Why are M-mount lenses so expensive?

[David Hughes]

(bolded) Sentence one ... sure. Sentence two ... huh?

SLR lenses in any SLR made since 1961 or so are focused wide open. They only stop down to taking aperture at the time of exposure. So focus shift is just as critical for a lens in an SLR as it is for a RF focusing system, there's no difference in normal operation. The one benefit that an SLR provides is that since you're able to see what the lens is doing with the TTL focusing system, you can manually stop down the lens, let your eye accommodate to the darker focusing screen, and make an adjustment if one is needed. You can't do this with an RF because you cannot see through the lens (Visoflex and other TTL add-ons excepted).

All this other talk about focusing helixes and zoom lenses is irrelevant.

SLR lenses are usually even more complex than M-mount RF lenses because:

• they have the auto diaphragm mechanism
• they have couplings to the TTL metering system
• they have to clear the swinging mirror behind them
• they mostly have autofocus mechanisms in them since the 1980s
• they mostly have to be designed for zero focus shift because since you're focusing at the wide open setting and taking at the stopped down setting, and most people NEVER use the DoF preview properly to ascertain critical focus placement, if they didn't you'd have tons of blurry photos.

This makes SLR lenses bulky too. But most (excepting the guaranty of no-focus-shift) of these complexities are tolerant of high variance in manufacture, which makes them pretty inexpensive.

With RF lenses, you're focusing the lens through an external mechanism and most people tend to use only two or three apertures for the vast majority of their photos. You become accustomed over time to focusing the lens using the rangefinder and understanding how the focus shift affects sharpness, and compensating for it by adjusting the focus setting. The added cost in constructing an RF lens come from the precise mechanical-optical calibration and higher manufacturing tolerances needed to drive the focusing mechanism accurately ... this is essential to giving you a focusing baseline reference. You cannot check what the focusing mechanism is doing with a DOF preview at all, so you have to assume that it is giving you that correct baseline and you can compensate for the specific lens characteristics easily. If it didn't, you wouldn't be able to get sharp photos, regardless of whether the lens has focus shift or not.

Only the electronic TTL camera, the one that lets you see in real time the actual image on the capture media at the taking aperture with the benefit of amping up the display brightness to clearly visible levels, allows truly pinpoint critical focus capability without a lot of extra effort. With this class of cameras, focus shift is irrelevant to obtaining critically accurate focus because you can actually see where the lens is focused with ease. So eTTL cameras can theoretically reduce the cost of lens manufacture compared to both SLR and RF cameras ... if they weren't called upon to add a bazillion other features to both lenses and bodies that only they are capable of as well. :-\

G

Hi,

Well, yes and no.

If we know about focus shift when using a RF and adjust etc then we know about it in SLR's and focus stopped down...

I agree about the SLR's lenses being complicated in some cases and I'm sure you'll agree when I say they are very, very primitive in others cases. So we are probably both right.

Regards, David

 

[daveleo]

The "build quality" topic does not touch on my question, unless someone can credibly state that Konica or Minolta (or anyone else's) M-mount lens designs are built "with better quality" materials than their own counterpart SLR lens designs.

I think at this point all the relevant input is on the table, and we now can weigh it all for ourselves and come to our own conclusions.

For myself, I am going to remain happy buying the SLR lenses to be adapted to my digital Fuji body. I personally am not convinced that the M-mount lenses - despite being more expensive - are going to make my images any better. (In fact, according to Godfrey, I think the longer flange distance - steeper incident angle - of SLR designs works better with a digital sensor.)

 

[uhoh7]

The "build quality" topic does not touch on my question, unless someone can credibly state that Konica or Minolta (or anyone else's) M-mount lens designs are built "with better quality" materials than their own counterpart SLR lens designs.

Owning minolta SLR lenses, there is no doubt the M-rokkor build and materials are better. And if you know the history, you know they were under the german microscope when they made them.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

People throw this term "build quality" around like it means something. Especially when it comes to Leicas. It's heavy and hard so it must have good build! Personally I find this non-scientific approach nauseating. This completely ignores everything that is going on inside the lens and it's intended purpose. The fact is Canon lenses probably fail at the same rate as Leica lenses, which is impressive considering they're much more complicated.

I'm mechanical engineer by my civil part of diploma and I have not just theoretical education from typical modern university on this.
Also I have cleaned, lubricated and collimated some German, Japanese and FSU lenses.
I have opened Canon 50L as well, this is how I discover, well, confirmed physically something which is known and available on the internet.

And really the glass makes difference. This is why I keep on trying different lenses, but often coming to same conclusion at the end. I'd rather pay more, have less, but get fresh Leica lens and have couple of FSU ones for fun. Leica has glass inside, which gives what I like on prints, Leica has build which I'm finding optimum for manual focus handling and FSU have interesting glass, easy to service, collimate build and if FSU RF lens is assembled, lubricated properly I like it over CV focusing.

 

[johannielscom]

A number of people trying to convince me that it's the build quality etc that makes for the higher prices.

But, if you factor out build quality and look at the prices for vintage lenses that left the factories decades ago you still see hight prices for Leica glass and not just in the collectable stuff but also in common lenses like the Elmar 50mm 3.5 or even the Summar 50mm 2.0.
It's easy to find lenses of the same vintage and the same characteristics but every time, the Leica glass commands higher prices.

Build quality might be an issue in new glass but it sure is no issue in vintage glass.
I recently sold a Komura 35mm 3.5 for a good price, but a Summaron 35mm 3.5 would have been double the amount... and those lenses weren't even M mount.

So M mount lenses are expensive because they fit M mount cameras and those are just so cool in the eyes of so many. That's it.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

As I see it the problem is that we are not really, and can't easily, comparing like with like. These days we can only compare second-hand prices most of the time and that introduces a lot of vagueness into the thread/argument; as anyone who has bought a lens on ebay will know.

Perhaps we should compare like with like by looking at the prices when new of, f'instance, a Leica R and M lens when new, a new Zeiss pair and a new KMZ pair. Those are the only ones I can think of at present who made RF and SLR lenses at the same time. I'm sure there are others but those three will create enough problems at present. Who has the prices for example...

Regards, David

 

[uhoh7]

A number of people trying to convince me that it's the build quality etc that makes for the higher prices.

But, if you factor out build quality and look at the prices for vintage lenses that left the factories decades ago you still see hight prices for Leica glass and not just in the collectable stuff but also in common lenses like the Elmar 50mm 3.5 or even the Summar 50mm 2.0.
It's easy to find lenses of the same vintage and the same characteristics but every time, the Leica glass commands higher prices.

Build quality might be an issue in new glass but it sure is no issue in vintage glass.
I recently sold a Komura 35mm 3.5 for a good price, but a Summaron 35mm 3.5 would have been double the amount... and those lenses weren't even M mount.

So M mount lenses are expensive because they fit M mount cameras and those are just so cool in the eyes of so many. That's it.

The pre-war Elmar 50/3.5 lens required a crazy tight tolerance to work well, far beyond the multi-element lenses we use today. That was a famous advantage of the D-Gauss lenses: they could be looser.

Of course the M mount is a selling point. Sure it's "cool". For good reason. 🙂

 

[nzhang]

If you have chance to check a catalog of lenses in 70s, you may find out a Leica 35mm lens is similarly priced to Pentax and Nikon lens. But nowadays, the price gap are much larger.

 

[Godfrey]

Hi,

Well, yes and no.

If we know about focus shift when using a RF and adjust etc then we know about it in SLR's and focus stopped down...

I agree about the SLR's lenses being complicated in some cases and I'm sure you'll agree when I say they are very, very primitive in others cases. So we are probably both right.

Regards, David

(bolded) My experience teaching people how to use their cameras demonstrates that very few people ever disbelieve that the focusing image in an SLR camera is correctly sharp as they see it, and only very rarely do some of them use the stop down preview at all. Most don't even know that the camera has it, how to use it, and when to use it. Most modern SLR lenses don't have anything more than a rudimentary distance scale anyway, so there's a limit to how much information other than sharpness on the focusing screen is available.

By contrast, most RF camera users are familiar with focusing using the split image focusing system and then glancing at the distance scale to see whether the set distance is close to expectations. They often check the DoF at that point, set the aperture and adjust the focus point a little bit in the normal course of using the camera.

So while the capability to do the same thing with an SLR camera (... adjust the focusing to accommodate a known focus shift ...) is there with more or less similar amounts of precision, the likelihood that someone actually does it with an SLR is quite small. The likelihood that an RF user actually does tweak the focus setting based on a priori knowledge of a lens' behavior is significantly greater.

The acid test is your own practice: How often have you adjusted the focus on an SLR (and NOT an eTTL camera) based on observed focus and known focus shift, David? I know from my photography that I do it rather frequently with my Leica M cameras and 'a number of times indistinguishable from never' with any SLR camera. That's at least one reason for why I use SLR cameras—because I want to see the precise point of critical focus and trust that it is correct.

eTTL cameras eliminate the need for trust necessary in either SLR or RF cameras because you actually can see, easily, when critical focus has been achieved at working aperture.

G

 

[______]

By contrast, most RF camera users are familiar with focusing using the split image focusing system and then glancing at the distance scale to see whether the set distance is close to expectations. They often check the DoF at that point, set the aperture and adjust the focus point a little bit in the normal course of using the camera.

Do Leica users really not trust the rangefinder to accurately focus, and so check that the distance scale indicates focusing is at their expectations? If it is not to their expectations, do they really make focus adjustments based on their expectations in the normal course. This is the first time I have heard of this behavior.

Checking depth of field and setting aperture accordingly is an entirely different matter.

 

[splitimageview]

lots of talk, but the only factor that matters with used lenses is supply/demand.

 

[Godfrey]

lots of talk, but the only factor that matters with used lenses is supply/demand.

Yes ... not that I was talking about used lenses, however.

G

 

[splitimageview]

And my comment was referring to the topic. 🙂

 

[Daryl J.]

Maybe there needs to be a Kickstarter project for all new construction Jupiter 8's built to true Leica thread mount standards along with an Industar collapsible 50mm. Better quality materials and price points of $400-650 new.

If I didn't have a nice J-3 already from Fedka, I'd have Lomo's new release.

 

[David Hughes]

(bolded) My experience teaching people how to use their cameras demonstrates that very few people ever disbelieve... SNIP!

G

Yes, but, we / you have to compare like with like, as I have said.

The discussion on RFF is about M mount lenses and I think it right to describe us M mount lens owners and users as experienced, knowledgable etc, etc.

And we are being compared with a class learning to use a new digital AF SLR.

Obvious to me they will behave differently until you have taught them and they understand, but that still won't be comparing like for like until they have second-hand digital SLR's with second-hand lenses like most M series film shooters...

If we don't compare like with like then you can compare prices of a new blue Rolls Royce with a second hand red Nissan Micra and so on and so forth and draw weird conclusions about car prices, comfort, fuel consumption, repair costs etc and blame it on the colour of the car's paint...

Regards, David

 

[Godfrey]

Yes, but, we / you have to compare like with like, as I have said.

The discussion on RFF is about M mount lenses and I think it right to describe us M mount lens owners and users as experienced, knowledgable etc, etc.

And we are being compared with a class learning to use a new digital AF SLR.

Obvious to me they will behave differently until you have taught them and they understand, but that still won't be comparing like for like until they have second-hand digital SLR's with second-hand lenses like most M series film shooters...

If we don't compare like with like then you can compare prices of a new blue Rolls Royce with a second hand red Nissan Micra and so on and so forth and draw weird conclusions about car prices, comfort, fuel consumption, repair costs etc and blame it on the colour of the car's paint...

Regards, David

Well, observing what others have commented in this and other threads, the people on this forum are not much different from the broad spectrum I've seen in classes, workshops, and camera clubs: Their knowledge, motivation, insight, goals, and experience in doing photography is very diverse.

So there's nothing so different about what I say here compared to what I say in other venues. If you just would prefer that I agree with you, sure: then I'll stop posting entirely.

G

 

[iphoenix]

Perhaps we should compare like with like by looking at the prices when new of, f'instance, a Leica R and M lens when new, a new Zeiss pair and a new KMZ pair. Those are the only ones I can think of at present who made RF and SLR lenses at the same time.

Possibly I can help with some recommended prices in the 1995 edition of the "Australian Photography PHOTO DIRECTORY":

- Elmarit R 28/2.8 A$2948
- Elmarit M 28/2.8 A$2400
- Summicron R 35/2 A$2948
- Summicron M 35/2 A$2191
- Summilux R 35/1.4 A$4690
- Summilux M 35/1.4 A$3253
- Summicron R 50/2 A$1101
- Summicron M 50/2 A$1460
- Summilux R 50/1.4 A$3352
- Summilux M 50/1.4 A$3253
- Summicron R 90/2 A$3006
- Summicron M 90/2 A$2492

Similar pricing differences apply in the 1993 edition and yes, the prices of the 50/2 lenses are correct.

Regards,
David T.

 

[David Hughes]

Thanks, it's interesting that the aperture can make such a range of differences. You'd expect the difference to be the same for both 35mm lenses and so on.

Regards, David

 

[jaapv]

The variation in price cannot be explained by the aperture as such.
The price of various types of optical glass varies widely, sometimes by as much as 100 times as expensive, about half the cost of building the lens is in the machining of the barrel, the more complex the mechanism, the more expesive, etc.
The aperture may neccesitate more expensive glass or more complicated machining, but that is by no means a given.

 

[David Hughes]

The variation in price cannot be explained by the aperture as such.
The price of various types of optical glass varies widely, sometimes by as much as 100 times as expensive, about half the cost of building the lens is in the machining of the barrel, the more complex the mechanism, the more expesive, etc.
The aperture may neccesitate more expensive glass or more complicated machining, but that is by no means a given.

Hi,

I was assuming that the R and M versions of the lens had the same glass. The M mount should, surely, cost about the same regardless for both 35mm lenses. Same applies to the 50mm lenses.

Regards, David