rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #10 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses | |
rscheffler wrote:
My impression is that these lenses are held as examples to educate us about why we are being ripped off and overcharged by the mainstream brands, and especially Leica. If brand X out of country Y can sell an optically complex and advanced lens design for $200 that is 95% as good as one that sells for $1500, or $5000, clearly we are being ripped off. Or?
dalegaspi wrote:
"...clearly, we are being ripped off."
no, i don't see it that way at all.
maybe i gave Viltrox (which applies to all Chinese brands today) too much credit.. there are other compromises that needed to be put in place to hit that 200USD price point. For one, they did not officially license the Z mount...no R&D to pay for, and virtually no customer support...and honestly that ugly-ass design language (which is important to me...i mean, imagine that Leica spent $$ to design their own fonts for their lens labels and icons for their camera menu system!)...among other things...and they certainly benefitted from the legacy optical companies (not to mention AI) to build whatever they have today. it's the same reason why I would prefer a Tesla or a Rivian over any other Chinese brand even if they start selling it here in the US (note that I hate Elon Musk like it's a full-time job)
what i'm more concerned about is that it undercuts any future efforts companies would do to further improve photography to combat the el-cheapo companies that produce profit with much less investment.
Like, think about it... when was the last time Leica produce an ORIGINAL SL lens design? most of their releases are rebadged Panasonic and Sigma lenses... I bet the new rumored 100mm macro will be yet-another rebadge....Show more →
I agree with a lot of this. Viltrox and others are riding on the coattails of those before them and using the lower cost of entry present today in lens design to disrupt the market. But isn't this just a continuation of what has been happening throughout the history of human technological advancement?
Leica won't compete based on price and instead will do what they've been doing all along, and market the 'Leica experience' which some consider to be pure rubbish but in which others find value. Whether there will continue to be sufficient takers on Leica's spin on the photographic experience remains to be seen, but I suspect so long as there are photographers with sufficient discretionary income looking for something that differentiates from the mainstream, that Leica will have customers.
rscheffler wrote:
My impression is that these lenses are held as examples to educate us about why we are being ripped off and overcharged by the mainstream brands, and especially Leica. If brand X out of country Y can sell an optically complex and advanced lens design for $200 that is 95% as good as one that sells for $1500, or $5000, clearly we are being ripped off. Or?
RustyRus wrote:
How did they do that?
Ai? IP theft? It’s easier now?
So maybe we aren’t being ripped off but someone else was?
I think some who prioritize the maximization of performance at the lowest cost, i.e., highest value for the dollar, uphold these types of lenses as examples as why costlier options from other brands are poor value (rip offs, price gouging, etc.). But one has to understand the priority of those who hold such positions as they may greatly discount compromises in other areas because those do not directly impact optical performance. I think we saw precisely that when the 50/2 Air was extolled as 'the best' without further explanation. Yes, it's optically very good for the price. But nothing was said about the rest of the experience using this lens.
As for how a lens like the 50/2 Air can exist for USD 200... probably some combination of all of the above. Various technological advances have likely 'democratized' lens design similarly to how many other previously complex, highly specialized processes have become accessible to a broader range of the population at considerably lower cost of entry. Combine that with different work and moral ethics, economic environments, political systems, etc. and things become possible. Some products might also be loss leaders, to a degree, to gain market share and awareness for future products at higher price points with greater profit.
The f/2 Air, to me, looks like the effort (AI processing power?) was spent on the optical design, but was manufactured as inexpensively as possible. Therefore the optical potential of the lens is likely above average for its price point, which is important for satisfying those seeking high performance value (who also seem to lean towards being cost conscious) but the final delivery, the 'finish' of the lens - what it is like to use - conforms to its price point. I think on this board many appreciate great optical designs, but simultaneously also enjoy lenses that are pleasurable to use. I.e. not cheap feeling, where care in design has also extended to the overall user experience. This delves into a very subjective range for which some are willing to spend a lot more money than others.
|
