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

[jjphoto]

Generally the least expensive leica R are not very good, hence low prices and demand. Don't confuse these with the latest versions. The later leica R lenses are in high demand so prices are astronomical. Just look at the prices for E60 1.4/50 or E55 2.8/28, which are the latest versions of these lenses.

 

[film_man]

Are you sitting on dozens of M? Or at one roll per year?
Because if M is used as regular camera to take pictures regularly, the user of this cameras knows what they will not last forever. I’m one of them. All like me Leica photographers have to send their M at least for CLA. But none of us has more than two M.
I have one, could barely afford CLA and service due to everyday, everywhere use. Not just bragging on forums how it is build.

Handheld is the highest achievement of yours? Wanna learn about focusing without focusing? This is possible with M, not R. Do you know why?

How do you define heavy use? 100 rolls a year? 100 a month? Just curious.

Personally, I'd expect to service a mechanical camera every 3 years or so given that I shoot about 150 rolls a year. That's just me. In any case if I was shooting maybe 500 rolls a year or more a CLA is insignificant next to the cost of buying, processing and scanning. If I was shooting 50 or less a CLA every 10 years is nothing.

 

[AgX]

Price difference has little to do with optical quality but with status. To 90% of users and profanes, Leice means rangefinder, not SLR.

Today. Not so e.g. here in the 70s.

 

[Jim Jones]

Until succumbing to the digital craze a few years ago, I used Leica rangefinders from 1953 and Nikon SLRs from 1967. This added up to a few thousand rolls of B&W film and 20,000 color slides. The systems were similar in optical performance, but much different in handling. The M series Leica handled better for most photography, but the SLR was needed for macro photography and long lenses. The cost of each system was amortized many times during the equipment's life. To me, the choice of a camera system should depend first on the way the system satisfies the photographer's preferences and demands. Cost is less significant than performance to someone commited to photography. Also, photographers have adapted to a tremendous variety of cameras and processes over the past 180 years, and can still do so today. I've taken more digital photographs in the past 9 years than on film over many decades. The last shoot was a junior high school boys and girls basketball game -- about 260 shots. I would have grumbled if such games would have required more than one 36 exposure roll in film days. 150 years ago a few successful negatives was often ample reward for a day's intensive work. Perhaps most of us would be better photographers if we valued the final image over the convenience and gadgets used in making it.

 

[jtk]

The R Leicas have mostly been far inferior to Canon and Nikon pro models (such as F1). Having them made by Minolta didn't help. Obviously, one pays far less for a Minolta than a real Leica.

Pros ( in ancient times, when they still shot film) mostly shot Nikon or Canon SLRs. A few oddballs shot "Leica" SLRs.

The market knows.

 

[David Lyga]

The R Leicas have mostly been far inferior to Canon and Nikon pro models (such as F1). Having them made by Minolta didn't help. Obviously, one pays far less for a Minolta than a real Leica.

Pros ( in ancient times, when they still shot film) mostly shot Nikon or Canon SLRs. A few oddballs shot "Leica" SLRs.

The market knows.

What is most interesting about this supposedly true comment is the fact that Leica would sully its valuable name by making an, at least somewhat, inferior product. That makes little sense, but I have no reason to say that jtk is incorrect, either. - David Lyga

 

[Paul Howell]

As far as I know the early R bodies were based on Minolta bodies, the later 8 and 9 were designed and built by Leica, in terms of lens it was the other way around. Minolta used Leica designs for a few of it's lens, the early 35 to 70 F4 A mount comes to mind. Minolta build a version of the CL which many, and testing by Modern Photography, believed was a better built than the Leica version. In terms of why pro shot Nikon and few shot Canon had to do with the extensive lens lens line up, high speed motor drives, availability of rental lens and spare bodies, world wide repair network, and that most of the wires services had adapted Nikon. Canon came it's own with the AF EOS system, that when at sporting events you begin to see the sea of gray lens. And Leica was expensive. And when I was a working PJ I did see European shooters with Leica and ealy Contax. In terms of who had best built and sharpest lens 60s and 70 was Swiss Alpa, they did not make lens, they bought the best lens from a large number of makers, had them made to their spec then once at the Alph factory tested each lens and rebuilt those lens what were not up their standards. But the cost, they were even more expensive than Leica.

 

[Chan Tran]

I think when they were new Leica was selling the R lenses for about the same price as the M lenses. On the used market the R lenses are not worth as much because people don't like the Leica SLR's as much. For me too. I would like to have a Leica M but I wouldn't want to replace my Nikon SLR for the Leica R cameras.

 

[AndyH]

The R Leicas have mostly been far inferior to Canon and Nikon pro models (such as F1). Having them made by Minolta didn't help. Obviously, one pays far less for a Minolta than a real Leica.

Pros ( in ancient times, when they still shot film) mostly shot Nikon or Canon SLRs. A few oddballs shot "Leica" SLRs.

The market knows.

Interesting comment, and I think you're correct. Wetzlar-heads will probably crucify me, but....

Leitz competed for the working professional market in both the L39 and M days, and provided a full range of gear aimed at the needs of professionals, photojournalists in particular, but also including accessories for everything from Macrophotography to Astronomical.

They were relatively latecomers to the SLR game, in my opinion primarily because they didn't recognize that SLRs offered any advantages for professional use. Oddly, they viewed their own M rangefinders as their professional line, and from the very first, offered a more limited range of SLR gear. They seemed to recognize that they were late to the party, and, again, IMHO, they never expanded their R lines to include stuff that pros were taking for granted in their Canon and Nikon systems. When I first shot a Leicaflex (the non TTL metered model) while working in a camera shop, two things struck me: 1) This is really made like a Leica, it's gorgeous! and 2) Don't these guys know that the through the lens exposure meter is a thing now? The widest lens was a 35mm, the longest a 135mm, and neither was particularly fast. The completely ignored the exact qualities that made SLRs the new professional paradigm - range of focal length, accurate metering, and fast glass.

This was at a time when their M series lenses went from 21 mm to 500 mm, and their ultra high speed 50s were far superior to anything from the Pacific rim. The original Leicaflex and its descendants were relegated to expensive toys for dilettantes, and were never a serious alternative for professionals. The rangefinders remained a favorite for a limited range of professional journalists and street photographers but many pros needed a pro SLR. The R lenses were, again, in my opinion, wonderfully sharp and felt great in use, but they just weren't designed to meet the needs of professionals.

Sadly, Leitz just didn't believe in the SLR concept, and lost their chance to be in the forefront of developing that market. Prestige means something to the amateur hobbyist with a fat wallet, but not to the pros. Sentimental attachments aside, by the 70s, the SLR had taken over the pro market, and Leitz didn't have anything to offer. Today, they're great bargains, I think. I'm not a pro, and I don't need the latest and greatest, so looking at old Leicaflexes and R lenses on auction sites is making me think seriously about jumping in.

Andy

 

[AndyH]

What is most interesting about this supposedly true comment is the fact that Leica would sully its valuable name by making an, at least somewhat, inferior product. That makes little sense, but I have no reason to say that jtk is incorrect, either. - David Lyga

They were, arguably, NOT inferior until the later Minolta inspired years. They were as beautiful in operation as any others. They were just not designed for professional use. As I said above, I don't think Leitz believed in the SLR concept for professional use, and that's why they were last to adopt virtually every SLR feature. Going to the two cam, and later, three cam lenses should have been anticipated from the very first SLR lens, but they never saw those changes coming.

Andy

 

[ph]

The original question seemed to regard it as paradoxical that similar high quality glaass coul be so unevenly priced.. Well, R bodies disappeared from the market in the early 2000ds and autofocus SLRs do no have the screens for accurate manual focussing, so one market for second hand lenses disappared. The Leitz rangefinders hoiwever transmuted into digital devices , so there is still a user base. Also, fashionistas and
trade-mark-- flashers latched on to the red dot which did help business. I agree that Alpa was more expensive and much less common, but their marketing was not as efficient.

The Leica reputation for quality kept prices up among users as well as collectors. Look at Westlicht auctions for .how collectors are valuing mechanical marvels of a period that will not return. The prices of M-lenses also reflects the investment value of precision optics, not long before R lenses entar the collector sphere..

the statement above ad parallax however does not apply to all rangefinders. The Leicas bright frames moves to compensate parallax as one focusses closer, but the 0,9 or 0,7m limit can cramp the pictorialist style.To see the frame of the M3 suspended in mid- air while keeing both eyes open is a definite advantage .for the RF as opposed to the tunnel vision of the SLR, but that may not help to explain the price differential..

Retrofocus designs may not be totally inferior, in my experience some R wides can compete with current offerings. since the added elements are not as deleterious as they would have been before multilayer coaatings. You may have noticed that even some current elite offerings have a retrofocus construction.

If you wish to look at the evidence for M versus R sharpness and contrast, I can recommned the leica book by Erwin Putz where you will find MTF curves and verbal assesments of both M&R optics.

p.

 

[jtk]

Very few Leica SLR lenses or bodies have been outstanding Vs Canon/Nikon. That folks in Europe shot Leica SLRs at some time in ancient history is irrelevant to this discussion If you are still shooting film with an antique, do you shoot Canon F1 or ANY Leica SLR?

 

[miha]

Very few Leica SLR lenses or bodies have been outstanding Vs Canon/Nikon. That folks in Europe shot Leica SLRs at some time in ancient history is irrelevant to this discussion If you are still shooting film with an antique, do you shoot Canon F1 or ANY Leica SLR?

I'm shooting both.

 

[reddesert]

I don't have an opinion about Leica lens quality vs others or vs itself or whatever. Several people have at least touched on the main issue:
- Since the 1970s (or even 1960s), the Leica M system was essentially the only modern 35mm rangefinder system available. Its uniqueness could justify a premium position in the market. But since the 1960s and continuing to this day, there have been plenty of fully featured 35mm SLR systems that are alternatives to the Leica SLR system. So demand for the SLR system has always been less, and I think this has been reflected in used prices for a long time.

 

[blockend]

By the 1970s the rangefinder was defunct as a professional tool. Sure, there are always exceptions, anachronistic types for whom an RF camera fit their requirements, but Leica was by then the preserve of aficionados and gurus of various stripes, not pros. Since then the new Leica market has been stable, people for whom anything with a Leica badge is superb and anything lacking the dot only fit for garbage. The used Leica buyer is a different beast, with diverse intentions which only occasionally chime with image quality.

R buyers were in the first category, there was barely a single SLR innovation by the company. Put another badge on an R and the reviewers would have dismissed most out of hand. Even if Leica SLRs had been optically superlative, "best" in professional terms is a mix of availability, flexibility, reliability and support. It's why most professionals are using DSLR cameras while manufacturers are trying to sell them mirrorless, innate conservatism, better the devil you know, and if it ain't broke.. People bought Nikon and Canon from the 1960s for a reason.

 

[jtk]

I'm shooting both.

Congratulations! Getting same-day professional Ektachrome processing are you? In the 80s I was shooting F1s and getting (often needing) same day Ektachrome processing...and even same day Kodachrome processing when I delivered it directly to Kodak's Redwood City lab.

I shoot mirrorless because I like getting higher-than-film detail resolution and total tonal/color control thanx to Photoshop. Modern times

 

[film_man]

I shoot mirrorless because I like getting higher-than-film detail resolution and total tonal/color control thanx to Photoshop. Modern times

That's nice to hear, glad it is working out for you.

 

[MattKing]

By the 1970s the rangefinder was defunct as a professional tool.

Depends.
I worked as a darkroom technician one summer in the late 1970s for the Vancouver Sun, a large daily newspaper in a big Canadian city.
Most of the photographers used Nikon F2s as their main camera, having recently switched over from Nikon Fs.
But a few of them also carried Leica RFs, for those particular situations where quiet and stealth were important, or where the other advantages of rangefinder shooting were useful.
So for them, the rangefinder continued to fulfill a need.

 

[miha]

Congratulations! Getting same-day professional Ektachrome processing are you? In the 80s I was shooting F1s and getting (often needing) same day Ektachrome processing...and even same day Kodachrome processing when I delivered it directly to Kodak's Redwood City lab.

I shoot mirrorless because I like getting higher-than-film detail resolution and total tonal/color control thanx to Photoshop. Modern times

Actually I was too sloppy reading you question - I do have a Canon A1 camera and several R cameras as well, but no F1 I'm affraid. As for
my photojournalism days, I was a press photographer for a short period in the 90s, using Nikon cameras (you see, I have no loyality towards camera makes) and Fuji Press 800 as my main film.

 

[John Koehrer]

My, my This is starting to look like a Leica bashing thingy.
Like it , don't like it. It is what it is.

I was wondering though., When you're photo shopping your stuff in the field, Isn't it a little bulky?

 

[jjphoto]

My, my This is starting to look like a Leica bashing thingy.
Like it , don't like it. It is what it is.

I was wondering though., When you're photo shopping your stuff in the field, Isn't it a little bulky?

Any leica related post eventually turns into leica bashing, it's standard operating procedure.

 

[jtk]

The question here was about market reality. Photographers determine prices of used equipment, manufacturers don't. Leica SLRs are cheap by comparison to pro-level Nikon and Canon. If Leica had it's wits about it we'd have seen Canon F1s with red dots.

 

[AndyH]

Any leica related post eventually turns into leica bashing, it's standard operating procedure.

Any luxury item attracts its share of bashers, especially if it is perceived as overpriced in terms of its features. For examples, one need look no further than high end sports cars, or fountain pens for that matter. I collect and restore fountain pens, and the Mont Blanc models receive a very similar response to that of Leicas in the photographic world.

In some respects, it's a justifiable reaction to the perceived snobbery of SOME users of the particular brand, but in others it's just jealousy.

My personal view is that Leitz products really are overpriced, but that the quality goes a long way to justifying them. The SLR Leicas were not innovative, not designed for professional use, and did not even attempt to cover a full range of professional needs. They were designed for affluent amateurs, but have become a very reasonable proposition for film shooters on the used market. If you accept the limited range of lenses and the slightly less advanced design of the bodies, they are probably the best quality 35mm SLR system on the used market, on a dollar for dollar basis. I think a Leicaflex and basic lens set might be my next target on the used market.

Maybe someday the M series will become relatively affordable too....

Andy

 

[blockend]

Any leica related post eventually turns into leica bashing, it's standard operating procedure.

The bashing is a response to overblown claims, or practical shortcomings. Both are a question of degree. The worst criticism levelled at Barnack Leicas is they are troublesome to load, have quirky viewfinders and the lenses haze with time. Anyone who says a Barnack isn't well constructed is ignorant of their manufacture. The M models are survivors off an extinct type and as with all functioning antiques, don't expect to evaluate them on modern lines. Digital Leica cameras I don't see the point of, unless you have a collection of Leitz glass and are tired of film. This may be a blind spot on my part, but digital cameras are a type of consumable, continually updated and made obsolete. That's against the original ethos of a camera for life. The new SL2 is a boutique Panasonic S1, which harks back to the Minolta R's. You are literally paying for the badge and the cosmetics.

All that said, people should spend their money where they see fit.

 

[macfred]

The bashing is a response to overblown claims, or practical shortcomings. Both are a question of degree. The worst criticism levelled at Barnack Leicas is they are troublesome to load, have quirky viewfinders and the lenses haze with time. Anyone who says a Barnack isn't well constructed is ignorant of their manufacture. The M models are survivors off an extinct type and as with all functioning antiques, don't expect to evaluate them on modern lines. Digital Leica cameras I don't see the point of, unless you have a collection of Leitz glass and are tired of film. This may be a blind spot on my part, but digital cameras are a type of consumable, continually updated and made obsolete. That's against the original ethos of a camera for life. The new SL2 is a boutique Panasonic S1, which harks back to the Minolta R's. You are literally paying for the badge and the cosmetics.

All that said, people should spend their money where they see fit.

This is a very thoughtful and well-worded commentary - I salute you for your efforts !