Why LEICA M lenses are so expensive...'

[Nikon 2]

I’m beginning to understand the lenses for rangefinder systems require more refinement than those used for SLR’s.
This could be the reason they cost so much...!

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Zeiss optics for starters.
Quality
Reliability
Demand
Supply

 

[madNbad]

Labor cost. Production is much more expensive in the EU than in Asia.

 

[Dan Fromm]

The Zeiss optics for starters.
Quality
Reliability
Demand
Supply

Eh? Wot? The OP asked about lenses for LEICA M cameras.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Eh? Wot? The OP asked about lenses for LEICA M cameras.

Without superior optics the camera is nothing. I found that nothing feels like a Leica M camera than any other 35mm camera including SLRs.

 

[Pieter12]

If you think Leica's M lenses are expensive, try pricing the S lenses.

 

[4season]

Leica has positioned themselves as a luxury-products company: For a time, they were a part of LVMH, and more recently, they've ventured into the automatic wristwatch market.

 

[Pieter12]

Leica has positioned themselves as a luxury-products company: For a time, they were a part of LVMH, and more recently, they've ventured into the automatic wristwatch market.

Not sure where you got that information. I cannot find any source that verifies LVMH's ownership of Leica AG at any time.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I cannot find any source that verifies LVMH's ownership of Leica AG at any time.

It comes under the rubric "It sounds so good it must be true!"

 

[greg zinselmeier]

Regardless of cost to produce , what is the market willing to pay? 35mm is very popular compared to 2 1/4 to 4x5 or larger.

On a side note, taking a photograph with either M lenses, or SLR lenses, you are dealing with a foot print issue of 24mm x 36mm . Vs. everything that is bigger. I seriously can’t take seriously the cost issues of M lenses when all I get is 24 x36 . AFAIK 35mm is a very weak format, however very popular!!!!

 

[greg zinselmeier]

I’m beginning to understand the lenses for rangefinder systems require more refinement than those used for SLR’s.
This could be the reason they cost so much...!

Please explain “ refinement “. What do you mean? There is optics, design and manufacturing. Of optics. then there is helical issues with alignment of rangefinder.

Then of course everything else of being a good photographer

 

[Nikon 2]

Please explain “ refinement “. What do you mean? There is optics, design and manufacturing. Of optics. then there is helical issues with alignment of rangefinder.

Then of course everything else of being a good photographer

Refined to offer the best quality for the rangefinder systems...!

 

[Nikon 2]

Does a rangefinder require a better designed lens than the SLR...?

 

[Radost]

Does a rangefinder require a better designed lens than the SLR...?

Actually when it comes to wides it is the opposite. A lot easier to make a good wide on a Smaller flange distance.
This is why I never understood “apart from people desire to use vintage inferior lenses for softness and inferior or lack of coating” why PL mount lenses are still a thing. You can save so much in size, cost, ,materials and simplified design making smaller flange lenses.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

Refined to offer the best quality for the rangefinder systems...!

I think you are begging the question! No response needed. You are making assumptions that are not true. Advertising has gotten to you.

 

[Nikon 2]

So is it true that rangefinder designers have more freedom to use more rear elements than SLR designers...?

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Personally I'm of two minds. I find their luxury strategy, frankly a little gross. I mean their 50/1.4 is $4500 bucks. If you take the red-dot of it all out that's just laughable. I feel like we're all better off that Leica is making 3 different film cameras, but then again all of them are in that laughable price range...and there are plenty of stories of questionable construction.

I can tell you what's great...finding a mint M4-P and using the CV classic line lenses. The 50/1.5II, 35/1.5, 28/2, 21/3.5...all world class optics for a relative steal. I use the 35/1.5, 50/1.5II, and 21/1.8 and I am very happy. On my F2 I use the 55/1.2 and 40/2. You could say I'm quite smitten with Voigtlander lenses. I just wish they'd bring back the Bessa III aka GF670.

 

[Nikon 2]

Since the rangefinder lens is closer to the film plane than the SLR lens, doesn’t it need more refined workmanship to give it the excellent results...?

 

[Radost]

Personally I'm of two minds. I find their luxury strategy, frankly a little gross. I mean their 50/1.4 is $4500 bucks. If you take the red-dot of it all out that's just laughable. I feel like we're all better off that Leica is making 3 different film cameras, but then again all of them are in that laughable price range...and there are plenty of stories of questionable construction.

I can tell you what's great...finding a mint M4-P and using the CV classic line lenses. The 50/1.5II, 35/1.5, 28/2, 21/3.5...all world class optics for a relative steal. I use the 35/1.5, 50/1.5II, and 21/1.8 and I am very happy. On my F2 I use the 55/1.2 and 40/2. You could say I'm quite smitten with Voigtlander lenses. I just wish they'd bring back the Bessa III aka GF670.

I use to feel the same as you. And still do about Leica overpriced finicky cameras.
Then i got a 28mm F2.8 ElmerIt.
Developed some adox CMSII at 20 iso.
And was blown away.
A 40mm and a 50mm and up SLR lenses are good enough and the modern designs are amazing.
But when it comes to wides and especially size…SLR lenses are not as good.
I wish I could use a small A-mount Sony or Minolta. But when I shoot with 28mm edge to edge resolution and vignetting is very important.
My 90mm f4 Leica/Minolta is a little bigger than a shot glass.

 

[Nikon 2]

Personally I'm of two minds. I find their luxury strategy, frankly a little gross. I mean their 50/1.4 is $4500 bucks. If you take the red-dot of it all out that's just laughable. I feel like we're all better off that Leica is making 3 different film cameras, but then again all of them are in that laughable price range...and there are plenty of stories of questionable construction.

I can tell you what's great...finding a mint M4-P and using the CV classic line lenses. The 50/1.5II, 35/1.5, 28/2, 21/3.5...all world class optics for a relative steal. I use the 35/1.5, 50/1.5II, and 21/1.8 and I am very happy. On my F2 I use the 55/1.2 and 40/2. You could say I'm quite smitten with Voigtlander lenses. I just wish they'd bring back the Bessa III aka GF670.

Those Voightlander lenses are made in Japan as the F2…!

 

[Radost]

Personally I'm of two minds. I find their luxury strategy, frankly a little gross. I mean their 50/1.4 is $4500 bucks. If you take the red-dot of it all out that's just laughable. I feel like we're all better off that Leica is making 3 different film cameras, but then again all of them are in that laughable price range...and there are plenty of stories of questionable construction.

I can tell you what's great...finding a mint M4-P and using the CV classic line lenses. The 50/1.5II, 35/1.5, 28/2, 21/3.5...all world class optics for a relative steal. I use the 35/1.5, 50/1.5II, and 21/1.8 and I am very happy. On my F2 I use the 55/1.2 and 40/2. You could say I'm quite smitten with Voigtlander lenses. I just wish they'd bring back the Bessa III aka GF670.

I will pay $2000-3000 if they bring back FUJICA GS645 foldable camera.
”You probably already know Fuji made those cameras”

 

[Nikon 2]

I use to feel the same as you. And still do about Leica overpriced finicky cameras.
Then i got a 28mm F2.8 ElmerIt.
Developed some adox CMSII at 20 iso.
And was blown away.
A 40mm and a 50mm and up SLR lenses are good enough and the modern designs are amazing.
But when it comes to wides and especially size…SLR lenses are not as good.
I wish I could use a small A-mount Sony or Minolta. But when I shoot with 28mm edge to edge resolution and vignetting is very important.
My 90mm f4 Leica/Minolta is a little bigger than a shot glass.

How about the Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI-s or the 55mm Micro Nikkor f/2.8…?

 

[Radost]

How about the Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI-s or the 55mm Micro Nikkor f/2.8…?

Tried the Nikkor 28mm F2.8. Not even close in corner resolution and coma. have not tried the other one. I don’t enjoy shooting my f3 at all. I have had film in it for many months and can not even finish it…

 

[Nikon 2]

Tried the Nikkor 28mm F2.8. Not even close in corner resolution and coma. have not tried the other one. I don’t enjoy shooting my f3 at all. I have had film in it for many months and can not even finish it…

I believe that the Nikkor lenses just mentioned were designed for film and don’t show the negatives whereas the Leica lens you’re commenting on might be designed for digital or film…!

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I use to feel the same as you. And still do about Leica overpriced finicky cameras.
Then i got a 28mm F2.8 ElmerIt.
Developed some adox CMSII at 20 iso.
And was blown away.
A 40mm and a 50mm and up SLR lenses are good enough and the modern designs are amazing.
But when it comes to wides and especially size…SLR lenses are not as good.
I wish I could use a small A-mount Sony or Minolta. But when I shoot with 28mm edge to edge resolution and vignetting is very important.
My 90mm f4 Leica/Minolta is a little bigger than a shot glass.

Sure but the 28/2.8 Biogon will deliver image quality in spades same as the Elmarit. I have not personally used the current 28/2 Ultron but the word is, it's incredible. Leica just doesn't seem to make a wide that I'm aware of that hasn't been met or exceeded by CV or ZM. I shot CMS20II with my 21/1.8. Ultron and the detail was fantastic. I hear the 21/1.4 is even better.

The 35/1.4 Summulix FLE has the edge over the 35/1.5 marginally. The ZM 35/1.4 is best of all but the size is a real problem IMHO.

In general I'd say when I use my RF, I get sharper images than when I use my F2. I'd say it's just much easier to focus an RF, and of course there being no mirror slap you have much reduced vibration. There is a noticeable improvement every time.