[Leica] Re: your opinion about G2 (and Leica vs Contax)

[drodgers@nextlink.net]

B.D.

You wrote:
>>If nothing else, the G2 is living proof that it is possible to produce
extremely high quality optics - Leica quality optics - at a fraction of the
cost at which Leica produces and sells them. If Zeiss/Kyocera can produce a
21 2.8 autofocus lens - with a viewfinder - that is at least as good as the
current Leica 21 - without a viewfinder - that can sell in the US for under
$1000, perhaps its time Leica woke up and smelled the economic coffee...<<

That's a very valid point. But let me play devil's advocate and ask, should
Leica offer a less expensive 21/2.8 just because they obviously could?

Let's not confuse "extremely high quality optic" and "optically and
mechanically the best lens available".

The 21/2.8 ASPH M is arguably the best ultra wide angle lens available in
35mm format. I'd put it in the same league as the 38mm Biogon on the
Hasselblad 903SCW, except in 35mm format. Mechanically the G lens is not as
substantial as the M lens.

I have Contax SLRs. Personally, I don't think the newer Contax lenses are
as substantial as the older lenses. Whereas they were once mechanically
equal to Leica, they are now a notch below. They also cost less.

Recently had a chance to use a 180/2.8 R lens. It is absolutely the
smoothest focusing long lens I have ever laid my hands on. My 180/2.8 MM
Contax lens is no comparison. Optically I don't think the difference is
great. Even my 180/2.8 AF Nikkor was optically excellent, and it was 2/3
the price of the Contax. But, the color balance of the 180 Nikkor was
noticably different from my other Nikkors. So much so that even a novice
could differentiate chromes on a light table. OTOH, my Japanese made
180/2.8 Zeiss matches color exactly with the older German made lenses, and
with my Hasselblad lenses.

My point is that different companies have different design agendas. I think
Leica's agenda is to make the best lenses available, regardless of the
cost.  Contax predominately offers  lenses of exceedingly high quality.
Nikon and Canon have a tiered approach (i.e. an "economy" line, a middle
line and a high end line). Their high end lenses aren't inexpensive.

There's a dichotomy today that may not have existed previously. I look at
the Leica 180/2.8 and think there's a lens that will hold up for the next
30 years. That's a long time to amortize the $2,000 plus or minus cost. But
will conventional film even be around that long? Is "the best" worth the
extra cost? Or is "extremely good", good enough? It all comes down to
value, which has many X factors. Ask ten people to define quality and value
and you'll likely get 10 different answers.

Dave