Cosmetic damage at Leica Service?

[gwelland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just got a couple of lenses back from Leica NJ that have been there for a three months to get coded. Upon unwrapping the lenses in my local store I immediately noticed a couple of nicks on hood of my 90 Elmarit-M that definitely weren't there before the lens was sent off, plus a pin head sized nick on the hood of my 50 'cron.

 

Has anyone else had goods back with any damage like this from Leica? To say that I was surprised would be an under statement. The nicks are 'fresh' as in with sharp edges and bright and shiny. They couldn't have been caused inside the bubble wrap/sealed bag that the lens arrived in but must have occurred on the bench or somewhere similar. These aren't the type of marks you could cause with the lens cap on for example. I am absolutely 100% certain that they weren't marked before they were sent. ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN in fact (before anyone suggests otherwise).

 

I'm festering over whether to send them back with a nasty-gram although the marks are pretty minor - the point being however that it's one thing to do this yourself, but not OK for the Leica service folks. The problem is that I really don't want to send the glass off for an extended holiday AGAIN and then get into a p******g match with Leica. I tested the lenses today and they are perfect optically so that's not an issue. However, I'm pissed.

 

Has anyone else received goods back like this? :mad:

[twittle]

Has anyone else received goods back like this? :mad:

 

That's disturbing. I sent my MP to NJ once for repairs and it came back with a bit of new dust inside the rangefinder, but that's not the same as your situation.

[kdemas]

When my M8 came back from NJ it actually looked much better then when sent.

[gwelland]

When my M8 came back from NJ it actually looked much better then when sent.

 

My M8 upgrade was the same. No issues at all. That's what makes it annoying.

[UliWer]

I fear your experience corresponds with that of one or two other customers who got their lenses back and found that all the nicks on the hoods had gone...

 

May be it' s a good idea to put a sticker with the lens number on the hoods to avoid them beeing mixed up with other customer's .

[gwelland]

It wasn't the lens cap, it's a mark on the front edge of the slide out metal lens hood on the 50 'cron & 90 Elmarit.

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No question in my mind you should complain to Leica.

 

It's likely both lenses were coded by the same person who is either under pressure to "deliver" or else knows little and cares less. Leica need to be made aware of his careless handling in the interests of the owners of stuff he works on in the future.

 

They should replace both of your lens hoods free of charge.

[andybarton]

Have you spoken with NJ before venting your frustrations here?

 

Did you send them to NJ personally, or did your store wrap and send them on your behalf?

[gwelland]

Have you spoken with NJ before venting your frustrations here?

 

I picked up the lenses Saturday so no I haven't. However, I AM very happy to vent here because, unless I'm very much mistaken, this IS a Leica customer forum where we ... err ... discuss these things. Also, you may note that I was asking if anyone else had had this happen - not something I'm going to sit at home and ask myself.

 

I don't expect to get my gear back in better condition than I sent it but I do expect it to at least be the same.

 

My dealer did indeed handle sending the lenses off to Leica and the tracking and receipt of them when they came back. However, they historically are fastidious about handling these things for me but I would concede that I can't absolutely state that it was Leica but these guys aren't ones to throw a couple of lenses into a loose box or drop them etc. The marks looks like something sharp bumped the hoods and left small marks - just cosmetic but annoying nonetheless. I suspect I'm going to have to put this down to experience and next time make sure that I forensically photograph everything I send off beforehand. (yeah yeah ... hindsight's wonderful isn't it?)

[andybarton]

I understand that, and sympathise with you 100%.

 

It's just that there has been a spate of "Shout loud on the Forum before speaking with Leica" threads recently.

[marknorton]

I have had a similar situation with Solms. I sent 5 lenses for repair/CLA and two M8s for upgrade last year and my 35mm Summilux came back damaged - scratch on the barrel. They noted it on the booking in form but I'm certain it wasn't there when I sent it and while not being obsessive about packing, I do pack carefully - each of the lenses was in a polythene bag and then a Jiffy padded bag and I cleaned each lens before sending them off.

 

No way I could prove it of course, so I just touched in the scratch with black enamel, hardly shows, but annoying nonetheless.

[gwelland]

No way I could prove it of course, so I just touched in the scratch with black enamel, hardly shows, but annoying nonetheless.

 

Same thing here really. It's just cosmetic and a tiny spot of paint will fix it. Can't prove it but I'm certainly gun-shy for next time.

[Jager]

When I sent several lenses to NJ for coding a few years ago they came back fine. But since all this work happens on a workbench, and despite padded work surfaces and other efforts to minimize such accidents, across a 40+ hour workweek I'm sure there is plenty of opportunity for the repair techs to accidentally bump and scratch them. It's probably exacerbated right now because of the heavy post-M9-release demand for lens work and the work pressure the techs are almost certainly under.

 

I agree with Mark, I'd take a few macro shots of the nicked areas and send them along with a nice note to Leica. See what they say.

[Guest mc_k]

One might send a note with the lens, listing any marks already on it...I think I will do this from now on.

 

A "check-in" list avoids putting either party on the spot at "check-out" time.

[Guest Joachim_I]

I had to send in a brand new Summicron 50mm ("50 Jahre Summicron" version) because the aperture ring did not move to the 2 position. It came back with several long scratches on the focusing tube. The tube was replaced in a second attempt.

 

Another 50mm Summicron I had to send in three times before everything was OK. I originally sent it to Solms because the front tube was loose. When the lens was returned to me, this problem was fixed, but the aperture ring was sticky now. I returned the lens. When I got it back, the aperture ring was fine, but there was a 1cm long hair inside. This was removed in the third attempt.

 

Eventually you will get your items repaired but don't expect it to happen in the first attempt. For me this is the only annoying aspect of the Leica experience. I know from conversation that photographers who are able to visit Solms in person get excellent service. Unfortunately, this is not an option for me.

[Peyton Hoge]

If they are removeable hoods, you shouldn't have sent them along with the lens. Just lens, front cap & back cap. As far as the nicks, if you use your camera a lot, you will get nicks and marks on the lens hoods. In addition to helping with flare, they also help protect the end of the lens and they will get marks if used enough. Let it go, and enjoy your camera.

[gwelland]

I'll probably regret replying to this but anyway ...

 

1) The hoods on the 50 'cron and 90 Elmarit are not removable. They are sliding hoods permanently fixed to the lens. The lenses were sent with front & back caps only and the correct caps were returned with the lenses too.

 

2) Nicks & scratches are indeed a natural consequence of use and they don't really bother me at all. Getting them nicked or scratched while being serviced does. It's kind of like putting your car in for service and getting it back with a scratch on the paint or dashboard. Sure these are normal signs of life but you don't want your dealer adding them to your car.

 

3) Let it go? Well, frankly I've already let it go. I'm not after replacement, fix, or going through an acrimonious resolution process. The lenses work great and other than the cosmetic issues I'm happy with them. However, I treat this as a wake up call to watch out when sending gear back to the manufacturer for updates. In my view this is as bad as receiving a lens back with the screws cross threaded or burred (neither of which happened btw - I'm using this as an illustration only). You just wouldn't expect this from Leica who I equate to a fastidious quality focused organization - hence the surprise and dismay.

 

(Actually part of the reason I'm angrier than normal is the fact that I'd promised the 50 'cron to a friend of mine who saw it before it went off for coding. He's pretty mellow about the nick on the hood but it's the principle of the thing.)

 

Just consider this a heads up.

[jaapv]

Still, I would report this to Leica nevertheless. It shouldn't happen and they need to evaluate the quality of their work.

[symmetron]

I had 3 incidents with Leica service where the returned items were cosmetically worse: an MP lightmeter repair where the black paint was all scratched, a 90 mm Summicron which had significant dust in it, and a D2 chip replacement with dust in the viewfinder. Leica replaced the MP, and recleaned the 90mm. I didn't dend the D2 back as I figured it was too much hassle. Although Leica made good on the MP and the 90 mm, it was another month or so of aggravation. Just shouldn't happen!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ed_K]

Same here, when i sent in my 35 and 90 Summicron for coding, the 90 came back ok but not the 35 ... not only are there more dust particles but there's a tiny piece of shiny bit between the lens elements; have already reflect this incident in the comment on my last survey, hopefully Solms got the message and improve the handling back in NJ, after all it's their reputation on the line here.