Why do people pay so much for Leica Lenses?

get a d100 and an 8mm lens, have fun

d100's ability to shoot low light? how about black and white final output? again, maybe basic questions to you guys who 'know' , but i don't and the examples displayed at the local store don't really justify. cheers

burp

you don't need a d100 and a 8mm. You need a Russian and something interesting.

 

burp

 

what sauze?

whoa, you guys sure love talking about camera gear...

Interesting fixation you have with shooting 6400iso with a 12mm lens. Maybe you need to expand your horizons a little. Anyway, I'm back from Thanksgiving and I'm waiting for you. Are you coming to LA with your 6400iso/12mm secret weapon or not?

fang i do not have a 12mm and i use the 15 very rarely. i was playing devils advocate. i do however love low light shooting.

i'm still wanting to come down. unfortunately, last week was a dead week for me, schedule wise. this week and next seem not possible. are there any events coming up that you'd like to cover?

As I said earlier someplace here on the forum, but now more than one person is doing it, they're just pissing into the wind with their wise cracks. Everbody else pays no attention to what they're saying, but we can all plainly see what it is that's getting them soaking wet. I can't understand what kind of masochistic thrill they get from having the wind blow it back in their faces.

Matt, well, there you go again... You pick a corner of the photographic spectrum and

attempt to make a litmus test out of it. I could do the same, picking a different corner

where you can't operate. What's the point?

brad, maybe there is no point. silly on-line discussions maybe? what's the point of responding with arrogance or attitude? (not you)

Claude,<p>

 

I admit it, I can't justify buying a Leica or lens right now. I read this forum

because you guys are fun to read.<p>

 

I would love to have a Leica though and maybe some day I will. I recently bought an

old Kodak Retina IIIc to satisfy my 35mm rangefinder envy. Not as easy to handle as

an "M" but the lens is superb and it folds up small!<p>

 

I do shoot my more serious stuff (if anyone takes my photos seriously, I don't know)

with fuji 6x9 rangefinders. I love the quality of these lenses/cameras, but they don't

handle like a Leica M.<p>

 

I can see why many would want to own these cameras even though they are

expensive. They are just really fun tools for photography that are capable of high

quality results when used as directed.<p>

 

For me, I've shot some of my favorite stuff with a Canon sure shot so I'm no

snob...Enjoy your Leica's in good health!<p>

 

-bruce<p>

<a href="http://www.brucealangreene.com/

photographs.html">brucealangreene.com</a>

Al, need a towel?

<What's a CV lens?>

 

 

CV stands for Cheaper Version--of a Leica.

Because Leica is not selling as many lenses as they want to. If Leica can sell four times or eight times as many, they may be able to lower their prices. They just can't.

 

There are also very expensive lenses from the other major manufacturers. They are not the major sellers but the point is, there are expensive lenses and there are people who are buying them, Leica or not.

My Summicron 50 makes prettier pictures than my Nikkor AI 50/2. This assertion I will defend, pistol in each hand and a knife clenched between my teeth.

That last bit should read "...this assertion I will defend, to a certain extent, perhaps until someone challenges me in a slightly threatening way..."

 

;-D

Mani, careful with that knife. It won't be much use if you've already got a pistol in each hand. You could end up with an extended smile, like a kid I once knew. Still a favourite punishment meeted out by police informers and mafiosi in some countries.

Matt, after years of waiting for the right DSLR and wide-lens combo I think I've

finally found it in the D70 + new Tokina 12-24/4. The D70 will give stunning

results up to ISO 1600 (with proper post-processing) -- much better results

than film at comparible ISO's. And the 12-24 is all this wide angle lover could

every hope for in a DSLR lens.

 

Well, actually I was dreaming of a 2.8 max aperture but since I can boost the

ISO whenever I want, f4 works in almost every case.

 

BTW, what are you doing with 6400 ISO, surveilance work?

I have shot with a d70, my friends, for a bit. I can't stand the viewfinder so I would not personally use one. That and the fact that it is not a rangefinder is why I have chosen not to use one. That is why I can politely talk about my choice in camera equipment and the decision process I used to pick a certain system. After all, this is really an equipment thread, isn't it? It seems that their are a few people who show up on most equipment threads and like to preach about how it doesn't matter. I find it quite weird. If it doesn't matter to you, why even bother with an equipment thread?

 

Another thing, everybody here has made concious decisions about buying and using whichever gear they have, even the people who claim its not the gear. Even one person has claimed that another is shooting with a piece of gear that is kind of crappy, as if that in and of itself makes somebody a better photographer??? For me, gear is an important piece of the image making process, and I choose my gear based on what will do the job and what makes me happy and gives me the connection to the process that I want. It is a personal and selfish reason, one that I do not have to justify to anybody except my wife.

Edmo,

 

I took your challenge and looked at the work in your gallery. Very nice, gritty, high

contrast

street work in New York City. It's a tough place to shoot and you have done very well at it.

 

In looking at your gallery work, I am looking at

images that are small on a digital screen recreated by a lot 1's and 0's. There are still clues

there as to what lenses made the images. I see some vignetting at times that makes me

think of my Canon lenses when I push the contrast as far as you have. Other times an even

illumination would indicate otherwise, but it would be a very inexact science beyond those

issues to guess at the lenses used while looking at small digital files on a website.

 

However, if we were going to sit down with a box of negatives, or 11x14, or even better,

16x20 prints

that had been printed on the same enlarger or scanned on the same high end drum

scanner, we would start to be able to differentiate. With your work it would still be tough

because there the high contrast and the sometimes motion blur tends to mask some of

the

characteristics

of the lenses.

 

I shoot Canon and Leica in

35mm. At the 11x14 and 16x20 sizes the difference becomes apparent. The two lenses

resolve differently. The Canon is crisp, the Leica somehow is sharp and smooth at the

same time. In fact, with my Leica lenses, the out of focus areas are so smooth that I find

the

digital files tend to band more than the Canon .

The gradient transitions in out of focus areas that are neutral/flesh colored can be smooth

enough that output devices can have a hard time

reproducing the tonal shift, especially when being separated for 133 line screen print

reproduction.

 

As I said, if you can't see the difference, you don't need Leica. If your output doesn't

utilize or even show the unique qualities of the lenses, you don't need them. I'm sure that

someone is

going tell me that I am full of doo doo, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

In all

fairness I must also include that some of my favorite images I have ever made were made

in a 20"x50" large format pinhole camera directly to paper. That kinda kills the whole "you

are only as good as the price of your camera" argument.

 

ps. check out the Joel Meyerowitz show of vintage prints in NYC right now. A killer show of

Leica work made in the late sixties. All 11x14 and larger.

After all, this is really an equipment thread, isn't it?

 

Is it? you must be on the wrong forum.There are actual photographers here who's interests extend beyond just gear. The first word is Leica, the other word is Photography. Photography being the longer word.

Interesting that Zeiss addresses the question of high cost directly on their website. While they don't address issues of price point decisions, sales volume vis-a-vis price, or other marketing considerations as they relate to price, here is what they say re what you are getting for all those dollars (pounds, Euros, yen, etc.) that you pay. I imagine that Leica would say something similar.

 

Q: Why are ZEISS lenses so expensive?

 

A: Carl Zeiss uses a large amount of car in developing sophisticated optical calculations which deliver high performance even for large apertures. this often requires using extreme optical lenses that can be more expensive than gold. Carl Zeiss uses high-quality, long-lasting materials (e.g. brass & dural alloys) and multifaceted optical lenses with selected charges (e.g. with high optical homogeneity).

- During assembly, Carl Zeiss adjusts every single lens to achieve maximum performance.

- Carl Zeiss lenses undergo more than 100 different quality inspections & Carl Zeiss does not use only random sampling.

- ZEISS lenses can be maintained for decades.

- Carl Zeiss guarantees replacement part supply for decades.

The only rational reason to buy a Leica lens is as a personal experiment. You pay your money, see what you see, and if you don't see any difference you sell it and you're out maybe a hundred bucks. Maybe.

 

The real problem is what if you (and some objective other) DO see a real difference? Well, then you're really in trouble because THEN you've just got to keep the damn thing and you're out the full price!

 

Strictly as a scientist mind you, I've been considering carrying out this very experiment. In the name of science mind you. What's a thousand dollars or so for the sake of science? Hmmm...I'd better start working right away on that grant proposal for the wife! I'm sure she'll understand the importance of this research.

"what a leica m can do that a d70 that goes to 1/8000 cant?"

 

Use film?

The whole concept of value is a subjective and relative thing. For instance, many people will spend thousands of dollars on a two week vacation and consider it money well spent. Yet spending the same amount on a camera system that will provide pleasure for many years would be unthinkable. Clearly, such an analysis contains a large element of irrationality.

 

In the same way, there is a measure of irrationality involved in the decision to buy an expensive camera system when a less expensive one would serve nearly as well. From a strictly utilitarian point of view, this makes no sense. But human beings do not function in a purely utilitarian mode. We have wants that do not always coincide with our needs. Hence our penchant for luxury items, such as Leica cameras. Within limits, I see no problem with this behaviour other than the guilt of knowing that some of the money could have been given to a worthy charity.