Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/08

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Zeiss Normal 50mm f/2 Planar T* ZM
From: Frank.Dernie at (Frank Dernie)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 16:21:24 +0100
References: <> <> <024601ca481f$79792910$6c6b7b30$@net>

 From an engineering point of view it is easy to see why there is a  
difference in cost. I own a Canon 24mm f1.4 lens and one would only  
use it wide open in an emergency, and only then if the subject was  
central. It is very soft round the edges. I would expect that the  
Leica lens, which I will be unlikely to ever buy, will have a  
considerably better performance in the region of f1.4 to f4 based on  
my other Leica-Canon experience. The Canon does not equal my f2.8  
Leica-m 24mm at any aperture incidentally, Canon wides tend to be not  
that special, unlike their long lenses IME.
The production volume of the Canon will probably be hundreds or  
thousands greater than the Leica. Nothing reduces cost more  
effectively than production volume in mechanical engineering!
My exposure meter cost more than an entry level dSLR which is  
gazillions of times more complex and sophisticated for the same  
probable reason.
A combination of design and precision (explaining the performance  
difference) made in the EU (at EU working hours and pay) and  
production volume are much more likely explanations for the difference  
in retail price than profiteering. I bet Leica makes less profit on  
turnover than Canon.
The market Leica services is so tiny that their products could never  
be inexpensive even if banal, their only choice to stay in business is  
to supply a level of excellence that justifies the price (to some).
Frank D.

On 8 Oct, 2009, at 14:58, Frank Filippone wrote:

> Mark.. why do you assume the glass cost is or could be  any different?
> Certainly the retail price is different, but beyond that, it is not  
> possible
> to tell WHY the  retail prices are significantly different.
> Frank Filippone
> red735i at
> Thanks Frank yes as I'm realizing Canon actually DOES have a 24mm f/ 
> 1.4 L
> USM  EF but its price point is $1,300  not $6,000 so the glasses  
> they chose
> for it are nowhere near what Leica is able to put into a lens  
> targeted at
> that small 6 grand market segment... Plus all the other stuff....  
> Made in
> small amounts to high tolerances.
> I should be preaching to the choir here on the LUG.
> Mark William Rabiner
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information

Replies: Reply from red735i at (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] Zeiss Normal 50mm f/2 Planar T* ZM)
In reply to: Message from Frank.Dernie at (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] Zeiss Normal 50mm f/2 Planar T* ZM)
Message from mark at (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Zeiss Normal 50mm f/2 Planar T* ZM)
Message from red735i at (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] Zeiss Normal 50mm f/2 Planar T* ZM)