Will you pay $7,195 for the new 50 'cron Asph?

At $7000 I'd buy six of them and then throw them at the plebians when I see their $75 Konica Auto SII's taking photographs that are better simply because they are talented and I am not. My photographs will suck, but sharp and with creamy bokeh. Their photographs will be great, still sharp and creamy bokeh.

But if they cost $14,000, I'd buy 12 and substitute them for my shredded wheat nests at breakfast. That's the logic of a Veblen good...the more it costs, the more (some) people want it. Seriously, $7000?
 
Yes, seriously. :)

Just as serious as the $7k for the 21/1.4 and the 24/1.4 and $11k for the 50/1, not to mention the $2.2k for the 50/2 pre-asph. It's all serious money.
 
clayne said:
It's also another word for "character."

If someone tried to beat all character out of you until you were "perfect" you probably wouldn't like that right? I don't think your friends or loved ones would like a perfect character-less you, either.
Click to expand...

This is of course a completely flawed analogy because essentially you are talking metaphysics, while lens designers are talking physics. Lenses are not social beings.
 
rxmd said:
This is of course a completely flawed analogy because essentially you are talking metaphysics, while lens designers are talking physics. Lenses are not social beings.
Click to expand...

No, I'm talking about how perception of flaws relates to character and value.
 
Why would a perfect lens be better than a "character" lens, or the other way around?
Some like lenses that don't interfere with the picture, others will swear by the certain aura this or that lens gives to their type of pictures.
I've see good photography taken by Noctiluxes, or a Holga, and good photography where clearly, the lens was just a good lens, with no "special effect"
to each his own...
 
Since we are talking physics vs metphysics I have to tell you Leica never made a sharp lens neither did it's competitors. A lens can create the appearance of sharpness but the resulting image will never be truly in focus or sharp so why throw away 70000 $ for an unsharp lens :rolleyes:
 
I can't buy one, no. But I'm very curious to see what it will do on the M9M, whether it'll produce, say, 40x60 prints that rival those from MF. I think the M9M+APO Cron is Leica's way of approaching what the S2 can do, but with all the ergonomic benefits of the M-body. Serious money, yes, but with some serious potential.
 
McTuomey the S2 has a bigger sensor thus different tonality, the biggest gain of going bigger is not an increase in sharpness but a better tonality and even Leica can't rewrite the law of phyisics. Furthermore bigger size still means less magnification which helps sharpness and tonality. Not only in the film world but also in the digital realm.

And I really wonder if this is a real APO (three colors) or a Pseudo APO (two colors) even the pseudo APO is an APO lens by still photography standards.

Dominik
 
DominikDUK said:
McTuomey the S2 has a bigger sensor thus different tonality, the biggest gain of going bigger is not an increase in sharpness but a better tonality and even Leica can't rewrite the law of phyisics. Furthermore bigger size still means less magnification which helps sharpness and tonality. Not only in the film world but also in the digital realm.

And I really wonder if this is a real APO (three colors) or a Pseudo APO (two colors) even the pseudo APO is an APO lens by still photography standards.

Dominik
Click to expand...

My point is that Leica, that comparatively small and less capitalized competitor of Canikon etc., is pushing hard on the edge of what we expect from small format equipment, specifically in the M9M and APO 50 Cron. If the combo can approach digital MF quality in moderately large prints, I'll be cheering. I follow the posts of some excellent photographers who own or have access to both systems (on other forums) and look forward to reports of their impressions.
 
I think the whole concept of a B/W camera body and a most expensive 50mm lens a great idea. It shows individualism. i am a logical person and for me, even if i could afford, i would not! Kudos though to Leica, for a bold step.
I have long ago forgotten how much my Leica stuff cost..It has been a long time.. The M6 the baby, bought 2000, as i left LA.
I hope to see some spectacular prints and images, from the duo. What i've seen so far has been to say at best, "under-whelming".
 
If the the new APO leica lens catches up with the OM zuiko 50/2 macro in terms of sharpness and perfect correction, they've reached their goal, as this lens has all the attributes which are in the marketing text of the new leica lens.

7k for a 50/2 lens is ridiculous in my eyes
 
I don't know who owns Leica now but, I think their really milking it with this lens.
I've been a Leica user for year's and I do love their stuff but 7 grand for a lens is
a little to much.

Range
 
With that product/price tag, Leica is leaving the 'exceptionally good product' area for the 'luxury goods' department a la Vuitton luggage.
 
Araakii said:
plus you don't actually spend $7K to use it. You only spend $7K - whatever depreciation there will be.
Click to expand...

I presume you mean you only end up spending the value of the depreciation (rather than the difference that your statement implies)? Either way, this is such an old forum chestnut and really only makes sense if your ownership of the Leica lens is always intended to be temporary and, more importantly, that there is no opportunity cost associated with spending the $7k upfront.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom