I don't want to make a social discussion out of this - but you believe that a Zeiss-lens from Oberkochen is three times more expensive than a "Made in Japan"-Cosina (with Zeiss design) because of taxes or labour costs?
Even a Zeiss-manager said in an interview that production costs "Japan vs. Germany" aren't soo different anymore.
Their construction, the materials, the quality control, the calibration is cheaper.
I'm working for a industry which outsources production from Germany even when they only save a few cents - but 80% of the products are still "Made in Germany".
Why? Because economics slowly start to notice that it isn't only about wages. Production costs are also about infrastructure, efficiency... That's why more and more companies go back (when they've survived their outsourcing).
It's the same with Japan. Matsushita and Canon are closing foreign facilities despite lower labour costs... Are Nikon or Olympus-cameras made in Thailand/China cheaper, have they better value, are the companies healthier?
I've visited the Leica-"Manufaktur" in Solms twice, everybody who thinks Leicas are overpriced should do that too!
t_streng wrote:
The funny thing is that we all from the "western world" like to join the benefits of a good social structure, but when we consume than we would like to have the prices which are only possible from countries which are many years behind regarding social structure.
We also request companies to be innovative, but then we dont like to pay for it.
Couldn't agree more.
Quality has a cost, always had, always will.
production costs are only one part of the puzzle though.
Have you visited cosina?
apologies if i've touched a nerve, but the macro economics are quite different between Germany, the US, and Japan, as well as the economics of production based on volume.
there is sooo much more to it than that too.
Market size dictates relatively uneconomical production techniques for companies such as Leica which further contributes to costs.
Most handwork can be done better by machine as well as testing, but you don't buy a $$$$$$ machine and utilize only 5% of the capacity.
Net i stand by my statements.
I do concur we want to buy cheap but be treated well by our employers without looking at the economics of that.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
I'm afraid i may have already outgrown the Artisian bag I just bought, I know Jan was really looking at that also. i won't return it though . Jan or somebody here may want it but i think it should work
Guy,
You might consider to keep your bag for another reason. Althought you won't be able to put all lenses into your bag, there might be time you would select some of your lenses and go with them. Your actual bag would be more desired for those occasions.
georgl wrote:
I don't want to make a social discussion out of this - but you believe that a Zeiss-lens from Oberkochen is three times more expensive than a "Made in Japan"-Cosina (with Zeiss design) because of taxes or labour costs?
Even a Zeiss-manager said in an interview that production costs "Japan vs. Germany" aren't soo different anymore.
Their construction, the materials, the quality control, the calibration is cheaper.
I'm working for a industry which outsources production from Germany even when they only save a few cents - but 80% of the products are still "Made in Germany".
Why? Because economics slowly start to notice that it isn't only about wages. Production costs are also about infrastructure, efficiency... That's why more and more companies go back (when they've survived their outsourcing).
It's the same with Japan. Matsushita and Canon are closing foreign facilities despite lower labour costs... Are Nikon or Olympus-cameras made in Thailand/China cheaper, have they better value, are the companies healthier?
(
I've visited the Leica-"Manufaktur" in Solms twice, everybody who thinks Leicas are overpriced should do that too!...Show more →
I would like to offer a somewhat different slant. Leica lenses are still hand built and have many man hours of labor in them. Leica is very old fashioned this way but the end products are beautifully made. They would have to do some major redesigns to be able to use CC machinery to do the job and since the quality will not be better, (and if other industry products are any benchmark, probably worse) there is no point to it.
I have both Leica and Zeiss lenses for the M and I must tell you that they are both wonderful performers. But as Sean points out there are definite drawing differences between the two. For instance the bokeh from a Zeiss 25mm and the bokeh from the Leica 24 Asph are quite different. The Leica renders the OOF portion of the image in such a way that you can clearly recognize what is there. On the other hand the Zeiss has a very smooth transition from focus to out of focus and the out of focus portion of the image can barely be recognized for what it is. Sean prefers the rendering of the Leica and I prefer the rendering of the Zeiss. But it is clearly an issue of how each of us wants to have the OOF portion rendered, not that either one is superior to the other. There are many other aspects of each design which could make the difference to other folks but I think the main point is that each lens is a very solid performer and we should pick the one that draws to our personal biases and choices.
fish_shooter wrote:
What I find amazing is how much folks will fork over for the older Leica lenses, many of which may flare quite a bit more than a CV lens that is multicoated etc.
The ZM lenses other than the 15 and 85 are made by Cosina so their price should be a lot closer to the high-end CV lenses IMHO.
I agree Tom and look at the prices of the 85 Sonnar and the 15 2.8. Both are over $3K which puts them right on top of Leicas prices. There are differences in the material of course but it doesn't explain the price differences compared to high quality Cosina built Zeiss lenses e.g. 21 2.8. The major difference is that the two German made lenses are hand built in Germany just like the Leicas.
bill vann wrote:
production costs are only one part of the puzzle though.
Have you visited cosina?
apologies if i've touched a nerve, but the macro economics are quite different between Germany, the US, and Japan, as well as the economics of production based on volume.
there is sooo much more to it than that too.
Market size dictates relatively uneconomical production techniques for companies such as Leica which further contributes to costs.
Most handwork can be done better by machine as well as testing, but you don't buy a $$$$$$ machine and utilize only 5% of the capacity.
Bill
Net i stand by my statements.
I do concur we want to buy cheap but be treated well by our employers without looking at the economics of that.
I agree with most of what you say but at least in the Camera industry CC machinery has not resulted in higher quality. I ask you to consider the Canon lenses which are all machine built and the sample to sample variations are notorious. You have many people who rave about a particular canon lens (the 17-40 is a prime example) and others who will tell you that their copy was so bad they sold it for 1/3 of what they paid.
You almost never hear of sample to sample variations from Leica. I would believe that some of them are rejected at the factory and yes we pay for those rejects in the lenses we buy but it is not super significant in the final price of the lens. For example the rumor mill has it that the lens rejections by Zeiss for the products made by Cosina is very high but the selling price isn't changing so they must still be making money on those lenses. And Cosina will go up a learning curve which will ultimately bring down the rejects to a more normal level.
Frankly I only care about the quality of the products I actually go out and pay for, whether new or used. My personal experience is that the Leicas I bought, and many have been in my bag for years, are all extremely high quality. Plus the service you get to have lenses CLA'd at no cost is worth a great deal if you ever plan to sell the lens. Every Leica M lens I own and I have two generations of virtually everything has been bought on the used market. Each one was subsequently checked in N.J so my entire kit is known to be at factory specifications. Try getting that from other players in the market. Zeiss for example charges 49 euro's just to check the lens. I have also bought several Zeiss lenses, the 25 and the 28, and if these are exemplary of the Zeiss M line totally, I would argue that the quality is right up there with the Leicas. Different looks from each brand, but equivalent image quality. Of course they don't have brass focus helicoids etc so i am not saying the build quality of the Zeiss is equivalent to the Leica.
In the end I look at the economics this way. I bought the Leicas at roughly half the new price. I have used most of them already for over 10 years and if the lord gives me another 10 good years til i am 80 I will have been using them for 20 years. Unless something drastic changes the liklihood is that I will end up finally selling them for not too much less than I paid. Whatever that difference ends up to be, divided by 20 years represents the annual rental rate for the lenses. Not too shabby is my opinion.
osera wrote:
Do you think that there is a shoe forum where they talk about expensive shoes and how to hide them from their S.O.'s?
"How am I going to get these in the house?"
"Oh these new shoes will cost me a new lens!"
If my wife is anything to go by...... shoes, handbags (purses to those in US), and other general crap that does 'nothing'..... then for sure..... there is a secret 'shoe' forum, not to mention a secret Louis Vuitton forum too? My wife must live there......
The difference between men and women? That's an easy one.....
Women buy things that 'are' things.... they are 'pretty', 'smelly' etc etc
Now Dave, notice that I was careful not to say "he" or "she". I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that it's the woman who is buying the camera and the man who is buying the shoes.
To get back on topic, maybe the M8 should come with a certificate for a new pair of shoes instead of coding for 2 lenses....
Guy! It looks like you've added a Zeiss 21 as well, so that makes it 7 in what feels like as many days... Whatever this sickness is, you've got it BAD!
Thanks for the heads up to Photo Village, they sell the Image Smith on ebay but slight hassles about payment from here, so just working through that.
To make something clear:
Leica invests a lot of money into production, the machines they use are state-of-the-art, not some kind of old-fashinoned crap. They are able to produce and assemble lenses cosina (and all the other "big" names) simply couldn't produce.
CNC-turned asphericals (28-90, 90AA...) ion-hardended coatings... all of this is far from being traditional "old-school" production.
Ok, sometimes they put the lenses into the cnc-machines by hand, while 100km from Hessen swabian-territory starts, where the most sophisticated production-machines in the world are constructed and build (no TFT, no Blu-Ray-Disk, no nice plastic-body for your IPod, no ISS-space-station, no ITER-fusion-power-station without their know-how) - there needs to be a more effective solution for that ;-)
But most work that is done there by hand isn't automatized done at Cosina - it isn't done at all.
Carl Zeiss as a huge company plays in a completly different league, they have the most advanced optical facilities in the world, Schott (part of the Zeiss-Stiftung) is the biggest name for high-tech-glasses, many machines are made by Zeiss (and Schneider http://www.schneider-om.com/preceding/englisch/praezisionuebersicht.html# ) - and their Leica-quality-lenses are also expensive.
After all they have both over 150 years of experience, they made (and still make) most of the innovations for opical perfomance - so please be careful by thinking that those companies are only names... ;-)
The Assemblation of Cosina-lenses isn't fully automatized either, but Leica and Zeiss spend much more time on testing and calibrating every single lens (by hand).
Of course, at a certain point, every little step to incrase quality from 90% to 95% is much harder than from 70% to 75% (I don't know the english phrase for it, but I'm sure people familiar with production know what I mean). When you don't need these little steps further - that's fine. But don't say that Leica and Zeiss trying to achieve the absolutly best aren't valueable. Those companies are extremly important for technological progress - while mediocre mass-production is always there.
YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!
Trust me, full-Leica/Zeiss-quality at a three times lower price? I would be the first to buy it ;-) But I still spend easily a whole monthly wage for one single lens...
It hurts me to see a company struggle which builds such wonderful, unique-products. And finally they come up with the M8 and everybody seems to looking for ways to prevent buying Leica-lenses!? That's like a new 100000€-Porsche and everybody tries to find cheaper alternatives to replace the engine ;-()
Guy Mancuso wrote:
I keep buying leica glass and my name is going to be in the hallways on the wall of fame board.
Mark yes i added one of the Zeiss lenses, i would like to try this focal length and this lens as well. I think if i really get the use out of the 15 and 21 than I will buy the Tri-Elmar and just simplify things
I had been looking at the Tri-Elmar also. Where can I find more info (e.g. reviews / comparisons) on this one?
Trust me, full-Leica/Zeiss-quality at a three times lower price? I would be the first to buy it ;-) But I still spend easily a whole monthly wage for one single lens...
It hurts me to see a company struggle which builds such wonderful, unique-products. And finally they come up with the M8 and everybody seems to looking for ways to prevent buying Leica-lenses!? That's like a new 100000€-Porsche and everybody tries to find cheaper alternatives to replace the engine ;-()
georgl,
Now. that is the voice of a die-hard Leica fan alright. Hypothetically speaking - if you could get 99% of the quality using "generic" Zeiss or 98% using CV lenses and in order to get 100% you have to fork out 2X-3X the price for Leica or real Zeiss lenses. To some the price difference to get the very best is worth it and they are willing to spend that kind of money but to some the difference is not. Your money reaches the point of diminished return.....If I could afford it, I would go for all Leicas although the Zeiss offering is not to be overlooked, in my opinion. But that's me, others may think differently.
. Comes with a nice case too!!!
