost?
Sorry: don't think your economic analysis holds water.
Cheers,
R.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
There is a distinct tendency to buy "bragging" rights lenses among Leicaphiles! This is fine as it allows Leica to make these "uber" lenses and prove that they can do it. As for cost, the old Noctilux sold in a paltry 200-250/year for the last 10-15 years. It was still an expensive lens to make and not much margins either. The Noctilux "buzz" was mainly generated by people who bought them used! I do think that everyone with a M should have owned one, if for no other reason to find out if it is for them. Most Noctiluxes on the market has gone through multiple owners over the decades - none of these sales benefitted Leica and they have to make their money on the First Sale - i.e a New One.
As for cost of highly spcialized optics - it was never cheap. I used to have a Hasselblad set up. A Mark II 70mm reseau plate and a "plain" ELM on the double aerial grip with matched and calibrated 100f3.5 Planars and 250 Super Achromats. Even in the late 70's that kit was far more than my new F250 Econoline van (needed for transporting Balcar 5000 watt second 3 foot flash tubes and other assorted necessities). This was all commercial work stuff. The client expected perfection and at least this way you could not blame equipment.
A Sinar P 8x10 with 165/240/360 lenses was not cheap either nor was multiples of Hasselblad SWC's.
In short, if you make a living from taking pictures, equipment cost is part of the process and if your job depends on using fast 50's, 21',24's etc -that is what you buy (and write off in your tax return).
These days I dont do commercial work and all my shooting is for my own pleasure and to spend Euro 18000 on three lenses, however good they are, does not make sense to me for that kind of shooting.
If you can spend that and enjoy using it, good for you - but the old adage still remains : It is not the equipment that makes for a good picture - it is the photographers skill and vision.
Oh. as for lens costs - in 1973 I bought a 105 UV Sonnar for a Hasselblad - at that time it was $7000+. It would make the new Noctilux seem like a bargain if you factor in inflation!
As for cost of highly spcialized optics - it was never cheap. I used to have a Hasselblad set up. A Mark II 70mm reseau plate and a "plain" ELM on the double aerial grip with matched and calibrated 100f3.5 Planars and 250 Super Achromats. Even in the late 70's that kit was far more than my new F250 Econoline van (needed for transporting Balcar 5000 watt second 3 foot flash tubes and other assorted necessities). This was all commercial work stuff. The client expected perfection and at least this way you could not blame equipment.
A Sinar P 8x10 with 165/240/360 lenses was not cheap either nor was multiples of Hasselblad SWC's.
In short, if you make a living from taking pictures, equipment cost is part of the process and if your job depends on using fast 50's, 21',24's etc -that is what you buy (and write off in your tax return).
These days I dont do commercial work and all my shooting is for my own pleasure and to spend Euro 18000 on three lenses, however good they are, does not make sense to me for that kind of shooting.
If you can spend that and enjoy using it, good for you - but the old adage still remains : It is not the equipment that makes for a good picture - it is the photographers skill and vision.
Oh. as for lens costs - in 1973 I bought a 105 UV Sonnar for a Hasselblad - at that time it was $7000+. It would make the new Noctilux seem like a bargain if you factor in inflation!