matt fury
Well-known
ferider said:
Don't take this the wrong way, but did you read the article? Now, I'm not necessarily saying that Leica doesn't have good margins on their products, or even commenting on that one way or the other, but the article gave a decent insight into how these lenses are coming out cheaper.
Bavaricus
Established
ferider said:
Yes, that might be _one_ reason. But the point might be that the Summarits are made with a bigger tolerances and more automatically. But assembled by man so that they can call them 'handmade'. e.g. Sometime ago Leitz switched over to manufature every single lens in a single process. AFAIK Zeiss is still making their mass lenses in "the old way" means a certain count of lenses are mounted on a hemisphere and polished all together. Leitz said "thats to bad for us". But the whole optical world is doing it in that way! There are many steps in the production process where there can be money wasted or spared! Always depends on what you expect at the end.
Regards
Reiner
ferider
Veteran
matt fury said:
I did read the article and like others above found Puts contradicting
himself in several aspects. His article is full of emotional claims without
factual backup and also contradicting his own previous reviews. Among
others, he had reviewed some CV and Zeiss lenses very favorably,
much more favorably than he refers to them now. Also, two ZM
lenses are being entirely built in Germany. There is no way the
ZM 25 can be built with superior MTF performance
with a lower quality control process or less tolerances.
It might be me, but from reading Puts' article alone,
I do not understand what the differences in manufacturing processes
between Summarit and older lenses is.
Roland.
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Bavaricus
Established
ferider said:
Rather vague but he wrote:
Maybe the Summarit line is buld like: KISS and not High-End
The differences don't have to be _very_ big. You know the forces required to reach a technical summit are encreasing logarythmic when coming close to the speed of light
I by myself am wondering who they will perform - and i'm hoping it'll be a big throw for Leica. Up to now i love the design
! it's just ow a perfect lens has to look like.Bye
Reiner
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I'm sure these are fine lenses. But to be really competitive they need to be a lot cheaper.
Bavaricus
Established
KoNickon said:
When i have a look on the perfect service leica is providing even for fifty year old gear, i rather pay more than e.g. for CV. Can't imagine thers is someone in fifty years who can calibrate or repair a Nokton ...
troym
Established
Bavaricus said:
That line of reasoning might hold for camera bodies. But I doubt that the CV lenses are so complex that they could not be serviced by a knowledgeable third party repair technician.
aizan
Veteran
i wish leica would make a factory in japan. nuff said.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Bavaricus said:
Reiner,
There is a lot more overhead at the Leica plant as I do not think they have as many other contracts as the CV plant does. If you have to fund everything from a single or two product lines (M and R lines) that is a lot different from what I think is the case with Cosina.
The cost of quality also depends upon your approach. If you trash things as they are our of spec rather than finding pairs that combine to be in spec you have a lot of waste.
B2 (;->
Noserider
Christiaan Phleger
I belive the differences would be probably
1, a larger amount of lens elements being ground at one time, probably due to the fact that the element structure has beeen stated by Leica as 'spherical'. The angles of curvature are probably less 'aggressive' due to the relaxed optical demands of having a slower lens, thus also helping control costs in the forming process.
2, having shared lens barrels between the 2 sets, 75/90 and the 35/50 share filter sizes and probably lots else under the hood.
For me the 75 or 90 might be interesting, but that Zeiss is crazy. Must be Insane.
1, a larger amount of lens elements being ground at one time, probably due to the fact that the element structure has beeen stated by Leica as 'spherical'. The angles of curvature are probably less 'aggressive' due to the relaxed optical demands of having a slower lens, thus also helping control costs in the forming process.
2, having shared lens barrels between the 2 sets, 75/90 and the 35/50 share filter sizes and probably lots else under the hood.
For me the 75 or 90 might be interesting, but that Zeiss is crazy. Must be Insane.
Zen-shooter
1 Body, 1 Lens, No Money
Don't flame me with this question:
Do you know if Leica produces 100% of their own M-lenses or sub-contacts some out to third party glass manufacturers?
Because, I recall hearing from a seller that the pre A-A 90 'Cron consisted of Hoya element(s)...
I for one would not be surprised if Leica is taking a similar route as Zeiss strategy of using Cosina. Perhaps their relationship with Panasonic goes beyond what we know on the surface?
Do you know if Leica produces 100% of their own M-lenses or sub-contacts some out to third party glass manufacturers?
Because, I recall hearing from a seller that the pre A-A 90 'Cron consisted of Hoya element(s)...
I for one would not be surprised if Leica is taking a similar route as Zeiss strategy of using Cosina. Perhaps their relationship with Panasonic goes beyond what we know on the surface?
x-ray
Veteran
Puts has and never has had any credability in my opinion.
Let's see now, I have a mix of Leica, Zeiss and CV lenses and use all of them equally. Over the past year I've had serious mechanical issues with 4 Leica lenses and none of the CV or Zeiss. Optically he's missed the mark too. Zeiss equals or has better optical performance in my opinion than the Leica lenses and the CV has lenses unlike any others on the market. The CV Ultron 28 1.9 is faster by a tiny bit than the summicron 28 and is for all practical purposes equal optically from 2.8 on down and very good at f2. The 35 1.2 Nokton has no competition in a 1.2 35 lens but still is extremely close in performance to the summilux 35 and even has better flare correction than the summilux.
I wonder how puts would review CV or Zeiss if they paid him like leica has?
Let's see now, I have a mix of Leica, Zeiss and CV lenses and use all of them equally. Over the past year I've had serious mechanical issues with 4 Leica lenses and none of the CV or Zeiss. Optically he's missed the mark too. Zeiss equals or has better optical performance in my opinion than the Leica lenses and the CV has lenses unlike any others on the market. The CV Ultron 28 1.9 is faster by a tiny bit than the summicron 28 and is for all practical purposes equal optically from 2.8 on down and very good at f2. The 35 1.2 Nokton has no competition in a 1.2 35 lens but still is extremely close in performance to the summilux 35 and even has better flare correction than the summilux.
I wonder how puts would review CV or Zeiss if they paid him like leica has?
Krosya
Konicaze
This is how I see this - people that believe only in Leica, will buy these new lenses. Others - well, may consider 75 or 90 as a better (maybe, or maybe not) option to CV line. But 35 and 50 - c'mon! Zeiss already makes FAR better lenses in 35/2 and 50/2 than Leica 35/2 and 50/2. And they cost less than Leica's new f2.5s. Why would anyone in their right mind buy these? I think Leica should either lower prices A LOT on these new 2.5's or just make 75 and 90 as Zeiss doesnt have this FL covered yet.
Lets look at it realistically ! Once again for all, but maybe 90/2.5 Leica goofed.
And I just love how some people critique other brands such as CV or Zeiss without actually ever using them. And as far as Putts goes - we all know that he sold out to Leica a looooong time ago. He'd die before he'd say that something is better. Plus is he really a photographer? I can't seem to find his photos other than 4-5 on his site. I have hard time trusting someone's opinion if I can't see what they can actually do.
And this was sugarcoated! so there.
Lets look at it realistically ! Once again for all, but maybe 90/2.5 Leica goofed.
And I just love how some people critique other brands such as CV or Zeiss without actually ever using them. And as far as Putts goes - we all know that he sold out to Leica a looooong time ago. He'd die before he'd say that something is better. Plus is he really a photographer? I can't seem to find his photos other than 4-5 on his site. I have hard time trusting someone's opinion if I can't see what they can actually do.
And this was sugarcoated! so there.
Krosya
Konicaze
x-ray said:
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!
Putts is an idiot how got lucky to sell out to Leica.
I don't even know why people quote him - one never really needs to read his garbage as we all know what he will say anyway.
ferider
Veteran
Zen-shooter said:
- Some of the R lenses are made by Kyrocera.
- Aspherical surfaces in many of the M asph lenses are formed by a
moulding technique that Leica, Hoya and Schott jointly developed (not hand ground ...)
- Historically, some Leitz lenses have been made in Japan, by Minolta.
I like the Leitz lenses that I have (non of them younger than 30 years).
BUT:
Competition is good for us, the consumer; it increases
quality and decreases price; more of the consumer's money is spent on
engineering. Brand worshipping is bad since you end up spending
more money for brand/marketing than for the product you are getting.
Puts is part of Leica's marketing machine, the same organization that
sold Hermes special editions just a few years ago.
Roland.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
I can visualize the Leica-CV connection similar to the old Mercedes Benz lines (like SL500) vs. the newer lines (like CLK500). The older lines require far more work and therefore they are sometimes more expensive. The new MB lines are designed/built new from scratchand they are more efficiently built. This is a fact. People at MB can attest to this fact. Traditionalists may prefer a car like the MB SL500 because of its elegance and "classiness", while others may view things from a different perspective and prefer the newer designsof the CLK line.
CV=CLK
Leica=SL
Take your pick, but bring along your check book.
CV=CLK
Leica=SL
Take your pick, but bring along your check book.
richard_l
Well-known
Wha?!?!?! Everybody knows Leica's better than Zeiss, and mine's longer than yours. Wanna fight about it?Krosya said:
colinh
Well-known
ferider said:
This is wishful thinking.
If the customer's sole criterion for choosing is price, then the prices may go down. What is the easiest way to make the price go down? By lowering quality. Oddly enough, companies don't reduce advertising costs, or cut non-productive management costs or reduce shareholder value. They cut back on expensive materials and especially on quality control.
People get what they deserve. If you are not willing to pay more for quality, you will get lower quality.
Unfortunately, spending a lot of money doesn't guarantee higher quality
Now, I bought the ZM 25 and 35 new. But I'm very pleased when someone with oodles of money (and maybe not as much sense) buys the equivalent Leica lenses. I would really like Leica to make a huge profit this year, and in the old Made in Germany way invest a large proportion of this into new research and devlopment and the very best equipment and a highly skilled and motivated workforce.
Whilst I find Puts' waffling pretentious, irritating and unscientific, I also do not understand the constant Leica bashing. Do you want the company to disappear? I think that would be a shame.
colin
ferider
Veteran
colinh said:
I am not bashing Leica and apologize when I came across like this. The world is not
always black and white. There are grey tones. I am obviously a Leica user.
colinh said:
I am opposing romantizing (spell?) a company, the target of which is
increased stockholder value in the end. There is nothing about the old
Made in Germany that is in anyway superior to the Made in Japan
for instance. This is what annoyed me most about Puts' article.
Roland.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.