Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/07/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 01:07 AM 7/15/96 -0400, you wrote: >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. Jay, It's a 70-180, so it's even MORE of a rip-off! :-) NOT! First of all, let's get this into perspetive. It's selling for $5,900 - not $6,500. I'm sure that's small comfort, but compare it to say what it replaces. A 90, 135, and 180 Elmarits. And then some. Not THAT much diffrence to not justify the value of a zoom. It's as good as any of those lenses optically (and even better maybe) and it takes up less space than the three together. Though you might have to get a deeper if not wider bad to accomodate it. The Canon EOS 70-200 2.8 costs about $1,600. So it's less than five times as expensive. It's not that bad a deal in the long run. And Leica is viable financially. They are NOT hurting according to the London Financial Times story I read. =================== Eric Welch Grants Pass (OR) Daily Courier NPPA Region 11 JIB chair Diplomacy: Say nice doggie until you find a *BIG* stick