[Leica] R lens comparison

[Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie)]

Hi Mark
I think the more of the Leica difference is in the mount design and  
precision than people realise. I believe the Leica R versions of the  
Minolta designs (and Sigma) were better because of better mechanical  
design and manufacture and better quality consistency. Particularly  
wide angle and zoom lenses require extraordinary precision in the  
positioning of the elements both radially and axially for the actual  
production lens to produce the full potential of the design. Zoom  
lenses need extreme precision in the cams moving the elements about.
According to Canon lenses can be, and of course must be for  
autofocus, made less sensitive to manufacturing precision by clever  
design and adding elements. This means the objective of the design  
compromise is leaning in the direction of ease of manufacture and  
suitability for autofocus rather than optical excellence.
Leica otoh have the reputation for optical excellence and design  
lenses with this in mind. Sometimes the mechanical manufacture  
required to produce their designs is extremely expensive. The 35-70  
f2.8 zoom was short lived because it was too expensive to make. The  
tri-elmar is discontinued, possibly because of unavailability of  
glass but rumour has it that the design was extremely expensive to  
manufacture. The WATE notably does not have the extremely expensive  
frameline moving mechanism built in (unfortunately for usability but  
probably fortunately for cost) and was available at the same price as  
the original tri-elmar despite the extra optical sophistication  
required for the extra angle of view.

Leica certainly do use sophisticated glasses to get the best  
performance from a minimum number of elements but I am sure the  
mechanical mount is where most of the extra cost is over the others  
and why sample variation is almost never mentioned with Leica lenses  
but is continuously discussed in Sigma, CV and Canon lenses. I  
suspect the biggest differences between the Voigtlander branded  
rangefinder lenses and the Zeiss lenses made by the same people will  
be in the specification of the precision and this will explain the  
price difference.

Frank


On 26 Sep, 2007, at 04:37, Mark Rabiner wrote:

>> My 24 mm says "Made In Germany",  On the front it says Leitz  
>> Wetzlar.  Great
>> lens in my book.
>>
>> Gene
>>
>>
>
> Well I think its very interesting this taking over of Leica of Minolta
> designs and juicing them up with higher end German glass. If that's  
> the
> case.
>
> I'm sure its more than the price Leica figures its customers are  
> going to
> pay for glass in its lenses. But in some cases that might be the  
> main issue.
>
> A consumer priced lens made by Canon or nikon can't be costing 3  
> grand usd.
> And the price of the glass in the lens is what would be the main  
> thing of
> course which would make it need to be priced that high.
>
> I read last month an interesting thing about Cosina has the ring of  
> truth to
> it but I don't know.
> That their approach to lens design, part of it, is that they first  
> go out
> full bore and design a Leica lens worthy of being made in Solms.
> But then the cut down the specs of the very expensive glass they  
> would have
> used. To just above average glass perhaps.
> And gauge the results. So the lens can be sold at the price we see  
> it sold
> at. Apparently and surprzingly the specks don't drop all that  
> amazingly far.
> Then you've got a Cosina lens.
> Anybody else see this?
>
> It was on the internet so it must be true.
>
> Mark William Rabiner
> rabinergroup.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information