Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Leica as a third party lens manufacturer  (Read 8653 times)

Concorde-SST

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
Leica as a third party lens manufacturer
« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2005, 03:58:54 am »

I agree with Anonymouse,

Most people focus on the body, not the lens. Sometimes I see people
with a big 1-series Canon body and a Tamron or Sigma lens...well
you just shake the head. Its like buying a Ferrari with Fiat tyres...

I own a Leica MP - its a super grand camera - and of course a
Leica lens too. Yes, very expensive - but you know you have
got quality which will last generations (hopefully). Simply a matter
of meeting someone´s expectations.

Leica could make lenses for Nikon or Canon mounts - but
they don´t have a high lens output (milanissimo: ever heard
about economics?) and I doubt they ever will do that. But since
they seem to recover from the financial problems - who knows?

As MR often says - we´re living in interesting times!

best,

A.
Logged

macgyver

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 510
Leica as a third party lens manufacturer
« Reply #21 on: August 30, 2005, 06:56:24 pm »

Quote
I am not sure it is a brand problem - Minolta manufactured lenses for Leica for a long time. I don't see a cry for Minolta optics. By why just Leica? Why not Roddenstock, Schneider-Kruzsnach, Fuji, Nikon, or a host of other excellent manufactures. The bottom line is most people won't pay for great optics. The idea that a lens is a lens is a lens is very common. People are more willing to put money into the body which is just a black box with a shutter - the bells a whistles cannot compensate for the quality of the image at the image plane.

In optics, you get what you pay for. Consumers are more interested in a great deal. Fortunately, there are enough (I hope) consumers that do value quality and can support manufacturers which produce excellent products. But in an economic world, the market will ultimately decide what is made and what is not.

I agree, I have a nicer lens (canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS yadda yadda) than i do camera  (300D) and it makes all the difference, at least for the kind of shots i take.  I couldn't do 1/2 the stuff I do if I had a 1D Mk II and one of those $100 70-300s.

-macgyver
Logged

milanissimo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Leica as a third party lens manufacturer
« Reply #22 on: August 31, 2005, 10:45:34 am »

Quote
I just don´t have that sort of experience, since I go with the
"smartness" to have one line of manufacturer - so e.g. a Canon
body, a Canon lens.
That's really cool. I wish I had done so. But wait. Should I buy this lens:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews....&page=1
instead of this?
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews....&page=1

Like I said, if you're fortunate enough to toss 1100USD for Canon L 24-70 f2.8, then it's fine. We, who are as poor as a church mouse and wanted their body to last a couple of years (I know, I'm so dumb..) must go with the cheap lens for the starters. And as you say you have "the smart rule" of Canon body-Canon lens then I should rather bought the first lens and got shitty results. Instead, I bought second and get very nice results for the given prize (I can't complain that it focuses slowly, it has a flare when shooting against sun...).

And if we get back to original topic (Leica as a 3rd party manufacturer), I suggested that another great company in photographic history - Contax would be wise to enter the market as a 3rd party manufacturer, because they have produced one of the best (if not best) glass and the price was not as outrageous as Leicas.

And back to one of your comments: you have a Leica camera with Leica glass and you know it will last for generations. Are you saying that .. say.. Canon 17-40 L will vanish or.. disintegrate in 10 years by simply using it? I think no.

Another thing. "they don't have a high lens output". God, I said "ultra high quality". I don't know if you are Vill Blates or aonther zillionaire, but I expect lens for 2500 dollars would be something for really demanding professionals, not for someone who just saves like mad for his 600 dollar Canon 17-40 L.

Oh.. and last one thing.. can you actually see the difference in your amazing photos taken by amazing Leica camera with extraordinary Leica lens compared to other cameras or you are just pretending to see them? If you can, then it is great and you have great photographic tool and should be proud.
Logged

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
Leica as a third party lens manufacturer
« Reply #23 on: August 31, 2005, 06:01:06 pm »

Quote
OK, I said if you can see, then it is good. I'm also over this debate, since I'm not a pro, I can't understand it, never should have bothered anyway.  :laugh:
Seeing the differences isn't hard at all. It does not require that you're a professional. It just requires that you take some time and look at the pictures more than superficially.

If all you're ever going to do is to print to small postcard size or 640x480 pixel web images, then chances are that only huge differences will be obvious, and especially in contrast.

What scared me, was that some of the differences are obvious already on the LCD review on my 20D, without zooming in. One of my eye-openers was the impressive performance of the Canon EF 135mm f/2L, a lens I still do not own.

For the record, I'm not a professional. I'm a hobbyist. And I'm spending money on the more expensive glass because even with my very limited experience, I can tell the difference.
Logged
Jan
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up