Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Nah, I am not missing the points. In fact, you prove my point there - the glass is just a part of the cost, the workmanship go into making it into elements are the greater part. Leica lens is ONE of the best, but to assert that it's much better than Zeiss etc. do not show up in reality. For example, your most excellent pictures. Are you sure they will suffer even visibly when you print large if you were to choose a lesser Zeiss lens? Most people do not take GREAT pictures at 1.4. Most people do not NEED the tight tolerance of the Leica lens. Now, for Doug Herr, that's a different story. His fowl pictures get their sharpness and characteristic from the Leica lens. Most other mortals? Nah. That does not mean I don't crave for Leica lens. Far from it. I don't NEED them, but I sure WANT them :-) When fund becomes available, I will pick up the 90/2 AA again, and who knows, with all these people migrating to the M9, may be there will be a "inexpensive" 24/1.4 out there. On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> wrote: > That rather misses the point though Richard. > To assist in achieving those design goals, some of those blanks are from > extremely expensive and exotic glass types. > Grinding and inspection is done one element at a time by extremely skilled > operators. Assembly into the intricate all metal mounts is entirely by hand > which themselves are expensive ?and made to tolerances of 1/100th of a mm. > Example of important contributor to Leica lens excellence > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/g/l_001/s032.jpg.html > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/g/l_001/S07.jpg.html > ?http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/g/l_001/S09.jpg.html > > > 2009/10/9 Richard Man <richard.lists at gmail.com> > >> That may be true, but I am betting dollars to donuts that the cost of >> blank does not account for the difference in end prices. >> >> The low number manufactured is the prime reason, and because of that, >> they can afford to use high level of tolerance and greater emphasize >> on certain design goals (i.e. good performance even wide open), but >> those are "side-effects." The main cause is still the simple >> arithmetic of "they ain't going to sell many" >> >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Doug Herr <wildlightphoto at >> earthlink.net> >> wrote: >> > >> > Company A can specify glass type ABC with tolerances for refractive >> > index >> +-0.2% dispersion +-0.25% surface hardness +-0.3% expansion coefficient >> +-0.7% and company B can specify the same glass type with tolerances 1/2 >> of >> company A's requirements and I'll bet company B's glass blanks are gonna >> cost more and the finished lenses will show a lot less sample variation. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> // richard m: richard @imagecraft.com >> // w: http://www.imagecraft.com/pub/Portfolio09/ blog: >> http://rfman.wordpress.com >> // book: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/745963 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > > -- > Cheers > Geoff > The new LEICA M9 > Passion for perfect pictures. > http://www.m.leica-camera.com > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/ > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- // richard m: richard @imagecraft.com // w: http://www.imagecraft.com/pub/Portfolio09/ blog: http://rfman.wordpress.com // book: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/745963