Leica Financial Troubles

[mark_costantini]

I'm a professional photographer who's re-integrating black and white film work into a

mainly digital color workflow. I've used Leicas extensively in the past and when I looked

into replacing some bodies and lenses, I was astonished at the prices. While Nikons

basically stayed the same(adjusting for inflation, of course), Leica prices have exploded to

a levels that are tragic and silly. For example, the Nikon 35mm f2 lens is now around

$300.00(around $200 when I bought mine). The Leica 35mm f2 Summicron, about

$400.00 when I last bought one--I know that was a while ago -- is now around

$2,000.00(!). Is it me or is $2000.00 for a 35mm f2 lens, no matter how sharp it may be,

a totally insane price? No wonder Leica is in trouble. Am I missiing

something here? Is there a less expensive line of Leica lenses that I'm missing?

 

I feel I've lost access to a great professional tool.

[scott_mcloughlin]

Well, you can buy used gear - lots of folks do. Zeiss has some nice M mount lenses. And Cosina/Voightlander has some gems in their lens lineup.

 

Checkout the prices for used but minty Leica gear at Tamarkin or PhotoVillage (among other). I think you might be pleasantly surprised (or at least somewhat relieved).

 

Scott

[andy m.]

What sort of professional work do you do Mark? I ask because I an interested to know what type of pros use Leicas these days (or consider doing so). What will they offer you over digital?

 

BTW, yes, they are quite expensive if bought new, but I'm sure there's a non aspherical 35mm for the than 2K, isn't there?

 

Cheers, A

[mark_costantini]

Andy--

 

I'm a staff photographer at a large metropolitain daly newspaper. I'm my personal view,

while I absolutely love the digital workflow system, in some applications, portraiture and

"street" documentary work for example, I just really love the warmth, texture and

luminocity that black and white film, printed on fiber paper provides. It's a lot more work,

but I've found that it can be worth it in some instances.

 

Mark

[SCL]

Yes the cost of extremely high quality gear has increased dramatically after stagnating for a few years. Leica's 1969 catalog cited a 35mm f/2 Summicron for $195-234 (36 years ago) based on finish and whether or not it has an attached optical viewing unit. You must have bought yours a LONG time ago or used to have captured the $400 price. Take a look at housing prices and you will see, at least in the quality sector, they have all multiplied in cost/value. The current cost of Leica gear isn't the issue, IMHO, which has put Leica into financial difficulties; lack of being competitive in the prosumer marketplace with a selection of digital toys to offset their film R&D is more to the point. Professional tools are always premium priced. Nikon (which I use much more extensively than my Leica gear) still charges premium prices for their professional grade items while charging much less for their (very good but not professional level) prosumer lines. Leica has, indeed, ventured into a lower grade item on occasion, via the CL and Panasonic...but their mainstay remains in their niche high grade stuff.

[gib]

Awhile back I looked at buying an M body and some M lenses and was quite suprised at the relative high price of the 35mm lenses over the 50mm lenses. And not just the 1.4 level but even f2.0 lenses. Is there a particular reason for this?

 

My own experience with 35mm lenses include a Nikkor AI f2.0, a CV f2.5 LTM, Super Takumar f3.5 M42, Jupiter 12 f2.8 (Kiev mount), Carl Zeiss (Y/C SLR mount) f2.8. They may not be legendary but produce some good results at prices that seem of this earth.

 

The CV 35 Classic f2.5 LTM on a Bessa R, compact, not silent, but a good quality compact low cost rig.

[bernard_korites]

Stephen:

 

At 3% annual price increase that $195 lens over 36 years should now be about $635.

[michael s.]

Don't know Mark, and certainly don't want to embarrass him, but he can take a picture.<p><p>

 

His award-winning photo of Tom Waits is <a href=http://www.poyi.org/62/14/ae01.php>found right here</a>.<p><p>

 

Back to the subject at hand, prices for new M lenses and cameras are in my view an important reason why so few of them are sold.<p><p>

 

Picture this: Photographer Rip Van Winkle walks into a camera shop and says, "It's been awhile. Let me grab a good solid camera and a sharp 35mm lens. Leica? Sounds great. They look great, too. I remember 'em. Always high quality. Before we get into filters and a bag, fellas, what am I up to now?"<p><p>

 

"Five Thousand Two Hundred Ninety dollars ($ 5,290)? Fellas, I'm feeling a little light-headed. Fellas .....? "<p><p>

 

And then bang, he's out again. ....

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> <u>Is it me or is $2000.00 for a 35mm f2 lens, no matter how sharp

it may be, a totally insane price? No wonder Leica is in trouble. </u> <p>

 

Well, you can buy used gear - lots of folks do. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Which only underlines the trouble Leica is in.

[bernard_korites]

If I did my logarithms right, a $2,000 lens that was $195 36 years ago has undergone a 6.67% annual price increase.

[ben z]

Actually Mark, the problem isn't so much how Leica prices have risen in the last 25 years as in the last 25 months.

[bobtodrick]

Mark, look up the price for the current Canon 35mm F1.4 USM. Same quality lens as the Summicron you talking about, though admittedly faster. Well its list price is about $2700 U.S. You can't compare a companies best (the only 'line' that Leica makes) with the lesser line in another makers inventory.

[hakon_soreide]

It's not so much the prices going up as the dollar going down - or indeed a combination of the two. At least when compared to Euro and some other currencies, the US$ has plummeted from its high point just three years ago by somwehere between 25 and 30%. Now, that does make a huge difference to prices. <p>

And of course, for someone like me on the other side of the Atlantic, it's made buying things from the USA often a lot cheaper than getting things domestically, conversely anything European imported costing a lot more over there.<p>

Hakon Soreide<br>

Bergen, Norway<br>

<a href="http://www.hakonsoreide.com">www.hakonsoreide.com</a>

[._._z]

How does that explain the continued slide in European Leica sales then, Hakon?

[mark_costantini]

Bob-

 

For film, I use(d) Nikon and Leica. On the mail order site I use, Leica has one 35mm F2

lens and Nikon has one 35mm f2 lens, the $2000.00 Leica model and the $264.00(after

rebate) Nikon model. According to the rep there, these are the respective companies'

professional grade models. I just think Leica stuff seems overpriced to such a degree that

it may be a contributory factor in their equipment is dropping off the professional sectors'

radar screen so rapidly.

 

I just wanted to buy a couple of new bodies, a 35mm f2 and a 90mm f2 lens, filters and

straps. The total for that setup is what prompted me to post this note. Even if I could

afford the many, many thousands of dollars this two body, two lens rig would run, I

couldn't possibly rationalize putting such expensive equipment to work in a urban street

situation.

 

The whole thing just doesn't make sense to me. Who buys this stuff now?

[braden_barclay]

Mark, the demand for new Leica lenses is the reason the price is so high compared to Nikon. If Leica sold the number of 35mm f2 lenses that Nikon does there would be no question that the price would be lower, not nearly as low as the Nikon, but still low. They wouldn't be selling their products at these prices if they didn't have to. Simple supply and demand. Of course Nikon have also implemented ways to reduce their manufacturing costs by using lots of plastic and plants in China. Expensive as it may be, it's nice to know Leica are for the most part sticking to their guns regarding the overall quality of their products.

[SCL]

Ah Bernard - the difference is that the lens isn't the same today as it was years ago..it has benefitted from improvements in technology, which in my book carries with it a cost of research & development. Now if only we could get these items to behave like computers which seem to drop in price and increase in function each time you buy a new one!

[braden_barclay]

Also, you could check out the Voigtlander line of lenses if you would like something less expensive. I use their 35mm f1.2 and find it more than satisfactory. I don't know if you have a Leica body or not, but you could look at the Bessa line of bodies that would accept either Leica or Voigtlander lenses.

[billsr]

The plummeting US Dollar notwithstanding, prices for most goods sold in Europe appear to me to be higher than prices for the same goods, sold in the US! This could be troublesome for Leicas' European sales.

Best regards, Bill

[ben z]

"Bob Todrick Photo.net Hero, aug 24, 2005; 02:41 p.m.

Mark, look up the price for the current Canon 35mm F1.4 USM. Same quality lens as the Summicron you talking about, though admittedly faster. Well its list price is about $2700 U.S." </p>

 

IMO a fairer comparison would be the actual selling price for a USA model Canon 35/1.4USM (under $1200) at

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=162614&is=USA&addedTroughType=search">B&H</a>, and the price for the comparable Leica lens, the 35/1.4 Summilux-R, is $3595 at the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=131344&is=USA&addedTroughType=search">same store</a>. </p>

 

"Stephen Lewis Photo.net Patron, aug 24, 2005; 03:38 p.m.

Ah Bernard - the difference is that the lens isn't the same today as it was years ago..it has benefitted from improvements in technology, which in my book carries with it a cost of research & development."</p>

 

I wasn't aware that any of the current Leica lenses other than the 50mm Summilux-ASPH have changed in the past couple of years when they cost hundreds less than they do now.

[andy m.]

<i>His award-winning photo of Tom Waits is found right here.</i><p>

 

Yikes... I'm impressed.

[ronald_moravec1]

A friend is a large format dealer. I was at his home paying up for a lens I tried for a week.

 

He showed me a Nikon close-up zppm of some sort like 80/200, auto focus. It felt like a piece of junk garbage and it appeared brand new. He said street price was $1500.

 

When you compare with the competition, Leica is a bargain. The mechanics and optics leave them in the dust.

 

I don`t like like the prices any more than the next, but this is an expensive club. Most all of my stuff is from 1985. 90mm 2.0 new was $450. The 21 and 28 were around $600.

 

Long live Walter Mandler glass.

[marc_bergman1]

B&H Photo lists the following prices.

 

Canon EOS 35mm f/1.4 @ $1,119.99.

 

Leica R 35mm f/1.4 @ $3,595.00.

 

Leica R 35mm f/2.0 @ $2,295.00.

 

Leica M 35mm f/1.4 @ $2,995.00.

 

Leica M 35mm f/2.0 @ $1,995.00.

 

The currency fluctuations have certainly hurt Leica as far as pricing. I wonder if their isn't something else that is out of Leica's control.

 

Perhaps someone in Leica camera sales could tell us about the general mood of the camera buying public. Are people holding off on camera and lens purchases? What are they feeling?

[ben z]

I'll drink to that. And I paid $800 for my 90/2 and $700 for the 21 Elmarit, both used but mint, both within the last year and a half. Used Leica glass is a decent buy. New, they're out of their cotton picking minds, and that's what's killing them.

[ben z]

My response was to Ronald's post.