pico Posted February 22, 2014 Share #161 Posted February 22, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I guess that the only other reason for the latest delay is that he is trying to repair it before return - well one can always hope! It not a repair, really, but a Canon 0,95 for M-conversion. There are not many people who do such a conversion in a competent manner. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 Hi pico, Take a look here After 3 years at Malcolm Taylor's, will my lens have fungus?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Berth Posted February 22, 2014 Share #162 Posted February 22, 2014 It seems clear that although Malcolm Taylor is a highly respected and accomplished technician, and there are no other complaints to suggest a pattern of poor workmanship or service, he has clearly dropped the ball (well, the lens) here. I accept that he may not want to come onto this Forum to put his side of the story (if there is one) but I am surprised that he has not done everything possible to maintain his otherwise excellent professional reputation and return the lens. I guess that the only other reason for the latest delay is that he is trying to repair it before return - well one can always hope! After reading this thread I can't imagine ever using him. It doesn't matter how good a technician he may be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 22, 2014 Share #163 Posted February 22, 2014 It not a repair, really, but a Canon 0,95 for M-conversion. There are not many people who do such a conversion in a competent manner. . Forgive me for quoting my own post. Converting a Canon 50mm F/0.95 to a Leica M-mount looks easy on paper, or on the 'net, but it is very difficult IRL. I have contracted three and each failed, then made my own conversion (and I am usually a good mechanic) and failed. I have high standards. In the end I have a properly converted Canon 50mm F/0.95 lens and despite the failures I spent 20 percent of a Noctilux. I like its rendering more. Sent from my Etcha-sketch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted February 22, 2014 Share #164 Posted February 22, 2014 I am quite shocked by this thread and feel the pain here. I have used Malcolm numerous times and have had no issues (sometimes quick sometimes slow). But no resolution following an agreement to send the lens back a long time ago is really not acceptable, this is a big shame. Can a moderator speak to Malcolm and resolve as he is recommended on this site ? This has Sweet Fanny Adams to do with Leica Forum mods and everything to do with common sense customer service and completing a job within a reasonable period of time after agreeing to take it on five years ago. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 23, 2014 Share #165 Posted February 23, 2014 After reading this thread I can't imagine ever using him. It doesn't matter how good a technician he may be. Agreed, I wouldn't either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveclem Posted February 23, 2014 Share #166 Posted February 23, 2014 Can you not use a L39 to M adapter or have I missed something,flange distance or whatever? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted February 23, 2014 Share #167 Posted February 23, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Unfortunately not, Steve, the Canon 50/0.95 has an external bayonet mount for the Canon 7 and 7s that has to be removed and IIRC the rangefinder coupling mechanism needs to be extended for use with with the M-series. There are two variants of the Canon 50/0.95, the TV version that was designed for television cameras and is not rangefinder coupled and the rangefinder version, which is rangefinder coupled. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted February 23, 2014 Share #168 Posted February 23, 2014 This has Sweet Fanny Adams to do with Leica Forum mods and everything to do with common sense customer service and completing a job within a reasonable period of time after agreeing to take it on five years ago. dunk Most forums make recommendations understanding that this comes with some, usually non contractual responsibility. I run a sales business where the recommended partner engages with customer and legally not my responsibility but I cannot expect to say I have SFA to do with it if they engaged following recommendation even if there was no financial gain in doing so. Why wouldn't a moderator help resolve/support, that happens between members doesn't it ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted February 23, 2014 Share #169 Posted February 23, 2014 Most forums make recommendations understanding that this comes with some, usually non contractual responsibility. I run a sales business where the recommended partner engages with customer and legally not my responsibility but I cannot expect to say I have SFA to do with it if they engaged following recommendation even if there was no financial gain in doing so. Why wouldn't a moderator help resolve/support, that happens between members doesn't it ? Are you advocating that a Leica Forum Mod acts as an 'arbitrator' ? … Surely that would be unprecedented and outside the responsibilities and mandates of any volunteer moderators. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 23, 2014 Share #170 Posted February 23, 2014 And given that the European moderators live in Germany, France, Switzerland and Holland and that -as far as I am aware- none of them have ever even met Mr. Taylor, singularly unproductive as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 23, 2014 Share #171 Posted February 23, 2014 Just a coda on this thread: rang for an update on the lens (no longer really expecting any progress) and it turns out that Malcolm had been told about this discussion and considered it a stab in the back (which in retrospect, it sort of was) and is now refusing to do the work and intends to send the lens back unaltered "over the next week or two". Naturally I can see his point of view - my concerns about fungus could, and maybe should, have been addressed directly to him, but I wasn't sure of getting a straight answer, and so I rather impulsively posted here. Nonetheless, I do find his reaction rather childish - he doesn't dispute the time taken (about 4,5 years with no work done on the lens) but he strongly objected to my discussing it online. Maybe the gossip-monger noted above could have a word? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted February 23, 2014 Share #172 Posted February 23, 2014 This case boils down to what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. Anyone can expect completion of a lens modification within a reasonable period of time - unless at the onset the technician states e.g.. "This job could take several years … " dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted February 23, 2014 Share #173 Posted February 23, 2014 This case boils down to what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. Anyone can expect completion of a lens modification within a reasonable period of time - unless at the onset the technician states e.g.. "This job could take several years … " dunk I thinks the OP knows this. Regarding resolution and support I'd happily phone Michael Taylor if it helps and the mods feel that moderation in these (or perhaps all?) circumstance is in appropriate, if the OP would indeed like me too, I have had work done by Malcolm on numerous lenses, given that the reputation of MT has been tarnished on this forum and MT is recommended on this forum, I think support for the OP should be available. My offer to the OP to talk to MT remains open, I have chatted to Malcolm for many hours over the past few years and whilst I am no aquentance I am not a stranger. I believe the fungus question has been answered, the view of what is and isn't good customer practice have been covered. I'm feeling the pain for th OP and indeed the silence from a recommend repairer and would genuinely like to help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share #174 Posted February 24, 2014 Thanks for the offers of help, but I sincerely believe the situation would definitely not be improved by further involvement from the forum: what caused the situation in the first place is a perfect example of how these threads can be misunderstood when relayed at second-hand. Otoh I'm not really sure what purpose is being served by keeping the thread updated - my initial idea was to report progress as general information, and also I guess as a means to guarantee that nothing unfortunate happened to my lens if the process wasn’t publicly known. I'm no longer sure whether it’s useful? Anyway, I think some of the drama* being introduced into the thread is unnecessary: it's obvious from the fact that Mr Taylor is too busy to send my lens that his business hasn't been particularly affected, so I hardly think this one experience is ’ruining his reputation’, as some have suggested. Naturally I want the lens back in the same condition it was sent. If that doesn't happen then of course I'll report in this thread. But until then I don't think all the dramatics are really called for. Just for the record again - the canon (rangefinder-coupled) lens needs a specialized conversion, and I've seen a number of examples by DAG that look superb. * For clarity, I mean the both the outrage on my behalf, and the hand-wringing about Mr Taylor's reputation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted February 24, 2014 Share #175 Posted February 24, 2014 Just for the record again - the canon (rangefinder-coupled) lens needs a specialized conversion, and I've seen a number of examples by DAG that look superb. If you're thinking of possibly sending it to the US for conversion, you might also want to consider Ken Ruth in Davenport, California. Canon f 0 Granted, it's been quite a while since I've personally spoke with him (back in my Santa Cruz days; he is just up the coast from Santa Cruz.) But maybe send him an email. He's very skilled and has a stellar reputation for that sort of work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share #176 Posted February 24, 2014 If you're thinking of possibly sending it to the US for conversion... Thanks for the recommendation. As I no longer own a digital M there's less point in converting the lens, as a cheaper and safer option for using it with film is simply buying another Canon 7. I'm torn about doing this or just selling the lens when it comes back. The unfortunate part is that the camera it came with was in pretty much perfect condition, and had a number of accessories that I sold rather cheaply, thinking I'd never have a use for them again... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 24, 2014 Share #177 Posted February 24, 2014 I'm torn about doing this or just selling the lens when it comes back. This is the now worlds most famous Canon 0.95/50 lens. Maybe you can sell it for a very good price Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share #178 Posted February 24, 2014 This is the now worlds most famous Canon 0.95/50 lens. Maybe you can sell it for a very good price I'm thinking it's actually infamous and will probably sell at a discount... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 24, 2014 Share #179 Posted February 24, 2014 I'm thinking it's actually infamous and will probably sell at a discount... Oh, that's right. I forgot it's biohazardous. Perhaps you could try the NIH decontamination technique: put the lens in a room with formaldehyde in an electric frypan and kill everything Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share #180 Posted February 24, 2014 Oh, that's right. I forgot it's biohazardous. Perhaps you could try the NIH decontamination technique: put the lens in a room with formaldehyde in an electric frypan and kill everything Well one thing I'm confident about is that the lens should come back 100% guaranteed free of fungus. Anything else would surely be enormously unprofessional, especially considering it was the mere suggestion of such a thing that got me hell-banned from the Taylor workshop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.