Another question on price differential: Leica M lenses vs R lenses

[David Lyga]

I am forced to add my 'ditto'. I think that when we purchase we must be compelled to ask ourselves WHAT we are purchasing: cachet, camera, or common sense. - David Lyga

 

[ph]

Quite apart from agreeing to dismiss fashionistas buying higher priced Panasonic clones as ignorant, I maintain the message i tried to voice above; quite a number of the R optics are very good and not inferior to their M siblings,or to more recent creations. The reasons for the price differential is due to other factors..Like optics from all the worlds makers, the wheat need to be distinguished from the chaff..

p.

 

[AndyH]

Quite apart from agreeing to dismiss fashionistas buying higher priced Panasonic clones as ignorant, I maintain the message i tried to voice above; quite a number of the R optics are very good and not inferior to their M siblings,or to more recent creations. The reasons for the price differential is due to other factors..Like optics from all the worlds makers, the wheat need to be distinguished from the chaff..

p.

I don't disagree. I just maintain that, despite the great IQ of the R lenses, the primary reason they are undervalued today is due to Leitz's failure to develop a full SLR system at its inception. And that this was primarily due to their lack of belief that SLRs would eventually replace rangefinders in the professional world. They were still making Visoflex adaptors before they came out with a microscope adaptor for the Leicaflex.

Agree?

Andy

 

[dave olson]

I use, used both when shooting professional= getting paid, I have a number of R system lenses as well as several M system lenses. I am not an expert in optics, I think I can judge a good image. My R lenses are comparable to their sister M's and unless a client specifically stated, M's, I would inter change between the two. Also the R system being based on a single lens reflex camera produced many different lenses that Leica M could not. Bottom line no difference really.

 

[ph]

I agree that years ogo when Leitz was on the brink of bankruptcy it gave up on its SLR ambitions, hence never any DMR successor or R10, but I stil believe that the reason for the recent years price differential is the continued availability of digital M-mount (plus buyer irrationality) and the difficulties of focussing with the substandard autofocus SLR-screens. Given the newer mirrorless devices, prices may normalize. The collectors markets may also have an effect :cf. the latest leicashop\westlicht auction results.
p..

 

[ph]

I agree that years ogo when Leitz was on the brink of bankruptcy it gave up on its SLR ambitions, hence never any DMR successor or R10, but I stil believe that the reason for the recent years price differential is the continued availability of digital M-mount (plus buyer irrationality) and the difficulties of focussing with the substandard autofocus SLR-screens. Given the newer mirrorless devices, prices may normalize. The collectors markets may also have an effect :cf. the latest leicashop\westlicht auction results.
p..

I agree that years ogo when Leitz was on the brink of bankruptcy it gave up on its SLR ambitions, hence never any DMR successor or R10, but I stil believe that the reason for the recent years price differential is the continued availability of digital M-mount (plus buyer irrationality) and the difficulties of focussing with the substandard autofocus SLR-screens. Given the newer mirrorless devices, prices may normalize. The collectors markets may also have an effect :cf. the latest leicashop\westlicht auction results.
p..

addendum:

I have just noted a second hand NF- to- M-adpter being sold at a much higher price than the identical cheap net alternative,, so I can only conclude that with the Leitz name,, even if not genuine,, buyer irrationality reigns Differential irrationality M v\s R however, shoukld not apply

p.