APO Summicron 50/2 ASPH: Central veiling flare / fogging

[k-hawinkler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Also, flare would be most visible at f/16.

[Peebles]

These guys have been covering this for a while...

 

Trouble with Leica Flagship Summicron? | La Vida Leica!

[marknorton]

According to the latest entry in that link and a separate report from Leica rumours, Leica has admitted there's a problem and invited those affected to return their lens for rework.

 

I have not seen the issue but nor have I been as impressed by the lens as I expected and I'm not going to do Leica's work for them. I'll be returning my lens for them to tell me whether it's working properly. Given the relatively small number of lenses (presumably) in circulation, Leica should issue a general recall for the lens.

 

The problem is that it's not a binary situation - either there or not there. It's a subjective evaluation based on shooting conditions with no reference lens to compare against. My advice to anyone with this lens is to return it and let Leica shoulder their responsibilities.

 

Isn't it also about time that a camera or lens serial number could be used to track back to batches of components and date of manufacture? This haphazard allocation of serial numbers is bizarre and would never be tolerated in the automotive, still less the aerospace, industries.

[algrove]

The article does not say much. You wonder what they did not do on some and did on others that was the cause.

 

Bill-

 

You sending yours in? I recall you did not have flare issues or have they surfaced now?

 

For me I am waiting.

[marknorton]

Waiting for what?

[k-hawinkler]

Waiting for what?

 

 

Maybe LUF posts about successful repairs?

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Waiting for what?

 

Godot

[algrove]

Waiting for what?

 

To see if I can induce flare the way others have.

[semi-ambivalent]

According to the latest entry in that link and a separate report from Leica rumours, Leica has admitted there's a problem and invited those affected to return their lens for rework.

 

I have not seen the issue but nor have I been as impressed by the lens as I expected and I'm not going to do Leica's work for them. I'll be returning my lens for them to tell me whether it's working properly. Given the relatively small number of lenses (presumably) in circulation, Leica should issue a general recall for the lens.

 

The problem is that it's not a binary situation - either there or not there. It's a subjective evaluation based on shooting conditions with no reference lens to compare against. My advice to anyone with this lens is to return it and let Leica shoulder their responsibilities.

 

Isn't it also about time that a camera or lens serial number could be used to track back to batches of components and date of manufacture? This haphazard allocation of serial numbers is bizarre and would never be tolerated in the automotive, still less the aerospace, industries.

 

What's haphazard about it? A database can slice and dice unordered numbers however you want. The need for sequential numbers went out with paper ledger books. I understand what you're saying, but Leica is about tradition if nothing else. (And I wish I had a car that held its value the way Leica lenses appear to. )

[Bill W]

Bill-

 

You sending yours in? I recall you did not have flare issues or have they surfaced now?

 

For me I am waiting.

Not sure at this point. I guess I need to test more with my M9. Color gives a better indication of the issue since you have more contrast. I have mainly been using the APO 50 on my MM with no issues that I can tell. Again, you wonder what they did or did not do on some lens units. I wish they would go into more detail. Leica probably does want a general recall of this lens.

[helged]

Yes, it would be good to know more what the problem is/was, or at least whether it is advisable to send in existing copies of the lens for a check. Although I am on the lucky side; it's impossible for me to tell whether my copy inherit weaknesses that others report. It's also a value issue: If I am going to sell the lens up the road, for any reason, I would like to know that the lens I depart from is on par with new releases of the lens. For the time being I can only say that some of the early copies have problems, and that my copy appears to work fine. For a buyer to spend that amount of money and for me as a seller, “appears to work fine” is far from convincing. So a few official words from Leica to existing owners, please.

[don daniel]

Yes, it would be good to know more what the problem is/was, or at least whether it is advisable to send in existing copies of the lens for a check. Although I am on the lucky side; it's impossible for me to tell whether my copy inherit weaknesses that others report. It's also a value issue: If I am going to sell the lens up the road, for any reason, I would like to know that the lens I depart from is on par with new releases of the lens. For the time being I can only say that some of the early copies have problems, and that my copy appears to work fine. For a buyer to spend that amount of money and for me as a seller, “appears to work fine” is far from convincing. So a few official words from Leica to existing owners, please.

 

Well, it seems to be more reasonable to buy from you than to buy from Leica directly. Because if I buy from you, I can be sure the product has gone through a reliable quality control.

 

Leica, to communicate with just a few customers and let all the rest interpret rumors on the internet does not inspire confidence about the quality of your products!

[marknorton]

What's haphazard about it? A database can slice and dice unordered numbers however you want. The need for sequential numbers went out with paper ledger books. I understand what you're saying, but Leica is about tradition if nothing else. (And I wish I had a car that held its value the way Leica lenses appear to. )

 

The reason it's haphazard is that the serial number apparently tells Leica nothing about whether a particular lens is likely to be affected, in the same way that the serial number of an M Typ 240 told them nothing about whether it had the lug problem. They might as well pick the serial number at random for all the good it does in identifying the component parts or processes the item went through.

 

Some here will continue testing but now we know there are potential manufacturing issues and changes made to the build, why would you not want your lens updated? I have a couple of items to go back to Solms (and might even drop them off personally in a couple of weeks when I am driving to Frankfurt) so will just include the lens.

[lct]

The reason it's haphazard is that the serial number apparently tells Leica nothing about whether a particular lens is likely to be affected, in the same way that the serial number of an M Typ 240 told them nothing about whether it had the lug problem. They might as well pick the serial number at random for all the good it does in identifying the component parts or processes the item went through...

Was the same with the M8's "coffee stain" issue if memory serves. Difficult to believe such lack of organization.

[algrove]

The reason it's haphazard is that the serial number apparently tells Leica nothing about whether a particular lens is likely to be affected, in the same way that the serial number of an M Typ 240 told them nothing about whether it had the lug problem.

 

Mark- Not sure you're correct about the M240. I had registered mine and received repeated emails that its lug nuts would be needing repair which was eventually accomplished. Remember they said all m240's sold after, I believe, 5 April were OK.

[helged]

I had registered mine and received repeated emails that its lug nuts would be needing repair which was eventually accomplished.

 

And I received an email from Leica mentioning the lug-problem, but also stating that my M240 should be fine (which was/is the case). The email from Leica was based on purchase and registration at leica.com in June. So it looks like Solms know whats being made when, and which series numbers are - potentially - off.

[marknorton]

Mark- Not sure you're correct about the M240. I had registered mine and received repeated emails that its lug nuts would be needing repair which was eventually accomplished. Remember they said all m240's sold after, I believe, 5 April were OK.

 

Indeed, but they based their assessment of whether the camera needed fixing on sale date, not serial no. At no point did they mention serial no ranges which suggests they did not know the affected ranges of serial nos.

 

This is anyway off topic and so far as the lens is concerned, we can only be certain that new restarted production will be clear. Existing lenses may exhibit the problem.

 

You can do what you want, mine is going back to Solms. If Leica deem that no repair is required, that's fine, but at least the lens will then have been evaluated by Leica, not me. If you think your lens evaluation skills exceed those of Leica, you will want to perform your own assessment and act accordingly.

[Chuck Albertson]

Here's a link to the bit on Leica Rumors:

 

Leica's CEO confirms flare issues with the APO Summicron 50mm f/2.0 Asph lens | Leica News & Rumors

 

I don't own one.

[semi-ambivalent]

The reason it's haphazard is that the serial number apparently tells Leica nothing about whether a particular lens is likely to be affected, in the same way that the serial number of an M Typ 240 told them nothing about whether it had the lug problem. They might as well pick the serial number at random for all the good it does in identifying the component parts or processes the item went through.

 

Some here will continue testing but now we know there are potential manufacturing issues and changes made to the build, why would you not want your lens updated? I have a couple of items to go back to Solms (and might even drop them off personally in a couple of weeks when I am driving to Frankfurt) so will just include the lens.

 

So Leica assigns blocks of sequential numbers to assemblers, who are told to use these numbers in order as they work. The assemblers would have to make the same (e.g. lug) mistake every time and then stop. That way there would be concurrence between blocks of serial numbers and blocks of assemblies with the same problem. Not likely to happen.

 

To the extent that I have followed e.g., the lug problem, it is serious, it is real but it is not universal, unlike the M bodies getting those lugs and the lugs themselves. They are all the same (until they are changed as part of a solution). This is probably a weak point in design but mostly an issue with a small number of assembler's methodology. Some do fine and others do something that makes that body prone to loose lugs. Extremely sequential numbers only help if the problem is design. If the problem is assembly then you'd have to tie that serial number to an assembler as much as a camera. Databases can do that too, whether the numbers are very sequential or utterly random. Leica needs to take your advice and go 'very-sequential' or stay the course and go 'very-computer' to better their product flow. Right now they might have one foot on the dock and the other in the boat.

 

Sequential serial numbers make it easy for collectors and forum members to talk about when this or that feature appeared in a camera or lens but they are not necessary, these days, to build or sell cameras and lenses. I believe Leica randomizes exposure counts in the M240, correct? I'm sure some find that annoying as all get-out but you still see your images do you not?

 

Regards,

s-a

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[marknorton]

Yawn. I do not understand the point you are trying - and failing - to make.

 

We do not know the detail of why the lug problem occurred but let's say a new worker worked on the line for two weeks and forgot to use Loctite on the screws. If the first camera he worked on was X and the last camera was Y, if cameras are produced in serial number sequence, then all Leica had to do was recall cameras X to Y.

 

As it was, they had to recall those produced before a certain date, even if it knew some would be OK and serial number was of no help in determining which cameras were likely to be faulty and they ended up recalling more cameras than they needed to.