Re: [Leica] Lens quality

[Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>]

At 09:37 AM 20-09-98 -0400, Tom D. wrote:

>Your final point is that Leica glass is too expensive
>relative to a price/performance curve that you've built in
>your mind. Let me state the characteristics of my price/
>performance curve......I enjoy R optics that are w/o peer;
>such as the ones I've listed above ;-)!   

Its fine to enjoy Leica glass, but at what expense?  What if the glass you
enjoy so much cost $1,000?  $10,000?  $100,000?  I have no idea of your
financial situation, but eventually you will reach a point where it just
isn't worth it.  These magazine reviews which give Leica a poor
price/performance rating are just pointing out that (in their opinion) the
marginal increase in quality, which they admit is there, is not worth the
dramatic increase in price.  I guess someone like Bill Gates couldn't care
less about the price; he can simply buy the absolute best regardless.  For
him, the price/perf rating category is worthless.  There may well be some
on this list who are in a somewhat similar situation.  Many of us, though,
when faced with a decision between a $200 lens and a Leica lens costing
$3000 (Canadian $ example of 50/1.4 Minolta vs. 50 Summilux) have a
difficult problem.  [I bought both, and they are *tough* to tell apart  ;-)]

Dan C.