Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> What seems to puzzle me is that this supposed difference in lens >performance does not reflect the cost of these lenses, with the Summicron >being much less expensive. Am I missing something here? Are the CI tests >biased towards performance wide open, or across the entire range of f-stops? There is an easy explanation for why the Summicron is cheaper. It is much less expensive to manufacture a slower lens than a faster one, if they are both built to the same standards. The surface area of the front element of the Summilux is double the surface area of the Summicron's front element, for instance. Also, the Summicron is made in larger quantities, so the manufacturing cost per unit is lower. With many other brands of camera systems, look at the price difference between an f/1.8 and f/1.4 normal lens. Even though you are only talking about a 1/2 stop difference, the faster lens is usually at least 150% of the cost of the slower one. - - Paul