21 SE old and new version; Leica strategy and shop service.

[mleeuwen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

L.S.,

 

In December I purchased a 3.4 21 mm super elmar. Becuase of stiffness of the focussing ring in the near domain, I went back after a month to the store where I bought it (Camera-NU, URK, Netherlands). The service department was very supportive and send the lens back for repair. The lens returned after two weeks with a notice that it had been cleaned. However, to no avail, leaving the people at the shop with little to offer.

 

In Amsterdam, at Nivo-Schweitzer, they showed me the new version of the 21 SE, which did not have the focusing stiffness.

With this info, and with supportive evidence on the web, it became apparent that indeed the first series had a mechanical problem, and that the new version was an answer to this problem.

With this information, Camera-NU was again supportive, offering to send the lens back once more, and claiming a swab for the new lens, clearly up to then not informed on the existence of the two versions of the lens.

 

In the meantime, at Nivo-Schweitzer, Pieter Krigee had already contacted the Leica representative, and offered there and then to swab the lens around for a new one, which was very much appreciated, as I had bought the lens in another part of the country. So, now I am happy, as the new 21 SE has no problem at all with stiffness of the focusing ring.

 

I am posting this note for two reasons:

1. to inform about a high level of commitment to quality and service in two camera shops, and

2. to express my concern that the problem of the first series 21mm SE seems not very well known in the market.

 

I hope that Leica will take the initiative to swab all still available first series 21 SE lenses for the new version, to prevent frustration for customers and for store personnel.

 

Kind regards,

Maarten van Leeuwen, Utrecht

[lars_bergquist]

I got mine early in November, and it was already the new version. There cannot have been very many of the old version delivered, and of these, some no doubt functioned o.k. (the people who tested the advance samples did not notice anything amiss).

 

Even so, if you sent your lens to Solms, they should have swapped the lens for a new one, because the problem was known to them at that time. So I find your experience strange, that is if it actually went to Solms and nowhere else.

 

A thing that strikes me as curious is that he faulty lenses focus o.k. off the camera, but bind when mounted. Did it never occur to anyone to actually test the product under realistic conditions before committing to full production and delivery to customers? I understand that Leica now thinks that they have everything down to a T already in the design stage, but after this experience, I hope that the Gnomes of Solms understand that an occasional reality check is a good idea.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[StephenPatterson]

As someone who was anxiously awaiting this lens in Summer 2011 only to have it recalled before I received it, I would also like to hear how a lens went from design to production and release to the market only to discover a focus binding problem on the M9. If it were the M8 or the M7 I could better understand, but to not have found this problem with a camera that is the current flagship of the M product line seems incredible.

 

I did eventually receive my lens in November 2011, but I would love to know what really happened in Solms. I'm sure the QA department's corrective action reports were many and hopefully will help prevent something like this from happening again.