Re: [Leica] Canon Woes (why you should buy leica)

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Jeff S wrote:
> 
> Now doesn't that just bite; Getting a new 50mm lens makes sense if the new
> one's better, but having to buy the same thing all over again because
> someone ran out of parts? Nuts to that.
> 
> On the other hand, B+H Photo lists the Leica 50/2 Summicron ($995) at 11.7x
> the price of a new Canon USA 50/1.8 ($89.95), which means that if you buy a
> new Canon lens every 10 years, it will be 117 years before you break even!
> I think the last time I had a 50 Summicron serviced, the bill was around
> $75 which really doesn't make financial sense if we're talking about a lens
> that barely costs more than that new. I don't have a problem with the money
> aspect of these disposeable lenses; it's just that the practice seems kind
> of wasteful.
> 
> Jeff Segawa
> NO ARCHIVE
> 
> On 2001.03.07 20:57:43 -0700 Gary Klein wrote:
> > Leica Folks,
> >
> > The below is why you want to buy Leica gear.
> >
> > You'd think that getting a lousy 50mm f1.8 repaired by Canon would be so
> > hard.  I sent my 50mm f1.8 EF lens into the Jamesburg Canon repair
> > facility.
> > Mind you this is NOT FD stuff, EOS stuff.  Listen to this lousy excuse
> > from
> > them about the lens:
> >
> > "We are sorry to inform you, that the parts you require for your
> > equipment
> > are no longer available.  Your product was initially manufactured well
> > over
> > 7 years ago and it is impossible for any manufacturer to continue
> > producing
> > and maintaining parts for equipment beyond a 7-year period."
> >
> > What was ailing the lens was something in the autofocus mechanism got
> > sluggish.  Probably some sort of autofocus sensor part needed replacement
> > in
> > the lens.  The lens appears as mint otherwise.   I am going to continue
> > to
> > use my M with its famed summicron.
> >
> > Amazing how Leica can repair old stuff....old M cameras, might I add.
> >
> > Anyone care to comment on their position?
> >
> > gck
> >
> > Leica M, the quiet alternative
> >
> >
Yes, Jeff, the practice does seem wasteful at first blush. But assuming
that the Canon lens is "as good" as the Summicron - and I am NOT trying
to engage in that argument at all, keep in mind that your Canon lens may
well last ten years without a problem. Which means that if you have,
say, a 40 year career, and want to keep using that lens, you replace it
three times, for a total cost of, what $360 - compared to the $995 for
the Summicron for the same period of time...So you can throw away the
Canon lens three times AND buy $635 worth of film with what you pay to
use the Summicron. Doesn't sound too wasteful to me.:-)

(Again, I'm NOT debating the relative merits of the lenses.)

B. D.