SLR Magic HyperPrime 50mm f/0.95 M-mount lens price announced

SLR Magic announced the pricing for their SLR Magic HyperPrime 50mm f/0.95 lens (M mount):

  • SLR Magic HyperPrime LM 50mm T0.95 (coupled): $4,288
  • SLR Magic HyperPrime CINE 50mm T0.95 (uncoupled): $2,988

This is $6,700 less than the price of a Leica Noctilux. Both lenses will start shipping in September 2012 after he Photokina show in Germany. In the US, SLR Magic lenses can be purchased on eBay.

Leica Noctilux (left) and the SLR Magic HyperPrime (right) lenses

This entry was posted in Leica Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • $4,288 for a made in China lens by SLR Magic? Sorry, but I would rather spend my money on Leica in that case. At least they have elves working REAL MAGIC in their workshops…. 😉

    • Super J

      Yeah this is a big mistake. Instead of “this is much cheaper than a Noctilux” the real point should be “this is way more expensive than a Nokton 1.1”. This lens is for those who can’t afford a Nocti or can afford it but think it’s ridiculous to spend that money on a lens. Not sure why would anybody buy this instead of a Nokton considering the price and that this is a lens made in China, with unproven QC, and by a company that has previously repackaged 15 USD TV lenses.

      It’s great that different people are getting into the M mount market (i.e., I already ordered the new 28mm perar, and I have their 35mm) but we need to start rejecting those slapping ridiculous price tags on anything just because it’s for Leica and we all know all Leica users are rich.

    • HY

      If you have seen the sample shots you might say otherwise.

  • Anon

    Both of the lenses in your picture are marked CINE. Now that’s not very helpful, is it.

  • Craig

    What does “coupled” vs. “uncoupled” mean? Why such a price disparity? What will the street prices actually be?

    • Jumanji

      I think they referring to rangefinder coupling.

    • Yes, rangefinder coupling.

  • Sniper

    How does SLRM do away without aspherical surfaces while still being able to achieve a larger (0.93) aperture and less CA than the Noctilux which deploys 2 aspherical surfaces, with just a marginally increased lens volume? Do you think Leica designers are dumb and stupid (I don’t think so)? Or are aliens telling SLRM how to break the limit of physics?
    If I were SLRM I would be proud of the way I break the physics limit which couldn’t be done even with 2 aspherical surfaces and I would not call my lens 0.95 if I could achieve 0.93.

    • HY

      If I am not wrong I read it in Steve’s website that T .95 has larger image circle then your normal 35mm lens plus a ridiculous 12 element design. Thats basically how they archived the good image quality. Hence a larger lens (In my opinion it is not marginally larger but much larger). Personally I would buy this lens just because I have seen the sample shots on Steve’s website and they sure are amazing.

  • hahaha

    $4,288 ?? Go have some @#$#@….I will pay no more than $500 for this…maybe even lower.

    • rabdvit

      Don’t be silly!

  • Sniper

    12 elements is not my cup of tea, other kinds and orders of aberrations must be considered before drawing to any conclusions.
    Steve is definitely respectable, though I would wait for other reviews, take a look at and touch the real lens, and take some photos with it before ascertaining a $4.2k order, an order of an expensive product made by a company with a history of making toy lenses only. We are not talking about $420, we are not talking about a new product by a known company—-not necessarily an exotic brandname, but at least a brand with a well-established credibility. Ascertaining an order at this premature stage could only mean hypomania or advertising bluff.

  • Gabin

    I fully agree with Agnius. In addition, I respect Steve and his tests, however the first Noktor (was 4/3) was around $750 and did not pass Steve’s tests and now suddenly they can produce magic which should cost 6 times more?!??!
    I would rather put that money aside and keep saving for Noctilux. Leica really makes magic lenses. They produce real atmosphere.

    • Marko

      I don’t trust Steve – SLR Magic is one of his sponsors/advertisers, do you think he will write a bad review for their top of the line lens?

      • CHD

        Actually….yeah…I do.
        The pics speak for themselves.

        • shinook

          I totally agree. Never judge lenses by the brand or reviewes opinion. Only the result images counts. I don’t care it’s made in China. As long as it’s a serious lens with seriuos images, I’m willing to fly to Hong Kong to get one of these bad boys as fast I can(Technically, including the flight cost to HK, it’s still cheaper than a Noctilux).

  • Nico

    The Noctilux is so expensive (apart the fact that it’s all hand made by Leica in Germany) because it has 2 aspherical elements, and of course because it’s a 0.95 lens with top performances in a “reasonably sized” lens …
    The real performance will be to see something through the viewfinder with such a monster and not to get a cramp after an hour using it… 🙂
    Size and weight apart, this lens seems to take amazing pictures !..

  • Joe

    I had to repost my comment from Steve’s site on why I would NOT recommend buying this lens at this price:

    In my opinion, photography is an investment on any level, just like most things in life.

    I have invested $15-20k on camera gear, and each piece of gear has it’s own investment value.

    When I buy a Canon-L lens, I know that specific lens is not going to drop much in value. Even if Canon releases a new version, it will be at a higher price point, and my lens will still be worth near what I paid.

    However, the same thing cannot be said when purchasing a Sigma or Tamron lens of similar caliber. Those lenses loose value much faster. This is because they do not have the same reputation as Canon lenses.

    Every piece of Leica equipment I have purchased is worth more than I paid for it, and while I do believe that Leica gear is in a bubble, even if prices drop 25%, the Leica gear will still be worth close to what it cost new, adjusted for inflation.

    For such a new company without a high-end reputation like Leica, SLR Magic is charging too much for this lens. No matter how it compares with the Leica Noctilux in image quality, it is not on the same caliber of investment value.

    This lens will have an initial surge of demand, brought on mostly by RAVING blogs like this one, but the demand will not hold steady, because new Leica users will not support continued buying demand. Many of Leica’s lenses are bought from Leica dealers, and a lot are purchased by new Leica users. A Leica dealer is not going to sell someone new on a lens by SLR Magic. They will resort to buying Leica glass, because it is what they know will be high quality.

    Therefore, demand will drop off, prices will drop, and values will drop. It will be the same situation as most third party lens makers. SLR Magic is the same as Tamron and Sigma. The value will not hold.

    I believe that this lens should be priced at $1998, with a drop to $1400 in a year or so after initial demand drops. I do not know what their manufacturing costs are, but I do believe that they COULD charge much less than $4k for this lens. I think that SLRM wanted to wait for some feedback before setting the price. The only feedback they have gotten is overwhelming raving from Steve and his workshop attendees, telling them that it is better than the Noctilux!

    In the minds of the guys at SLRM, they see that feedback and think “oh well, look at how much this small group of people love our lens, we can charge big bucks for it!”
    However, that group of people is an unreal sample size of the photographic population. I would bet that if a true sample was taken from the population who may actually buy this lens, they would find that the sweet spot price is much lower.

    If I were anyone reading this, I would not buy this lens at it’s current price. Even if the quality is as good as Steve says it is (and I believe him!), it isn’t a good investment. Think of it this way, if the lens looses $2k in value over the first two years, did you REALLY get that much value out of it?? Or would you rather have $2k cash in your pocket at that time?

    No matter what a piece of equipment costs, you are only really losing that money spent when that piece of equipment drops in value. Heres an example:

    Canon 24-70L New $1249, Two years later used, $1100… Lost money = $150
    Sigma 24-70 New $899, Two years later used, $450… Lost money = $450

    So in reality, even though the Canon caused you to turn more liquid cash into assets, it actually COST you less money!

    Just my 2 cents..

    • Some people don’t have $7500 to drop on a lens to turn into an ‘asset’.

  • Back to top