Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/07/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You wrote: > > >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. (snip) AS you say there are just about as good!!! > For any business to survive (and Leica, just like any other enterprise is a business), it must have economic viability. (snip) Leica's Main business is not cameras, so they do not have to depend on economic viability of the Photographis devision to stay in the black. > 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. (SNIP) Whenever anyone tries to offer this argument to the folks at Solms their retort is then why is it that we can not make the equipment fast enough. The 180 F2.0 is just not available , I ahve been told that there is a year waitnig list for this beast of a lens. > BTW, the 80-200 Nikkor is not "junk" or "cheap"....it is a fine performer. (snip) I happen to disagree with you about this lens. I used one of these for a long weekend and went running and scream8ing back to my R4 and Leica lenses. >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 > IMHO The problem with your argument is that it is based on a false premise. Leica Photographic division AFAIK has always operated at very meager profits. Every thing that they make is snapped by the consumers. Whenever a new lens comes out no matter what it costs, people get on the waiting list as soon as it is announced. Look at the M6J, these were $6500.00 each Dealer cost. Those things were gone so fast that they were almost legendary. I wish I understood where all this talk about Leica not being able to sell product originated. John N3BVH