Re: R vs Zeiss lens prices

[Chris Fortunko <fortunko@boulder.nist.gov>]

Michael and other LUGs,

I am the person who originally suggested that Leica used lens prices are too
high, but still much lower than M lens prices.

I agree with you on your analysis. I am not a pro and, therefore, have only
occasional need for an SLR. However, on those occasions I would like to use
a system with similar feel to my M system. Currently, I have only the SL2,
the last of the diesel Leicas. (They are truly reminiscent of Hanomag tractors.)

Sometimes, I would like a little automation. The M cameras do not provide
features like aperture priority, which I would like to have. Other features
would also be nice. For this reason, I am looking at R7s. I hope that the R8
will be a good seller so that R7 prices plummet even further.

Also, I sometimes like to use longer lenses like the 180mm. My diesel
Elmarit 180mm is just too heavy for many activities. You know, it weighs
more than may back pack. A 180mm APO would be nice with a lighter-than-SL
Leica body that also features some automation.

Incidentally, can someone comment on the durability of the post-diesel Leica
bodies. Here I mean the R4-R7. 

Best regards,

Chris

At 10:47 AM 12/26/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>....if I did want to sell off my Nikon gear for some reason, a Contax
system was all I was really >interested in until now. This gives me more
options. 
>>Godfrey - Cupertino, CA, USA - ramarren@apple.com
>
>Godfrey,
>
>I did just that about five months ago, trading in my Nikon F4 system for
>a Contax RTSIII.  After years of comparison with my less used but much
>loved M6 system, I decided that I definately could see significant
>differences between the Leica and Nikon produced images, particularly in
>16X20" Ciba exhibition prints which I was producing for a show that was
>about to be hung.
>
>Working on the assumption that R lenses are as good as, if not superior
>to M glass, I tallied up the cost of the 1 body, 6 lens system that I
>wanted.... about US $20,000.  Groan.  My only alternative was Contax,
>and a similarly configured system came to about $10,000 -- half the
>price of the Leica R system.
>
>As well, the RTSIII body was far superior in features to any R body (the
>new R8 possibly excepted).
>
>I had tested the Contax G1 when it came out, and while I was severely
>underwhelmed by the camera, I was blown away by the lenses.  On the
>basis of that positive experience with Zeiss glass (and from years ago
>with a Hasseblad system when I was a working pro) I went for the Contax
>RTS system.
>
>I am totally impressed.  Though the Zeiss glass has a somewhat different
>"look" to M glass, the images I've produced so far are completely
>satisfying.  The 60mm Makro Planar and 180mm are particularly wonderful,
>and the 28mm is one of the most distortion and vignetting free wide
>angles I've had the pleasure of using.  Mechnically, the build quality
>and feel of the Zeiss lenses is superb -- in every respect on a par with
>Leica.
>
>This raises the issue mentioned in a message here the other day about
>why R lenses may not be selling well.  Someone, with their tongue not
>firmly in their cheek said, could it be the price?  In my case the
>answer is emphatically yes.  I've used and loved M glass for more than
>30 years, but when it came to buying a large number of lenses to equip a
>complete SLR system, I was blocked, and I'm fortunate enough to be able
>to usually afford most things that I want.  The $10,000 differential
>though was just too much to swallow. Pitty.
>
>Regards,
>______________________________________
>Michael H. Reichmann
>E-mail:	michael.reichmann@alphanet.net
>______________________________________
>
>