Why LEICA M lenses are so expensive...'

[Radost]

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.

They have not made a wide in a while.

 

[MattKing]

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

Maybe, but more importantly, rangefinder lens designers don't have to worry about avoiding a swinging mirror close to the film plane, so short focal length lenses can be both simpler and closer to the film itself.
Leica M lenses could easily be less expensive than they are, if they used less expensive materials and were designed and manufactured to wider tolerances.
But that would be inconsistent with the market they wish to serve, so they don't do that.
If they did want to do that, and to match them up with lower quality cameras, perhaps they could increase sales volumes, and therefore achieve some price advantages out of some economies of scale.
It is similar to cars. GM could make relatively inexpensive Cadillacs, and sell them out of bare bones dealers, if they wanted to.
But they don't want to.

 

[Radost]

The retro focus - “inverted telephoto” that SLR has to implement in wide lenses is a real cost and optical complication more glass elements. There are a lot of optical issues with that design that modern lens manufacturers learned how to deal with but increase the size.

 

[armadsen]

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

The point was that Leica M lenses are not Zeiss lenses. They're Leica lenses. I say that as someone who most often has a much cheaper Zeiss (Cosina) lens on my MP.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

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.

There might be a lot of truth about that "red dot" thing, have a look at Fuji's 'Fujicrons' (hoping not to offend you as these are digital purpose lenses)...
Perhaps these are not as good as the Leica's (really?), but considering their price, then one can ask when or what is 'good' and 'bad'?

And as we are at it: is sharpness (and (colour-) aberration correction) the only criterion for a lens?

 

[Radost]

I forgot to mention. I was walking in my house with a Minolta CLE, Leica 28mmF2.8 and a Filter.
I dropped the camera and from the swing on my hand it flew in to the table Leg.
The filter B+W MRC shuttered to and bend to a point that I can take the lens cap off.
Camera and lens are fine…
I love the Leica lenses but as far as leica camera goes they are fragile.

 

[Radost]

The point was that Leica M lenses are not Zeiss lenses. They're Leica lenses. I say that as someone who most often has a much cheaper Zeiss (Cosina) lens on my MP.

Most reviews I have seen Leica beats Zeiss in the corners.

 

[BMbikerider]

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!!!!

Quote" 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!!!!Quote

I think you are being quite cynical, I would love to own a Leica again. The last time and did so was perhaps 35 years ago. It was a 3G fitted with probably the 1st version of the F2 Summicron and had 'been around' i.e. it was a bit battered! I have yet to find a camera that was/is easier to get along with and compared to modern SLR's a lightweight. The results it gave me with that Summicron are perhaps the best images I can remember. Unfortunately they are well above my price range at todays level.

The 24x36 image size almost perfectly fits the European A4 paper size which is sold by Ilford. Of course you don't have to stick with the set format of the original image, you can crop and print to your hearts content to your hearts content and this I think is why it has become the normal format. The largest I can print due to the area in my dark room is 12x16 but when cropped was at least as big as a 20" long print with little loss of quality

 

[Radost]

Quote" 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!!!!Quote

I think you are being quite cynical, I would love to own a Leica again. The last time and did so was perhaps 35 years ago. It was a 3G fitted with probably the 1st version of the F2 Summicron and had 'been around' i.e. it was a bit battered! I have yet to find a camera that was/is easier to get along with and compared to modern SLR's a lightweight. The results it gave me with that Summicron are perhaps the best images I can remember. Unfortunately they are well above my price range at todays level.

The 24x36 image size almost perfectly fits the European A4 paper size which is sold by Ilford. Of course you don't have to stick with the set format of the original image, you can crop and print to your hearts content to your hearts content and this I think is why it has become the normal format. The largest I can print due to the area in my dark room is 12x16 but when cropped was at least as big as a 20" long print with little loss of quality

100% agree.
Adox CMSII20 is the only exception.
Also medium format lenses are a lot cheaper to design better.
Some of my 50s folders prints have the dimension representation definition and resolution that no 135 camera or lens can produce.
But… I can not roll my own 120 film. And while I have a lot of 120 in and outside the fridge I still shoot 135 color and BW at $4.20 a roll.
I have been getting some pretty nice looking results with XX in xtol 1:1

 

[Nikon 2]

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.

I agree…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Could it be the sharpness of the Leica lenses is more of the result of the rangefinder’s ability to focus more easily while not having the vibration of SLR mirrors compounding the image making it not as sharp then it being the quality of the lens…?

 

[Radost]

Corners

 

[mshchem]

Leica is ultra-low volume, high-end, luxury/aspirational brand. It's a whole lifestyle, hotel in Wetzlar, beautiful people, history, wonderful products, legacy, Leitz invented 35mm photography

It's a Wonderful Life!

 

[Nikon 2]

Leica is ultra-low volume, high-end, luxury/aspirational brand. It's a whole lifestyle, hotel in Wetzlar, beautiful people, history, wonderful products, legacy, Leitz invented 35mm photography

It's a Wonderful Life!

I’ll buy that…!

 

[4season]

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

Upon closer examination, it looks like you are correct.

Hermès owned a 36.2% stake in Leica Camera, characterized as a "friendly" acquisition:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hermes-flies-from-struggling-leica-qhqqzdcqfh3

While Hermès managed to avoid control by LVMH:
https://www.economist.com/business/2020/09/12/how-hermes-got-away-from-lvmh-and-thrived

For a time, there was collaboration between Leica and Hermès:

 

[Ian Leake]

I think I can remember a quote from a Leica manager: "We make cameras and enlargers so we can show how good our lenses are."

 

[mshchem]

Cosina Voigtlander is making absolutely beautiful lenses for rf. Brass, black paint, chrome, beautiful glass and coatings

Another Wonderful Life!

 

[Nikon 2]

Cosina Voigtlander is making absolutely beautiful lenses for rf. Brass, black paint, chrome, beautiful glass and coatings

Another Wonderful Life!

Made in Japan...!

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Maybe, but more importantly, rangefinder lens designers don't have to worry about avoiding a swinging mirror close to the film plane, so short focal length lenses can be both simpler and closer to the film itself.
Leica M lenses could easily be less expensive than they are, if they used less expensive materials and were designed and manufactured to wider tolerances.
But that would be inconsistent with the market they wish to serve, so they don't do that.
If they did want to do that, and to match them up with lower quality cameras, perhaps they could increase sales volumes, and therefore achieve some price advantages out of some economies of scale.
It is similar to cars. GM could make relatively inexpensive Cadillacs, and sell them out of bare bones dealers, if they wanted to.
But they don't want to.

Eh you're ignoring the clear luxury mark-up. If their tolerances were so tight there wouldn't be so many posts about problems with recent M-A and M6 redux bodies. Leica could have actual QC and customer service that matches their prices, but they don't want to.

 

[mshchem]

Upon closer examination, it looks like you are correct.

Hermès owned a 36.2% stake in Leica Camera, characterized as a "friendly" acquisition:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hermes-flies-from-struggling-leica-qhqqzdcqfh3

While Hermès managed to avoid control by LVMH:
https://www.economist.com/business/2020/09/12/how-hermes-got-away-from-lvmh-and-thrived

For a time, there was collaboration between Leica and Hermès:

Wouldn't that be great to get for Christmas

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Most reviews I have seen Leica beats Zeiss in the corners.

This is too general of a statement considering we have multiple sensors and film to compare it the lenses perform differently on all of them.

It seems to me like at one time Cosina wanted to have a premium line and an affordable line so they approached Zeiss. The ZM lenses were different but usually better than the CV line up until at one point Zeiss seems to have lost interest in the project. The ZM 35/1.4 being their last and best lens for the series. From the period where they were making lenses, optics like the 28, 25, 21(s), and 15mm were all world class. They were as good or better than anything Leica made with the same aperture on film. The problem is they never updated the designs for digital so most of them are noticeably unsuitable for even the M digitals. I have shot the 28, 25s personally and they are incredibly sharp. The 28 worked well at least on the M240 I had. The contrast just sparkled.

Since ZM has lost interest you have begun to see CV lenses that are much more modernized to work well on multiple types of cameras. Their line up is massive at the moment and nobody can reasonably argue that of the lenses are substandard.

This guy does really good comparisons on his Leica digital: https://jacktaka.com/reviews

I quibble with his conclusions on the 35/1.5 but his review led me to get the 50/1.5II, and if I wanted a 28 it would be a hard choice between the 28/2 Ultron and the 28/2.8 Biogon. I would never even consider a Leica optic. Not because they're not good, but because every option that costs a fraction of the price is SO good now.

 

[Nikon 2]

Eh you're ignoring the clear luxury mark-up. If their tolerances were so tight there wouldn't be so many posts about problems with recent M-A and M6 redux bodies. Leica could have actual QC and customer service that matches their prices, but they don't want to.

I don’t like-a that...!

 

[Nikon 2]

How would you rate the M-A compared with the M3...?

 

[Nikon 2]

If I’m correct, the SLR lenses are what’s called a retro focus design which makes distortion worse and less sharp edges compared to the rangefinder design...!

 

[Pieter12]

In my opinion, the Hasselblad HCD 28mm and the Leica S 35mm (the only digital "medium format" lenses I have) are impressively sharp and rectilinear SLR lenses. They are approximate equivalents to 21 and 24mm lenses for 35mm cameras.