Re: [Leica] lens heresy

[John Collier <jbcollier@powersurfr.com>]

Hi Dan,

If I may answer your question by talking about something else. In 1972 the
difference in production cost of a Cadillac and a Chevrolet was $300. The
retail price was $1000's different. The only thing that will happen if Leica
makes a second tier of lenses is that they will take sales away from the
lenses they make money on. The very same thing happened with the CL. There
were $65 000 CLs sold and Leica made diddly squat on every one. The buyers
did not move up and buy M5s as Leica hoped. The only one who did well, in
both prestige and profit, was Minolta. There are many low cost alternatives
to new M lenses. You can buy used or Voitina (which makes a more complete
LTM/M line than Leica does!)

John Collier

> From: "Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com>
> 
> Just a thought, and I am sure to get the bejabbers flamed out of my Nomex
> skivvies... I won't be able to use them for lens cleaning afterwards- I am
> quite sure, but here goes:
> given that the statements you made are true, and I am in full agreement,
> what if... Leica had a 'second tier' of lenses- perhaps not labeled 'Leica'
> but still superior to the offerings of other makers of generic lenses.
> I would think that if they could successfully work with Minolta to produce
> some of their R lenses in the past, that the same type of arrangement might
> be attempted- Of course they would be more expensive than the N and C
> brands, perhaps, but margianlly better even if they didn't quite reach the
> standards of the Leica marque.
> Would it be worth it to have a slightly upscale lens- a Bentley in stead of
> a Roller?
> To use a fountain pen analogy, my gold Parket Sonnet writes as well as the
> Mont Blanc I tried- but was a whole lot chgeaper!!
>\