Why LEICA M lenses are so expensive...'

[Ian David]

Why do people like 35mm sooooo much? I’ve sold all of mine . Years ago for larger formats

I really don’t get it, isn’t 35, just for entry into film?

Not trying to be obnoxious, but when you find out about 2-1/4,when you are starting out with 35mm, your love affair with 35 it’s all over, and then when you find out large format, 2-1/4 love affair is all over

You don't sound obnoxious, just blinkered. Why do some people like camping while others prefer comfy hotels? Why do some people prefer fine dining while others would rather street food? Why do some people like their hair long, and others short? Why do some people like to get up close to prints with a loupe in one hand and their other hand down their trousers? Why do some people feel that great art, or satisfying photography, can be about a whole range of different things that don't necessarily have much to do with film size? The answer? Who knows?? People like different things. People have different goals. 35mm --> MF --> LF is not necessarily a linear progression. They are different beasts that can be used in a range of different ways...

 

[Nikon 2]

There's nothing wrong with that. Perhaps it's a blessing not to be a format schizophrenic like me.

I’ve learned to be satisfied with simple things and not to keep up with the Leicas, I mean Jones...!

 

[Nikon 2]

You don't sound obnoxious, just blinkered. Why do some people like camping while others prefer comfy hotels? Why do some people prefer fine dining while others would rather street food? Why do some people like their hair long, and others short? Why do some people like to get up close to prints with a loupe in one hand and their other hand down their trousers? Why do some people feel that great art, or satisfying photography, can be about a whole range of different things that don't necessarily have much to do with film size? The answer? Who knows?? People like different things. People have different goals. 35mm --> MF --> LF is not necessarily a linear progression. They are different beasts that can be used in a range of different ways...

I like-a what you said...!

 

[Nikon 2]

What is the point of this thread?

Probably to learn something you didn’t already know...!

 

[guangong]

I admittedly haven't read all the previous posts, but there seems to be a little bit of semi-mythological legend to all this. In theory, it should be easier to design rangefinder lenses, since they don't need to be retro-focus in wide angles like SLR lenses. And today, Japanese manufacture has not only caught up with German expectations, but often exceeded it. Many Zeiss branded 35mm lenses aren't made in Germany at all, but in Japan. The ability to produce aspheric lenses is now more widespread, and far ahead of what Leica ever had done.

Sure, vintage lenses often have their own look, and if they're scarce and attached to cult lens status, they're going to fetch higher prices within that category of people willing to pay it. Oven some old boot which accidentally came out of a swamp on a fishing line might have "Rare and Collectable" on its EBay listing.

No different with large format lenses, with current asking prices for old cult lenses, which actually don't perform a bit better than later versions selling for a tenth the price. Some people just like the idea of owning fine things, and tend to buy Leica or Hassie, and rarely if ever actually shoot the thing.

But none of this effect me much. My quite affordable Fuji 6X9 rangefinder will blow anything 35mm completely out of the water when it comes to print quality. And it is hand-holdable if necessary;
better than even my Nikon in that respect.

However, at a Zeiss research facility in NY state I was told that there is a Zeiss representative in Japan to monitor quality control. Zeiss also had a prewar relationship with company that became Nikon.

 

[Helinophoto]

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...!

No, the reason Leica lenses cost so much is simply related to production-rate, quality control and branding.

I have a IIIf, a M3 and a M6, all with Leica-glass (albeit older ones).
I also have a Carl Zeiss 50mm F2 ZM planar for my M6 and you understand that the fanboyism related to Leica is completely ridiculous, when you get criticized for using that lens on a Leica. (The lens is just as sharp, same bokeh, but shows better color contrast its Leica counterpart).

Leica has always been about bragging and showing off how much money you are willing to flush down the drain, most people with Leica gear can't shoot for crap anyway. (Neither could the "greats" either, for that matter, including the over-hyped rich-boy HCB).

So in short, there is nothing with Leica (cameras or lenses) that is better, to defend the ridiculous price point they have, it's all about fluff and then some more fluff, subjective opinions and "feel", whatever that actually is.

Your average measurbator youtuber, having to give an awful lot of points to the Zeiss. When you then consider the money-drain Leica really is, it should be a no-brainer, unless you are more into brand-whoring and bragging-rights

 

[faberryman]

Using non-Leica lenses on your Leica is like wearing pants from Target with your Gucci loafers. It just isn't done.

 

[Nikon 2]

No, the reason Leica lenses cost so much is simply related to production-rate, quality control and branding.

I have a IIIf, a M3 and a M6, all with Leica-glass (albeit older ones).
I also have a Carl Zeiss 50mm F2 ZM planar for my M6 and you understand that the fanboyism related to Leica is completely ridiculous, when you get criticized to use that lens on a Leica. (The lens is just as sharp, same bokeh, but shows better color contrast its Leica counterpart).

Leica has always been about brading and showing off how much money you are willing to flush down the drain, most people with Leica gear can't shoot for crap anyway. (Neither could the "greats" either, for that matter, including the over-hyped rich-boy HCB).

So in short, there is nothing with Leica (cameras or lenses) that is better, to defend the ridiculous price point they have, it's all about fluff and then some more fluff, subjective opinions and "feel", whatever that actually is.

Your average measurbator youtuber, having to give an awful lot of points to the Zeiss. When you then consider the money-drain Leica really is, it should be a no-brainer, unless you are more into brand-whoring and bragging-rights

I’ll buy that…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Using non-Leica lenses on your Leica is like wearing pants from Target with your Gucci loafers. It just isn't done.

I also like-a that…!

 

[snusmumriken]

Probably to learn something you didn’t already know...!

I look forward to that! I am following along.

 

[Nikon 2]

I look forward to that! I am following along.

I like-a your open mindedness…!

 

[Helinophoto]

Using non-Leica lenses on your Leica is like wearing pants from Target with your Gucci loafers. It just isn't done.

Proves my point right there.
You use the glass you want, with whatever camera you like and you can scrape the logos off with your wifes nail clippers, because they don't add anything to your photo anyway.

I will happily slap a Jupiter-3 on my M6 and shoot all day, if I know it irks the flamboyant gearheads

 

[faberryman]

I will happily slap a Jupiter-3 on my M6 and shoot all day, if I know it irks the flamboyant gearheads

The perfect reason to put a non-Leica lens on a Leica body. Not that it has anything to do with photography.

 

[Helinophoto]

The perfect reason to put a non-Leica lens on a Leica body. Not that it has anything to do with photography.

It has everything to do with photography, the Jupiter-3 is actually a very interesting lens and a joy to use, once you have hammered the WWII captured german KruppStahl into shape, so that it focuses properly.



People tend to forget that the most iconic photographs made in history are neither sharp, nor in focus and not even taken with the best gear and sometimes even captured by shear luck.
Anyway, this discussion is the same as the Sony (digi) guys Vs the Nikon and Canon guys and will go on forever.

 

[ic-racer]

In the 1970s the Leica lenses had better overall performance than the name-brand Japanese lenses and I thought the price was justified at the time though I don't like using rangefinder cameras, so I never got one.
At the time the only 35mm SLR camera made in Germany was the Rolleiflex with it's Zeiss lenses, so I got those instead.
I can't find the comparison off hand, but no, the Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, tested by the same magazine, was not better than the Summilux shown below, but it was very close.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

silver gelatin prints made from 35 are so . . . . Underwhelming

What about prints from Minox? What is your expert opinion on those?

 

[Nikon 2]

In the 1970s the Leica lenses had better overall performance than the name-brand Japanese lenses and I thought the price was justified at the time though I don't like using rangefinder cameras, so I never got one.
At the time the only 35mm SLR camera made in Germany was the Rolleiflex with it's Zeiss lenses, so I got those instead.
I can't find the comparison off hand, but no, the Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, tested by the same magazine, was not better than the Summilux shown below, but it was very close.
View attachment 339606

Rangefinder cameras tend to have better results than SLR cameras.
Rangefinder cameras are easier to focus.
They don’t have the mirror vibration either.
It’s the camera most likely than the lenses…!

 

[ic-racer]

The problem with rangefinder cameras is that they are harder to focus, the lenses are very expensive, and the cameras don't have matrix metering or autofocus. So not much use to me.

I don't recall but the Leica M comes with with a tripod, to utilize the lens resolution, right?

 

[Radost]

Why do people like 35mm sooooo much? I’ve sold all of mine . Years ago for larger formats

I really don’t get it, isn’t 35, just for entry into film?

Not trying to be obnoxious, but when you find out about 2-1/4,when you are starting out with 35mm, your love affair with 35 it’s all over, and then when you find out large format, 2-1/4 love affair is all over

Because at $4:20 per roll for black and white and $4:20 per roll for color film it is economical. 120 is expansive

 

[bjorke]

Leica lenses are expensive because that's what the market will bear.

Their narrowing of the product lines (ditch the CL and S and T) was smart. Each has a (social and technical) function, a particular buyer/product fit.

• M: the first, and the last, of the all-manual 35mm (format) camera
• Q: M looks, zero fiddling
• SL: We can be Sony, too

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why do people like 35mm sooooo much? I’ve sold all of mine . Years ago for larger formats

I really don’t get it, isn’t 35, just for entry into film?

Not trying to be obnoxious, but when you find out about 2-1/4,when you are starting out with 35mm, your love affair with 35 it’s all over, and then when you find out large format, 2-1/4 love affair is all over

I use the Hasselblad for my serious work that I will save and make prints, some of them large while 35mm is for very light traveling and long lenses for wildlife.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The answer is use a tripod - A bloody heavy one at that! I have proved it to myself, time and time again an older not so advanced lens on a tripod can equal a far more expensive and later lens used without.
Recently I bought an almost mint late (Dated from October 1979) model of a Nikon F2a and of course my AF lenses will work quite happily with it it but for a 'walk about lens' all I had was a cheap and cheerful 35/70AF The lens I use on my Digital camera for the same purpose is a Nikon 24/120AFS F4 constant aperture
Then I saw for not a lot of money a Tamron AD11 35/135 zoom which would suit my purpose better so bought it and used it on the F2a fitted to a Manfrotto 55B tripod. The quality is actually as good as the 24/120 - if not better than the modern lens with image stabilisation a 12x16 B&W print is so very very good.

Yes the F2a does vibrate a tiny amount with the shutter/mirror action but like most other SLR's the most vibration comes when the mirror returns down,by which time the exposure is made so it will not affect it one iota. Use something like an Exacta !!b with a non instant return mirror and the vibration from the mirror/shutter is almost non existent

The tripod does not need to be heavy, just rigid enough to not vibrate in the wind or shake. Weight can be added to dampen vibrations. I use a carbon fiber tripod for lightness and rigidity.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Because you always pay disproportionally more for smaller and smaller increases in performance and refinement whether it's a Leica lens or a hand made wristwatch. But these increments in performance will be irrelevant most of the time for the majority of photographers, just as telling the time can be done with an iPhone. True Leica lenses do work well with Leica cameras, and some of my favourite lenses are by Leica (notable my 50mm Summilux which is worth every penny), but I'll leave that at home if I'm doing some street photography or stuff where the difference isn't important.

I mean I have Nikon lenses that if used between f/4 and f/11 are as sharp as the nearest equivalent M lens, it's only if you persistently us a lens wide open that you 'may' discover a Leica works better. But if you think as I do that a photograph should not be a failure just because of soft edges then the call of super-expensive lenses is a moot point. I love nearly all my Leica M lenses, but I love some cheaper M mount lenses even more. So you are paying for accuracy of assembly, refinement generated over time in the lab, fractionally more overall performance (but not guaranteed), and the name, and that is what makes them expensive.

Using ISO 400 film means that one does not have to shoot with the lenses wide open as often.

 

[Nikon 2]

The problem with rangefinder cameras is that they are harder to focus, the lenses are very expensive, and the cameras don't have matrix metering or autofocus. So not much use to me.

I don't recall but the Leica M comes with with a tripod, to utilize the lens resolution, right?

I used an M3 and it was easier to focus than the SLR lenses I currently use…!

 

[faberryman]

People tend to forget that the most iconic photographs made in history are neither sharp, nor in focus and not even taken with the best gear and sometimes even captured by shear luck.

So why bother with a Leica camera? If you want to shoot a Jupiter lens, why not shoot with a Zorki or Kiev camera?