Jump to content

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


pajamies

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I must say the one I just received back still has the silver rings way deep down near the base of the lens and they where not "returned black".

 

I hope this is not more BS.

 

Weird thing is, the prototype I tried had some silver rings. The lens I first owned had uncoated metal near the back area but no silver inside (AFAICR), and the new one has silver rings deep inside, but none uncoated metal in the front and back.

 

The prototype worked best, but I did see a touch of CVF in one or two photos from the day. My first copy had CVF BAD among other things.. My second copy has ever so slightly better CVF (but it's still not good), but still other issues haven't been corrected.

 

Leica hasn't written me back about my lens yet.. Apparently they're still reviewing my samples (since I didn't feel a need to send CVF samples, but instead sent flare samples where the flare was just out of control). BUT this time, I won't be sending my lens in, I'll be making sure they just send me a totally new full box copy. I'm not going to go without the lens for over a month again.

 

 

On the phone with Leica they're very vague, and try to express the issues very "carefully" but from what I gathered, here are the things they're doing:

 

1) Changing out elements that weren't built to specs (apparently hard for them to get the glass manufactured to have the right qualities).

 

2) reapplying coatings, as they were not coated to spec (so you can dispel the possible rumor, as I was told this).

 

3) Blackening the elements (although it was explained that they were minimizing parts reflectivity, so I'm sure that means blackening).

 

 

HOWEVER: I was told that MY copy needed one element changed out, but then all a sudden they were just going to replace the whole lens.. When I complained, they said they would just replace the group of elements but keep my barrel (serial numbered part). As in, I got a whole new lens, they just retained my serial number outer barrel.

 

So I suspect that they have someone mediocre inspecting the lens elements, then someone really skilled installing the elements, and someone else finishing to barrels and someone testing.

 

 

I'll update as to what happens in the future.. And I'm still planing on doing some comparisons, since I have the means to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 934
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Here is my speculation on the matter perhaps it's fantasy cynicism.

 

So it seems to me that Leica is unable to test its glass until the lens is constructed.

I would say that they have spent a small fortune on the glass and have a large batch and the cost or ability to make some more is prohibitively expensive without knowing if they will have success. Then they have the blackening issue and the metals that were possibly also not to spec on some batches. They can probably only know if they have a good lens after they have constructed it and even then they are under pressure to sell the lens to bring in income and pay for their cost centre as no doubt they are under pressure to fund all their recent expansions and debt. So they release the lenses for sale as there is another cost centre for repair and warranty work perhaps even another department. Many photographers won't bother to go through the pain and suffering and cost of returns and so to discourage them from returning their lens they send back to those guys who did send in their lens for a repair , an un-repaired lens to increase the apathy and get more lenses delaying the repair till later.

 

Basically leica is deliberately sending out lenses some of which they absolutely know are faulty but need the income.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my speculation on the matter perhaps it's fantasy cynicism.

 

So it seems to me that Leica is unable to test its glass until the lens is constructed.

I would say that they have spent a small fortune on the glass and have a large batch and the cost or ability to make some more is prohibitively expensive without knowing if they will have success. Then they have the blackening issue and the metals that were possibly also not to spec on some batches. They can probably only know if they have a good lens after they have constructed it and even then they are under pressure to sell the lens to bring in income and pay for their cost centre as no doubt they are under pressure to fund all their recent expansions and debt. So they release the lenses for sale as there is another cost centre for repair and warranty work perhaps even another department. Many photographers won't bother to go through the pain and suffering and cost of returns and so to discourage them from returning their lens they send back to those guys who did send in their lens for a repair , an un-repaired lens to increase the apathy and get more lenses delaying the repair till later.

 

Basically leica is deliberately sending out lenses some of which they absolutely know are faulty but need the income.

 

 

Hanlon's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Is this CVF or am I imagining it because people tell me it exists?

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

With my copy of this lens I have experienced exactly the same thing, in certain lighting conditions, however not since I put a medium red filter on the lens as a permanent fixture.

The reason for the coloured filter is that the lens is only used on my Monochrom....it seems to have unexpectedly solved the problem as a bandaid solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys is Leica on holiday? Or are they sick of me :D

 

Anyway, I've taken a ton more shots since the lens has come back, and I must say the contrast and color vibrancy has noticeably diminished since the lens has been returned to me. I wasn't sure at first, since I didn't do enough shots to confirm this.. But yea, I'm pretty sure that my old lens was more appealing when flare/ghosting wasn't an issue.

Might all be in my head? Anyone else feel this way?

 

That said, I think I'm going to send EVERYTHING into Leica, since my M240 keeps falling out of focus (second time in three months), and with the 50 Lux, 50 0.95 and 75APO/90APO it's really quite noticeable. The non-lux wides obviously don't suffer unless you're focusing on far objects, which I rarely do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent my 50 APO in for lens flare issue general refurbish on 9/24/13 and received it back today 1/14/14. "The factory has provided the following evaluation sent to quality control department for examination - adjust focusing mechanism optics reflexes, adjust all parts under warranty."

 

I can't compare before and after, as I received my M240 a week after the 50 APO was sent in. At least now, I can enjoy the combo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard from a large US dealer that eventually Leica will want all APO50 retruned to the factory as they now plan to replace every element, but keep the same barrel and serial number for these lenses. Get ready for the rush. What a saga!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard from a large US dealer that eventually Leica will want all APO50 retruned to the factory as they now plan to replace every element, but keep the same barrel and serial number for these lenses. Get ready for the rush. What a saga!

 

There was no mention that any elements were replaced on my 50APO. Just the text shown above in #673. How would one tell if more work was done?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard from a large US dealer that eventually Leica will want all APO50 retruned to the factory as they now plan to replace every element, but keep the same barrel and serial number for these lenses. Get ready for the rush. What a saga!

What if your lens did not have the issue like mine. I would hate to end up with another issue in th end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica has certainly been playing its cards close to its chest on this one and the truth is we know very little. We don't know if it's a design defect, a manufacturing problem which pushes the achievable tolerances to breaking point or what.

 

What we do know is that this lens was announced nearly two years ago and like most recent lens introductions (Noctilux, wide Summiluxes, 21mm Super-Wide Elmar, 35mm Summilux) was late in arriving at all, never mind in quantities to meet demand or else was recalled. It's a deteriorating track record.

 

Common sense suggests they've put the lens on the back burner for now and will revisit it when lens production has moved to Wetzlar and the bugs are out of that process. Meanwhile, some sort of palliative solution can be applied to improve the lens though it still doesn't blow my socks off. I didn't like it on Day 1 (a year ago) and I don't like it now.

 

Maybe then, Leica will introduce a revised version of the lens which they have bothered to test and offer foc exchange to existing owners. They need to, because this lens will forever be an issue - would you buy one secondhand?

 

As for keeping the lens barrels and swapping the elements, it's difficult to see that a no-holds-barred design update would not require at least some changes to these so I would have thought a straight swap was more likely. What Leica will surely want to do is to take as many of the original lenses as possible out of circulation and crush them.

 

Who knows, I might even get another copy of 99 Self-Portaits to add to my growing collection...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...