Disappointing experience wth a highly reputed Leica tech

[alan.y]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The subject is referred to simply as "X" because I'd rather this be a cautionary tale than a personal vendetta. If anyone thinks the details below are sufficient to identify the subject, please actually let me know.

 

First job (cleaning done on necessary short notice) for me was excellent, but X puzzlingly left finger print on rear element as well as dust specks in the interior elements, which, though insignificant, I would've expected removed.

 

Months later I sent 4 R and 1 M lenses to X in two batches, including very specific requests, and was told the first batch would be done "in 10 days."

 

More than a month after the "10 days" message, and after several politely phrased and ignored emails and finally a phone call, the first batch of 3 lenses returned. Lux R 35 (otherwise nicely fixed) had finger print on front element. R 80's aperture wouldn't close down, and aperture actuation was somehow interfering with focus. My question about light leaking around rear element was ignored. I sent the 80 back, again mentioning the light leakage. Was surprised to be charged almost $200 per lens (asked why and was told "can't remember; they just took a very long time"), twice the cost of the first job.

 

Another two weeks later, 80 came back with second batch. This was where I became truly disappointed:

 

- 80's front element had a patch of dust about 1.5cm in width. I removed the dust to find a new spot of coating damage on the previously flawless glass. I had a UV filter in front of it, and X had to put it back on. How and why X neglected the dust patch is beyond me. X also again ignored my question about the light leakage.

 

Worse:

 

- I had specified 2 repairs for my Summicron-M 90: haze and dust on the rear element and focus coupling decalibration. X fixed the latter. But I was surprised to find exactly identical haze and dust on the rear element. I asked X about it, and was told this was cleaned as best as could be, which I find literally incredible. (See attached photo of haze/dust after supposed CLA.)

 

- I had specified that my heavily damaged R 35 1.4 (2nd copy bought from a dishonest seller) had unusual field curvature/slant, which is a problem of optical alignment that I realized was probably beyond X's capability, but on X's own suggestion I decided to give it a try anyway. So I was very surprised when X told me on the phone and also wrote on invoice that the lens was now "sharp corner to corner" (quoting exact words). However, on the receipt, the job description had changed to "made focusing much better," which was bizarre because focusing was never a problem. As I half expected, the field curvature/slant remained completely unchanged. (The 35 has a floating element, such that focusing and the field curvature/slant may in fact be related, but that's not what X meant. I am unsure what in fact X did to the "focusing," which feels exactly the same, or why the job description changed from invoice to receipt.)

 

I confronted X about the above two issues (let the 80 blemish pass), and got a half refund. When I asked again about the light leakage, I was told that X "did not understand" what I meant--which was apparently an excuse for simply ignoring it twice.

 

Careless, overworked, overhurried, or something else--I cannot and don't want to speculate. But I do think this is a problem: X is universally recommended to the extent that disappointing particular customers, even moderately botching particular jobs, won't hurt his or her business substantially. I was unlucky enough to be that statistic. As well, I imagine X's reputation is such that one the risk of backlash from other customers and of losing X's future service can deter negative reports such as this.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited November 16, 2014 by alanjung

[alan.y]

Just to be clear about the dust patch on the 80 front element: I did not cause the spot blemish by removing the dust using blower and then a moistened Pec Pad. Something had touched the front element that left both the dust and the blemish.

 

I should also note the other 2 jobs were very well done, and even the 80 was very well done aside from the front blemish. Also, I had to hurry the return of both batches because of impending travel--although of course the stretching of "10 days" into multiple weeks was not my doing to begin with.

Edited November 16, 2014 by alanjung

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[farnz]

Sorry to hear of your poor treatment by this repairer.

 

At least we know that X is not Malcolm Taylor because he only deals by telephone and doesn't use email or the internet at all.

 

Pete.

[250swb]

And his lengthy hand written receipts leave little in doubt about the work done and where the money has gone.

 

Steve

[alan.y]

My purpose is not to defame said tech, whom I sincerely hope remains anonymous (despite the suggestions already made here). I've been asked the identity in private messages but decided against it, as that'd change the nature of my post. Moreover, I myself proposed and accepted the 50% refund for the 2 unreasonably bad jobs, and that made us even. I don't mean to be coy or melodramatic. If it's obvious to you whom I'm talking about, I'd like to have the post removed.

 

Self-servingly I wanted to register an experience to an audience who are interested, possibly sympathetic and even empathetic, and solicit some similar experiences.

 

Less self-servingly I wanted to warn against several mistakes I think I made (aside from blindly trusting the opinions of others):

 

1) The finger print on the rear of the otherwise finely done (and rushed) first job was a warning sign that I mistakenly dismissed as an accident

 

2) Having unrealistic expectations: prior to X, I'd asked another reputed tech about and sent to yet another my heavily damaged R 35. The first didn't want to touch it, and the second sent it back to me saying it couldn't be fixed. I was wishing I could avoid the $850 + labor quoted by Leica to replace the elements, but I knew that was the only way and shouldn't have been swayed by X's suggestion otherwise. (BTW: I was told on this forum that Leica likely wouldn't have spare lens elements for my R 35. This turns out not to be the case. Leica either still has spares or manufactures them.)

 

3) Sending in multiple lenses at the same time, including a heavily damaged one, may have given the impression of an undiscriminating user, even subconsciously. And the rush thus created was not ideal.

 

4) Being hands off, assuming my specific requests would be read and remembered, and passively writing emails and not getting replies until I truly needed the lenses back and had to rush their return.

Edited November 16, 2014 by alanjung

[sanyasi]

You and the Leica community are between a rock and a hard place. On the hand, I respect you not using the person's name. It makes you seem objective. Moreover, I understand your concerns over defamation--although truth is presumably a defense.

 

On the other hand, others would benefit from the knowledge and could make a better decision. At the end of the day, this is why I send my stuff to Leica for repairs.

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I too respect your decision not to name X but of course some will hazard a guess who X is and might point the finger at the wrong person. I mentioned Malcolm because (you probably weren't aware) he was the subject of a severe bashing in another thread some time ago and some forum members could easily jump to the wrong conclusion and wrongly lay the blame at his door for something that was nothing to do with him and would be very unfair on Malcolm.

 

Pete.

[alan.y]

I too respect your decision not to name X but of course some will hazard a guess who X is and might point the finger at the wrong person. I mentioned Malcolm because (you probably weren't aware) he was the subject of a severe bashing in another thread some time ago and some forum members could easily jump to the wrong conclusion and wrongly lay the blame at his door for something that was nothing to do with him and would be very unfair on Malcolm.

 

Pete.

 

Thanks. I wasn't aware of this. Precisely what I'd like to avoid.

[Guest]

Thanks. I wasn't aware of this. Precisely what I'd like to avoid.

 

So why not name this technician and offer him the chance to post On the forum with his version of what has gone on .

BrianP

[alan.y]

So why not name this technician and offer him the chance to post On the forum with his version of what has gone on .

BrianP

I've already answered this question in several different ways above.

[Jeff S]

Sorry, but without details (no matter the reason), the thread is of little use other than to acknowledge and reinforce that every service, and likely every technician, has both happy and disappointed customers. And that what works, or doesn't work, for one customer doesn't necessarily translate to others' experiences. So, no news.

 

While, for instance, I have praised work from DAG (Don Goldberg) here in the past, I have also had a more recent experience with a minor issue that required unnecessary follow-up…twice. Stuff happens. But it would be good to know if that stuff is becoming a trend, and we can't know that without naming names. Chances are the tech involved doesn't give a hoot about the forum…DAG doesn't seem to…he has all the work he needs.

 

Jeff

[Guest]

Sorry, but without details (no matter the reason), the thread is of little use other than to acknowledge and reinforce that every service, and likely every technician, has both happy and disappointed customers. And that what works, or doesn't work, for one customer doesn't necessarily translate to others' experiences. So, no news.

 

While, for instance, I have praised work from DAG (Don Goldberg) here in the past, I have also had a more recent experience with a minor issue that required unnecessary follow-up…twice. Stuff happens. But it would be good to know if that stuff is becoming a trend, and we can't know that without naming names. Chances are the tech involved doesn't give a hoot about the forum…DAG doesn't seem to…he has all the work he needs.

 

Jeff

 

And a business only gets into the situation of all the work they need by having a lot of "satisfied customers".

Frankly having a go at a business in the way this post has originated, without being prepared to name the company I find quite pathetic and not particularly believable or convincing.:roll eyes:

BrianP

[Guest]

I've already answered this question in several different ways above.

 

No you have not. You have pointed your finger at an American company by mentioning the price you paid in $ . You should name the company to avoid people drawing the wrong conclusion. Personally I could not care less as I would only use Leica to service my equipment.

BrianP

[erl]

Personally I could not care less as I would only use Leica to service my equipment.

BrianP

Your choice, to be respected, but, the worst Leica repair experience I have had (more than one) was from Leica in Solms. To be fair, I have also had excellent service from Solms (more than one).

 

The most outstanding Leica service I have had was from my local Leica authorized repairer. It all varies, wherever you go. Accept it, up to a point.

[Guest]

Your choice, to be respected, but, the worst Leica repair experience I have had (more than one) was from Leica in Solms. To be fair, I have also had excellent service from Solms (more than one).

 

The most outstanding Leica service I have had was from my local Leica authorized repairer. It all varies, wherever you go. Accept it, up to a point.

 

I meant that I would only use either Leica or an authorised Leica repairer.However for the prices Leica charge we should get 100% perfect service.

Perhaps we hand over our money too easily.

BrianP:eek:

[AlanJW]

I meant that I would only use either Leica or an authorised Leica repairer.However for the prices Leica charge we should get 100% perfect service.

Perhaps we hand over our money too easily.

BrianP:eek:

One test of a good company is how they react when something goes wrong. After all, these are not robots making repairs but human beings. I have had good experience directly from Leica (US) but understand that nothing is perfect. If something does go wrong, my view is that Leica itself has both the interest and the ability to make things right ("perfect") for a Leica customer. The other reason I will use Leica US is that they give LHSA members a 15% discount on repairs. That makes the cost closer to a third party repairer.

 

The third party repairers I am aware of have had pretty good reputations (but as I said, things can go wrong). There aren't that many third parties left and we know the OP is in the US. But I am not in agreement that whoever the repairer was should be disclosed. Postings on the Internet never go away and a search for the name will then reveal this thread. If the repairer does not respond (and they may not monitor this forum), the accusations will stick to him or her and not be shaken off. If there is a response, the reader some years from now would have to scroll through the whole thread to find a response and in the meantime will be confronted with the OP's descriptions, which are not pretty. That does not mean I think the repairer should be absolved from blame. It seems there was some carelessness that is hard to excuse. I don't know what the OP wants other than a sanity check.

[jdlaing]

I meant that I would only use either Leica or an authorised Leica repairer.However for the prices Leica charge we should get 100% perfect service.

Perhaps we hand over our money too easily.

BrianP:eek:

 

There are two basic choices. Hand over the money or don't.

[alan.y]

Sorry, but without details (no matter the reason), the thread is of little use other than to acknowledge and reinforce that every service, and likely every technician, has both happy and disappointed customers. And that what works, or doesn't work, for one customer doesn't necessarily translate to others' experiences. So, no news.

/quote]

 

I said from the beginning that I decided to withhold the name of the tech precisely because of what you said: even reputable techs make mistakes, so there's no point singling out particular ones.

 

No news because none intended. No news in your post either.

[alan.y]

No you have not. You have pointed your finger at an American company by mentioning the price you paid in $ . You should name the company to avoid people drawing the wrong conclusion. Personally I could not care less as I would only use Leica to service my equipment.

BrianP

 

I respect your reasoning but disagree with it. I've accepted a half refund and find it ethically unjustified to name the offending party. To all future users I can only offer the platitudinous advice that I've already said above: don't trust online opinions blindly.

 

More practically and only slightly less platitudinously: don't send in many lenses at a time, and be hands-on without rushing.

 

And after this experience I am more sympathetic to your exclusive use of Leica.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[alan.y]

The third party repairers I am aware of have had pretty good reputations (but as I said, things can go wrong). There aren't that many third parties left and we know the OP is in the US. But I am not in agreement that whoever the repairer was should be disclosed. Postings on the Internet never go away and a search for the name will then reveal this thread. If the repairer does not respond (and they may not monitor this forum), the accusations will stick to him or her and not be shaken off. If there is a response, the reader some years from now would have to scroll through the whole thread to find a response and in the meantime will be confronted with the OP's descriptions, which are not pretty. That does not mean I think the repairer should be absolved from blame. It seems there was some carelessness that is hard to excuse. I don't know what the OP wants other than a sanity check.

 

Thanks.