[Leica] Big R Bucks are in the small lenses, not the APO Telyts

["Robert G. Stevens" <robsteve@hfx.andara.com>]

I think what both Paul and Bernard must realize is that the Leica Modular
system is not much more expensive than the equivalent lenses in the Nikon
or Canon stable if you need more than one.  For example the 280 2.8 and 400
2.8.  If you bought the three parts from Wallstreet, they would cost
$16,585 without negotiating a lower price.  Wall Street can only advertise
a certain minimum price that Leica specifies.  There is lots of room to
move on that price when you put the cash on the table.  If I then look at
their prices on the Canon 400 2.8 IS and 300 2.8 IS, it comes to  about
$15,000.  Traditionally in the competitive market for Canon, the dealer is
already selling at a very low margin and there is no room to move in price.
 Under the asumption that you could get the Leica combo down to $16,000,
you really are not paying much more for the Leica quality.  If on the other
hand you are willing to buy demos, you could get it cheaper than the Canon
gear at probably around $13,000.  Canon demo gear is not available, and
occasionally Canon sells off their demo/rental gear (that looks like it has
been through a war zone) at not a very good price.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that this big glass costs
relatively the same no matter which system you  uses.  Leica does not have
a monopoly on it.  If you want the big glass, you have to pay the big bucks.

What I would be complaining about is the big bucks for the small glass.
Have you priced a 50mm Summicron-R lately?  How about a 50mm Summilux-R, or
a F2.8 zoom like the 70-180 or 35-70?  Even the excellent performing F4
80-200 is $2,000, twice the price of the other manufacturers 80-200 zooms.
For example, Canon's new 70-200 F4 L series is listed on Wall Street at
$859.  Now compare a 35mm Summilux-R at $2895 to the Canon equivalent at
$1,399, a 107% difference in price. Using the more normal lens speeds and
focal lenths as comparison, it seems the Leica large Teles are a better buy
and priced more near to that of the competition.  Here we see a ten percent
price difference, not a hundred percent difference like in the shorter lenses.

I am a committed Leica user and must say for the extra price, Leica does
provide slightly higher performance.  I will not argue on that point, but
it would be nice if the premium for the more every day lenses was not so high.


Regards,

Robert

At 03:26 PM 10/12/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>> Paul T. Collura wrote:
>>
>> > I think R lens prices are hurting R sales.  Really, who has this kind
>> > of money? And even if you are wealthy can you spend these sums in good
>> > conscience on lenses if you are not a professional photographer?  A
>> > few choice lenses will cost more than a car.
>>
>> Well..... the USA has more than a million millionaires, so there seem to
>> be lots of people with plenty of cash
>
>Bernard:
>
>I know plenty of "rich" people who drive $60,000-$100,000 cars and wear
$10,000 to $15,000 watches
>but none of them would spend the $12,000 to $30,000 required to get into
the Leica R Modular system.
>Many of these people are physicians and lawyers.  In fact none of them
even own a Leica. The reason
>is that much cheaper systems do as good a job for them and let's face it,
you can't drive up to the
>Country Club in a Leica. There is no perceived added value in a Leica.  It
may be about priorities,
>but among the people that I know with high disposable income, a Mercedes
or BMW is an easier sell
>than a Leica.
>
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>