35 Summilux ASPH has particles in it

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

I went to a Leica dealer try to buy a 35mm Summilux ASPH, I saw some particles inside the lens between the glasses, the dealer has 3 of them, everyone of them has some particles in it. dealer told me it is made by hand that is reason, is he BS me? Does anyone has the same experience?

-- Mitchell Li (mitchli@pacbell.net), November 27, 2001

Answers

I don't know where these particles come from; certainly not from merely using the lens, after all we are talking 'new' here. It is not uncommon to find such particles in a Leica lens, I have some in my 90 Summicron that were there from new. The good news is they absolutely don't seem to have an effect on the image quality.

-- sam smith (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com), November 27, 2001.

This is one I refuse to believe... I have *never* seen any junk in a new Leica lens! Heck, I haven't even seen junk in newer version used lenses! I have seen dust in older lenses, but if this is happening now with new lenses, QC at Solms must really suck! Not that I would buy one that way let alone accept a new lens as such, I agree that a few little specks inside a lens will make no noticeable impact on the final image. However I think it is unacceptable, and I restate my hypothesis from an earlier post that Solms is now dumping their "seconds" in the "non-passport" markets!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 27, 2001.

Mitchell, I wouldn't buy a new Leica lens and accept ANY defects, however small. I bought a new 35 ASPH Summicron lens over a year ago and discovered a dust speck between the lens elements. I returned the lens immediately without any problems and received a new "clean" lens. Regardless whether that dust speck would ever compromise optical quality, I did not want that lens. For the prices paid for Leica products, the very least we should receive are pristine examples.

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), November 27, 2001.

Here we go again. In the last year or so I have bought two new Leica lenses and a couple of used ones. I do not bother to look inside the lens. I look at the negatives. I do not care if someone left a frog in my lens as long as the negs look great; and they do. Dust is a fact of life. Lenses draw in air and dust everytime they are focused from infinity to close focus. Relax, go back and try the lens out with film in your camera. Be prepared to be impressed as I was absolutely blown away by my 35/1.4Asph, especially wide open.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), November 27, 2001.

It's no big deal. I got a couple dust specks in a new 35mm Summicron ASPH a few months ago, but I kept the lens. I don't believe the specks have an optical effect, & I can always return the Summicron to Leica via the Passport warranty if there is any problem.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), November 27, 2001.


I'm with John here - I never look inside the lenses. It takes a ton of schmutz in there to upset the imaging. The only times I've been unhappy were with damage to the front or rear elements, and both of these were on (very) used lenses.

That said, I know how that dust (or those bubbles in the older lenses) can bug you. It's like using a Trinitron monitor. Before you notice those two black lines going across your screen you're perfectly happy. Once you know, you can never forget about them...

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), November 27, 2001.


Oh, Paul thank you very much. I just bought a new Trinitron monitor! Just kidding, I had a Trinitron before this one, the lines don't bother me.

-- Bert Keuken (bkkn@wanadoo.nl), November 28, 2001.

If there were two of the same lenses in front of me to choose from I would take the dust free one. This is pretty reasonable I would say. I wouldn't ask the saleman to show me the negatives. Would you take delivery of a brand new Cadillac with an uneven paint job even the ride is just as smooth?

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), November 28, 2001.

I had the same problem but instead of getting angry I decided to take matters into my own hands. I put the lens in a vice and unscrewed all the optics out on the floor, spat on them, drove a truck over them and then sent it all back to Solms in a bag with a half-eaten prawn cocktail mixed in. Boy were they surprised! Since the lens was under Passport no questions asked warranty, they had to send me a brand new lens in return. You can bet that one had no damn dust specks!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), November 28, 2001.

"I do not care if someone left a frog in my lens..." John Collier.

Actually, a frog in the lens could prevent consistent focusing at infinity, because of the well-known frog-resistance effect.

<< 'Rather a frog in the lens than a toad as the subject' >>

-- Peter Olsson (peter.olsson@lulebo.se), November 28, 2001.



i got a bit precious about 2 quite noticeable dust specs peering back at me as i looked right into that sea of glass before i bought my 90 'cron AA. it was the only one they had left. and the dealer said they would never show up on the neg as you will be focusing beyond that plane. it bugged me, but i dont worry about it now. but i too agree that for the money you shell out for these lenses, they should at least be pristine right out of the factory.

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), November 28, 2001.

I just bought a 90mm lens and it too had specs in it. They gave me a new lens. I do think that specs appear over time (and use) as well. They probably have no effect on picture quality. Use the lens for 2 years, 11 months and have Leica clean it out or replace it under the passport warranty.

-- Bill Henick (dhen1922@aol.com), November 28, 2001.

Here we go again indeed. It seems that Leica lovers split into two camps; 1. Those who believe that with Leica's reputation, bragging of meticulous QC, and price structure - we deserve the highest possible build and performance; 2. Hey it's handmade, it's Leica, who cares if it's scratched, misaligned, cloudy, dusty, clackety, tempremental - all is forgiven.

Sorry - but Leica reputation and price deserves nothing less than near perfection.

Please see the comprehensive posting on this subject "...don't make me laugh"

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), November 28, 2001.


Or: those who are interested in taking pictures and those who are interested in tools and brand?

I know which side of the great divide I'm on, not that that's any kind of an endorsement.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), November 28, 2001.


Surely we're ALL interested in taking pictures AND using well engineered, properly finished tools?

Leica or not a certain expenditure deserves a certain level of quality. I bet you won't find dust/particles in a Canon/Nikon £100 plastic zoom.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), November 28, 2001.



HI, How much would Leica charge for taking the dust out of the lens if the lens is not under passport warranty? I too bought a brand new gray market lens 35 Summilux that has particles in it. Thank you!

-- jac Ja (unihub@aol.com), November 28, 2001.

I just checked my 35 ASPH Summicron. Gasp! I saw a family of mites nibbling on the aperture blades. I can only hope they make to f1.4 by nightfall.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), November 28, 2001.

how embarassing, I was evidently in holier than thou mode back then. sorry.

however, I don't expect perfection from anything. if it takes the snaps it's ok by me.

as for nikon's perfect QC, my wife has only just now (after two years of problems) managed to get a replacement for her malfunctioning F100 body, and with no acknowledgement from nikon itself that the problem even existed. so...

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), November 28, 2001.


Hey Rob - don't you just love these contentious QC threads?!? The only bit of Nikon I own is a £20 loupe - actually full of dust, but I just turn it upside down and out falls the dirt! No-one or thing is perfect I simply maintain the more you pay (in pursuit of quality) the closer to perfection you should expect to be.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), November 28, 2001.

Mitchell

In my long experience as a collector and user, it is not uncommon to see small specks of dust internally, even in the older BM lenses from the 50s-early 70s when the Leitz quality control was legendary. These lens also may have had small bubbles in the glass that Leitz advised had no effect on the performance. Notwithstanding peoples feelings that new Leica lenses ought to be absolutely perfect because of the very high prices, this has never been the case.

I can't comment on the quality control for modern Leica lenses vis-a- vis older lenses. There may indeed be some problems. A few specks of dust wouldn't bother me, as much as more serious problems with the glass, such as lens element separation. My major problem with the modern lenses is simply that they are not constructed as well as the older chrome and early black Wetzlar and Canada products, everything from workmanship to the engraving has suffered.

That said, I don't think anyone else is making lenses any better than Leica. And one can't argue with the optical quality of the latest generation of aspherical and/or apochromatic M lenses. Even the current generation of Leica lenses will probably stand up to many years of hard use.

My advice is that if its nothing more than a few specks of dust, forget about it. May be annoying but it is of no optical importance.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), November 29, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ