Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]"Dr. Joseph Yao" wrote: > > on 4/3/01 10:28 AM, Rolf Katzenstein at rgk@farmington.com wrote: > > > The abuse heaped on John Collier for his benign comment.... > > Yes, it was a benign and naïve comment, but since I have been somewhat > affected by his remark, I think he deserved all the abuse he received! ;-) ><Snip> > This I cannot agree more. Again, the root of the problem is down to Leica's > failure of meeting customers' needs. A company of such repute would > discontinue a product leaving many back orders unfulfilled is quite > astonishing. I doubt cost was the real issue, as that would have been > easily overcome. > > Joseph How much could Leica afford to lose in the makings of such a lens? ...anyone know the exact figure? Now they can afford to loose more perhaps now that they've got the $ backing of Herme's. If Herme's will tolerate it. 35-70 f2.8 is not a mass consumer item if any Leica lens is. It is more of a pro item. Amateurs don't need fixed apertures they're not using studio strobes. A 35-70 f4-5.6 is a consumer item. Or a 35-70 f4 even. These are lenses the masses ask for when they buy their first body. But a Leica body? Sure and for a nice chunk of change. But a 2.8? Faster then most need and darn hard apparently to make to Leica's standards. I guess they decided that the loss of cash per unit on the few they'd make would be that much too much. I don't think Leica is characterized by 'continuing ineptitude". If i did i wouldn't be using their system or be on this list. I think what they've done this decade has been mainly brilliant. With some mistakes I'm sure. Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/