Why are M mount lenses so expensive?

O

ocean7

DSLR Defector
Local time
4:43 PM
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
206
Greetings,

I was browsing the auction site this morning, looking for instance at Hexanon lenses and I am still wandering why M lenses are so expensive compared to their SLR equivalent.

For instance :
M-Hexanon 50/2 = $400
AR-Hexanon 50/1.8 = $30

Summicron-M 50/2 = $550 - $800
Summicron-R 50/2 = $250 - $350

Summicron-M 35/2 = $750 - $<insert skyrocket price here>
Summicron-R 35/2 = $400 - $650

These might not be the best examples but that's what I have in mind right now. However I am sure I am not the only one to wander why the price difference.

So what makes M lenses so more expensive than reflex ones? Mechanical design? Optical excellence? Build quality? Higher demand?

Thanks for your thoughts!
 
Part of the reason is that they probably make a lot less of the M mount Leica lenses than Hexanons, and a lot less rangefinder lenses than SLR lenses. The biggest reason is the precision cam to actuate the rangefinder, which has to be exactly matched to each individual lens. The focussing mount feels smooth because it's machined properly, not because it's packed with grease. Leica M rangefinder owners are also pretty fussy about a perfect looking finish with no visible inperfections. They also expect the best possible optical quality. A Porche costs more than a Chevy.
 
Last edited:
when you are discussing the hexanon, the build quality and optical quality is on par or better than anything leica has ever made. Demand is what makes the price so high, primarily because is says leica on it. The branding is well deserved but leica today is doing a fine job of exploiting that as well with its new retail offerings.

the best example of demand is the 40mm cron. If M's had 40mm framelines this lens would be orders more expensive than it is. The 35mm V4 cron, the one with the ridiculous pet name, is in my estimation a better lens than the 40mm cron-c, however it is not better by hundreds and hundreds of dollars. It is sharper wide open with a different kind of detail but the cron-c is right behind it in both look and performance. I have both and would instantly keep the cron-c if I could only have one. But this lens was packaged with the CL which all the leica snobs snub, so that combined with the fact that no other M's have 40mm lines makes this lens a sleeper. Its nearly every bit of lens the other is yet can be had for a third the price.

Ive owned a porsche and a chevy. You drive a porsche and wonder how on earth they built the thing for only $70K. You drive a chevy and wonder why you paid $30k for the thing.

When I adjust the F ring on my newer pre-asph 46mm Summilux or my new 50mm elmar, I cant help but wonder why they put such a lousy design on such an "expensive" lens. Compare that style ring to the click stops on the rigid cron and you have some barometer of quality. The leica quality is there but there is also a whole lot of flag waving going on as well. Just because its espensive does not necessarily indicate that its a whole lot better than something else.

At the end of the day you just have to accept that part of the deal you make when you go to this system is that if you want whatever look it is going to cost a clearly defined price. Some may be, in one's opinion, needlessly more expensive than the other, but thats the deal. Its the only thing that got me buying leica lenses. The big big consolation however is that if you dont beat your gear too badly, anything with the word leica on it holds its value exceptionally well and in most cases you can either sell your gear for what you paid for it (if you purchased it on the used market), make a little money on it or lose a little money that is easily justifiable as a rental fee for the time you had the lens using it. You cant really say that about a whole lot of other equipment out there, especially now with how fast things change with cameras.
 
Excuse me while I put in a "read 'em and weep" section. I have before me the inventory page from my old "Minolta System Handbook". Dates and prices:

Leica M4-2 Mar.11, 1983 $800
50mm Summicron f/2 Mar. 11, 1983 $470
90mm f/2.8 Sept. 6, 1984 $365
35mm Summicron f/2 Apr. 1, 1985 $475

Grand total, $2,110. Yes, mine have a few years on them (my 50mm is the one with the tab, which I find quite convenient.) They may not be the latest from the factory, but they certainly still serve the purpose.

Twenty-five or so years ago those prices probably seemed astronomical. And I'm sure that if one went back to the original days of the IIIc or IIIf, those would have seemed expensive.

Why did I do it? I had spent half my life wanting a rangefinder Leica. One year my income tax refund didn't have a waiting list, so I finally made the move.

Say what you want about the M4-2 - I know it's not some peoples' favorite. But I have only used it moderately, and it still works fine. Like some other items, it will probably be an heirloom when my 'time' comes.
 
Price is an indicator of the relative shortage of goods. It may or may not reflect their intrinsic value. The M8 gave lots of lenses a digital future and raised their prices based on the increased demand. Let's see what the R10 will do with the prices of used R lenses.
 
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 :)
 
Last edited:
Sorry, it IS a quality thing, and that quality is what created the demand in the first place.

I recently did some test shots of my new Elmar-M 50 at all apertures, using a flat park map as the subject. At all apertures, including wide-open, the corners were sharp and there was 0 distortion. That is what you pay for.

You can fool people, but only for so long.
 
Answer this

Answer this

Why are Rolexes so expensive?

Cheaper watches tell time just as well.

Same question, isn't it?
 
katgut@earthlink.net said:
Sorry, it IS a quality thing, and that quality is what created the demand in the first place.

I recently did some test shots of my new Elmar-M 50 at all apertures, using a flat park map as the subject. At all apertures, including wide-open, the corners were sharp and there was 0 distortion. That is what you pay for.

You can fool people, but only for so long.
Click to expand...

So, a far less expensive Hexanon or Zeiss wouldn't perform as well? Is that what you are saying?

Leica can make a very high quality lenses. But so can many others and others seem to price theirs better. So why Leica can't do it? They are fooling people, or people fooling themselves. I was there too - but I was willing to try other brands and I'm glad I did. End result - I dont own ANY Leica camera or lens now. Why? - not cause they are bad, but because I found others to be as good or better at lower prices. The only lens I still would like to have that is Leica - Noctilux. But thats all.
Bottom line - everyone can believe what they want and pay what they want. I made my choice and I'm happy with it.
 
Two main reasons: limited numbers, and their overall high quality. That's really a price boosting combination. Photographers are willing to pay a premium for that, particularly since they enable the many (now widely recognized) advantages of using a rangefinder. Prices may eventually soften with Zeiss and Voigtlander now well-establised in the M mount world, but it will take a while.

Unfortunately for the budget conscious among us, Voigtlander seems to be moving up the price ladder from their once economically poised market niche. Incidentally, Leica thread mount lenses are not exactly cheap compared to SLR lenses either, particularly if the mass produced Russian models are excluded from consideration.
 
Oh yes (last comment), you can find the occasional really good M mount bargain if you watch the Classified section here closely and are patient. The sellers are great too.
 
Last edited:
katgut@earthlink.net said:
Sorry, it IS a quality thing, and that quality is what created the demand in the first place.

I recently did some test shots of my new Elmar-M 50 at all apertures, using a flat park map as the subject. At all apertures, including wide-open, the corners were sharp and there was 0 distortion. That is what you pay for.

You can fool people, but only for so long.
Click to expand...
To a large extent I agree. There are of course, some equally amazing SLR lenses - AI/AIS Nikkors and SMC K Pentax come to mind (not exactly cheap either), but 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).
 
Last edited:
katgut@earthlink.net said:
Sorry, it IS a quality thing, and that quality is what created the demand in the first place.

I recently did some test shots of my new Elmar-M 50 at all apertures, using a flat park map as the subject. At all apertures, including wide-open, the corners were sharp and there was 0 distortion. That is what you pay for.
Click to expand...


And if you take leica's currently most expensive 50mm lens and perform your test wide open you get nothing but distortion, soft focus and vignetting in the corners. That elmar when it was new was also leica's most affordable offering in 50mm. That lens, while one of my faves, also has the flimsiest F ring of any M lens I own next to of course, the 46mm Summilux. The design of that F ring is more easily knocked off the mark more than any other lens made for any platform that I have used. Its a big pet peeve of mine.

Getting what you pay for is missing the point of this a bit. There are other lenses out there at fractions of the cost that perform identically or better.

There are very few people, if any, that will argue the fact that it is quality that made leica the gold standard. But as I stated before, if you compare the physical construction of the first rigid 50mm cron to anything leica currently offers, there is a big big big difference. The new lenses are not hardly the sherman tanks that the old ones were at all.
 
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...
Voigtlander lenses are expensive??!! :confused:
 
katgut@earthlink.net said:
Sorry, it IS a quality thing, and that quality is what created the demand in the first place.
Click to expand...

Quality may or may not be part of the equation, but that's quite theoretical. Of course, people tend to pay more for higher quality - if they value it and if they can. Nothing wrong here. However, more suppliers creating comparable quality will certainly lower the price (in the ideal market, ... :cool:). Does that mean the quality of the lens came down? Not at all.

The OP's question was regarding similar quality, and quite a different pricing for comparable quality in different mounts. As you can see, quality is not the only point here. It's that the mount isn't considered equally useful. For whatever reason. You can take advantage of it :D.
 
Hand-lapped focusing mounts cost more than machine-cut, for a start. And 100% quality control, not batch-testing (impractical with small numbers). And many state-of-the-art designs, e.g. 21/1.4, 50/0.95. And ground-and-polished glass aspherics, not hybrid (plastic moulded on glass).

A lot of what you're paying for is durability.

Cheers.

R.
 
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
 
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...

Exactly, it's demand.

Just like why baby clothes are more expensive then adult clothes. There's less fabric involved and less energy spent to create them from start to finish. The answer is the Demand and thus no economy of scale, thus a logical higher price even though it seemed illogical at first :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom