Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/07/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 96-07-14 22:41:16 EDT, you write: << >Maybe Leica USA is starting to bring some of their prices down to a more >reasonable level. <<SNIP STUFF ABOUT SOUR-GRAPES ROY MOSS EDITORIAL>> ....for >example, the new 70-200 APO Zoom: I'm sure it is a great lens, but is it 6 >and a half times better than, say, the 80-200 ED-AF Nikkor? Not likely. This misses the point. Ultimate quality COSTS. There's no way to correlate that final incremental increase in quality with a similar slight increase in price. The final 5% ALWAYS triples or quadruples the price. Leica costs money. Zeiss costs money. Rollei costs money. Quality costs money -- if you want junk, then buy cheap. >> Marc: FIrst let me sat that I am a Leicaphile, or I wouldn't be here. I understand and agree that the quality we get with Leica is going to cost more.... it always has and always will. What I am questioning (and I believe the point of Moss's editorial) is that six and a half grand is an awful lot for a 70-200 zoom lens, not matter how good it is or what it does, and there are other lenses on the market that are just about as good for a fraction of the price. For any business to survive (and Leica, just like any other enterprise is a business), it must have economic viability. He was questioning whether such a pricey toy would have economic viability, in view of the fact that competitors have similar products at a fraction of the cost. BTW, the 80-200 Nikkor is not "junk" or "cheap"....it is a fine performer. On the other side of the argument, I will say in Leica's defense that (1) much of the price increases in the US market in the past few years are in part due to the sliding value of the US dollar against the German D-mark and (2) their design philosphy eschews any compromise of performace in favor of the mass market appeal. This second reason is, of course, what draws us true believers to their court. However, again, ultimately, they have to stay in business to survive, and to survive, they have to sell, and the consumer has to be able to afford what they sell.......you can figure out the rest. JayPax@aol.com