Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/09/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Cardish [SMTP:dcardish@microtec.net] > Sent: Sunday, September 20, 1998 11:24 AM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Leica] Lens quality > > At 09:37 AM 20-09-98 -0400, Tom D. wrote: > > >Your final point is that Leica glass is too expensive > >relative to a price/performance curve that you've built in > >your mind. Let me state the characteristics of my price/ > >performance curve......I enjoy R optics that are w/o peer; > >such as the ones I've listed above ;-)! > > Its fine to enjoy Leica glass, but at what expense? What if the glass you > enjoy so much cost $1,000? $10,000? $100,000? I have no idea of your > financial situation, but eventually you will reach a point where it just > isn't worth it. These magazine reviews which give Leica a poor > price/performance rating are just pointing out that (in their opinion) the > marginal increase in quality, which they admit is there, is not worth the > dramatic increase in price. I guess someone like Bill Gates couldn't care > less about the price; he can simply buy the absolute best regardless. For > him, the price/perf rating category is worthless. There may well be some > on this list who are in a somewhat similar situation. Many of us, though, > when faced with a decision between a $200 lens and a Leica lens costing > $3000 (Canadian $ example of 50/1.4 Minolta vs. 50 Summilux) have a > difficult problem. [I bought both, and they are *tough* to tell apart > ;-)] > > Dan C. [Buzz] Speak softly when you speak of the Devil...Perhaps Bill Gates will buy all of Leica, I mean the company. Although I'm not sure that would be bad; after all, he didn't break up the Codex Leicster. Buzz