Jump to content

APO 50mm Summicron Flare Issue


ivohula

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK keenr but we have two colleagues from Calgary here asking the same kind of question. It's great but it is a bit confusing as well sorry again. Now how many copies of this lens do you have now? One i guess right? Then this lens has been bought new by you, i guess, so it is a new lens. And this lens has been made in April 2015 according to your guarantee card. So if you have to sell it one day or another you can prove easily this date can't you. I would forget about serial numbers, they mean nothing in general and especially in this case given that some lenses coming from earlier batches have been fixed by Leica and others not for whatever reason. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

lct, sorry but I can't follow your rationale.

 

I can however, assure you

the member who initiated this thread is not a colleague (coworker, teamate, acquaintance). At least not yet. ☺

 

I would urge you to look beyond geography, as this issue was raised before this thread started...by numerous loyal-Leica members across the globe. I being one of them.

 

If you will however, please help me understand how a brand new 50 Apo, assuming your rationale (older sn, but 2015 date stamped on warranty card) can or should exhibit flare. Wasnt this issue resolved back in late 2013? I returned the lens and was told it was a QC problem.

 

Is it a qc issue with the current production-line build or is it that older builds with the original flare issue slipped by the careful qc check and are only now surfacing on the market? Albeit with an added date stamp on the warranty card.

 

Nonetheless, I'm simply echo what appears to be a recurring question by other global members.

 

And if you are so lucky to get a flare-free version which i now own. I believe it is just as sharp as the flare-prone version.☺

Edited by keenr
Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] If you will however, please help me understand how a brand new 50 Apo, assuming your rationale (older sn, but 2015 date stamped on warranty card) can or should exhibit flare. Wasnt this issue resolved back in late 2013? I returned the lens and was told it was a QC problem. [...] And if you are so lucky to get a flare-free version which i now own. I believe it is just as sharp as the original.

 

Please forgive this old french lawyer, geography aside, but the lens is well known for having had flare problems from the beginning. The technical origin of the problem is not clearly known but Leica did fix it according to their statement and the testimony of users like you and me. Now your first copy was affected by this issue. This first copy had a serial number 04189xxx. You asked for a replacement and Leica did replace it by a different copy wearing a different serial number beginning by 04189 as well. This replacement copy is a new lens, having no defect and wearing a serial number very close to that of your first copy. You got it for free did not you. You could have asked for a refund if you wished but you did not and you were quite right IMO because this lens has no equivalent, at least among the many 50mm lenses i've used in 30+ years. Now what are you complaining about exactly if i may ask? I ask you this question in good faith because i don't understand your problem but i may be wrong so i count on you to enlighten me if needed. B)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi lct, please let's not confuse a members intent to 'inform' or 'inquire' by implying he/she is complaining.

 

Let's take the high road and help educate or share fact and or opinion.

 

 

That being said,

 

Please help me understand my previous inquiry following again with your date stamp rationale:

 

Specific to the 50 APO, is the 'new' date stamp introduced of late on warranty cards meant to suggest the build date, or is it to indicate when the lens is released into the market?

 

If the former and per my experience, then any APO 50 (2015 version inclusive) may be prone to flare (hence, buyer beware and test like I did).

 

If the latter which is what I tend to believe, then the serial number is the true indicator of build date which implies that a 04189 lens is most likely a 2013 build. And ironically, one indeed slipped past qc before being sold in May/2015 to me. ☺

 

Which of the two scenarios just described would you be most inclined to believe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see that you don't complain but if the lens were built in 2013, which is difficult to prove but is quite possible, it has been rebuilt in 2015 to fix the issue so you've got a new lens anyway and it is especially blessed for having been caressed twice by the white gloves of our beloved Leica quality controllers. ;)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Here is an update on my APO 50mm Summicron, Serial No. 04189xxx, date on test certificate was April 27, 2015. After testing this lens, I found it to be quite flare prone in the portrait orientation, but not in the landscape orientation. 

 

Went back to the dealer with this info, my concerns and the info on this blog. I decided to return my first copy and to try to get a "new" copy, this being a copy with a current serial number. I also asked my dealer to dig deep into the Leica mindset to get some info on this serial number vs. date issue.

 

My dealer came to me and said that Leica confirmed to them that my serial number had "never been in North America before June 2015". That is all they would disclose, despite going high up the management chain in NJ. As a lawyer, this implies that this lens HAD been elsewhere, Europe, Asia??, before coming to North America and was supposedly fixed and sent to North America. I believe the old serial number did mean 2013 production as Leica could have said this was a new lens made in 2015 if that was the case. They passed.

 

Today I received a new APO 50mm Summicron, Serial No. 045807xx with the date of May 26, 2015 on the test certificate. I also bought a new 21mm Lux, Serial No. 045846xx with the date of May 29, 2015. 

 

Will test the new APO this weekend and let you all know how it works. I prey for a flare free weekend.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an update on my APO 50mm Summicron, Serial No. 04189xxx, date on test certificate was April 27, 2015. After testing this lens, I found it to be quite flare prone in the portrait orientation, but not in the landscape orientation. 

 

Went back to the dealer with this info, my concerns and the info on this blog. I decided to return my first copy and to try to get a "new" copy, this being a copy with a current serial number. I also asked my dealer to dig deep into the Leica mindset to get some info on this serial number vs. date issue.

 

My dealer came to me and said that Leica confirmed to them that my serial number had "never been in North America before June 2015". That is all they would disclose, despite going high up the management chain in NJ. As a lawyer, this implies that this lens HAD been elsewhere, Europe, Asia??, before coming to North America and was supposedly fixed and sent to North America. I believe the old serial number did mean 2013 production as Leica could have said this was a new lens made in 2015 if that was the case. They passed.

 

Today I received a new APO 50mm Summicron, Serial No. 045807xx with the date of May 26, 2015 on the test certificate. I also bought a new 21mm Lux, Serial No. 045846xx with the date of May 29, 2015. 

 

Will test the new APO this weekend and let you all know how it works. I prey for a flare free weekend.

Interesting results and identical to my findings of a APO 50mm Summicron sold as NEW to me in May, 2015 with a similar serial # in the 04189xxx range.

 

Lucky that you received a replacement APO 50mm Summicron with a NEWER Serial Number in the 0458xxxx range. Unlucky for me as my 04189xxx flare-proned version was replaced with another 04189xxx serial number despite urging both my NY dealer and Leica NJ for a NEWER 0458xxxx serial number..

 

Of these 04189xxx copies, how many were first released in 2013, repaired then only now entering the market as a NEW lens? And, how many more have slipped through QC like yours and mine, produced in 2013 but not properly repaired?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Flare was not a Quality Control issue ...... it was a design issue ..... and the lens was modified to eliminate the issue.

 

2. Leica frequently sets aside batch numbers for specific product lines .... and when they are used up the jump to a new batch. You can have 2 lenses with sequential numbers which are many months apart ...... or with numbers that are miles apart but made only days apart. The parts with the serial numbers are batch made and batch coded ....... the lens/camera is NOT given a code as it is made ...... only a coded part that may have been in the parts bin for months or years ..... and not necessarily used in number order either. 

 

3. As a consequence you can infer very little from the code number. It is only recently that Leica started to use a manufacture date on the packaging. There is no reason to disbelieve it. 

 

4. There have been no complaints of 'abnormal' flare or central veiling in recent times .... and with such an expensive lens you would have heard it here very quickly. 

 

5. All lenses flare to some extent given the wrong circumstances ...... expecting zero in all usage is expecting miracles. There will always be the occasional rogue ..... but Leica will repair, and invariably replace if customers are unhappy

Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Flare was not a Quality Control issue ...... it was a design issue ..... and the lens was modified to eliminate the issue.

 

2. Leica frequently sets aside batch numbers for specific product lines .... and when they are used up the jump to a new batch. You can have 2 lenses with sequential numbers which are many months apart ...... or with numbers that are miles apart but made only days apart. The parts with the serial numbers are batch made and batch coded ....... the lens/camera is NOT given a code as it is made ...... only a coded part that may have been in the parts bin for months or years ..... and not necessarily used in number order either. 

 

3. As a consequence you can infer very little from the code number. It is only recently that Leica started to use a manufacture date on the packaging. There is no reason to disbelieve it. 

 

4. There have been no complaints of 'abnormal' flare or central veiling in recent times .... and with such an expensive lens you would have heard it here very quickly. 

 

5. All lenses flare to some extent given the wrong circumstances ...... expecting zero in all usage is expecting miracles. There will always be the occasional rogue ..... but Leica will repair, and invariably replace if customers are unhappy

 

 

#1 - My first copy produced consistent, 'abnormal' flare. To the extent that I was told it was a QC issue and promptly replaced with another copy. So, some lenses have not been resolved of the issue as reported in this thread. 

 

#2 and #3 - Is this just an APO 50 Summicron phenomenon (jumping from 41xxxxxx - 45xxxxxx within weeks in 2015)?  I just acquired a new 35 fle with a 45xxxxxx serial number, another member in this thread recently acquired both a 21 lux with 45xxxxx serial number and a replacement APO 50 with a 45xxxxxx serial number.

 

#4 -  Hmm...Two reported cases of new APO 50's producing abnormal flaring in this thread alone. However, both cases are with serial numbers starting with 41xxxxxx, I presume you mean no complaints from serial numbers > 45xxxxxx? 

 

#5 - I agree...but 'abnormal' flare should be next to none from a from a lens of this stature, assuming the design issue was resolved in 2013.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

#1 - My first copy produced consistent, 'abnormal' flare. To the extent that I was told it was a QC issue and promptly replaced with another copy. So, some lenses have not been resolved of the issue as reported in this thread. 

 

#2 and #3 - Is this just an APO 50 Summicron phenomenon (jumping from 41xxxxxx - 45xxxxxx within weeks in 2015)?  I just acquired a new 35 fle with a 45xxxxxx serial number, another member in this thread recently acquired both a 21 lux with 45xxxxx serial number and a replacement APO 50 with a 45xxxxxx serial number.

 

#4 -  Hmm...Two reported cases of new APO 50's producing abnormal flaring in this thread alone. However, both cases are with serial numbers starting with 41xxxxxx, I presume you mean no complaints from serial numbers > 45xxxxxx? 

 

#5 - I agree...but 'abnormal' flare should be next to none from a from a lens of this stature, assuming the design issue was resolved in 2013.

 

 Design issues and quality control issues are separate problems ....... the design issue was corrected. As stated .... the occasional rogue escapes from Wetzlar .... but they must be few and far between as there has been silence on the 50 Apo flare problem for a long time.

 

As explained above ...... the coded parts (one part of the barrel in the case of lenses) are made in batches ...... when they are all used up another batch is made with a separate new block of serial numbers .... eventually Leica ran out of 41XXX bits and then started on new batches, one of which was subsequently  coded 45XXX onwards. Bear in mind that lens production is not continuous ...... they make maybe 500 of one lens, stockpile them, then move onto maybe 1000 of another. The Noctilux production was delegated to a small number of specialist technicians as it was very demanding and critical ...... and from descriptions of the 50 apo the assembly is very difficult indeed as tolerances are minimal ... so I suspect it follows a similar line to the Noctilux. 

 

Here is a page from Puts Leica Pocket-Pod that lists all the dates associated with various lenses for the last year that Leica gave details from their stock-book ...... it gives you an idea of how it worked ........ it lists the serial numbers and batch numbers for each lens .......since then they have not released any info and it is very difficult to infer anything from the numbers .......

 

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!

 

 

My Apo 50 was one of the first batch after they restarted production ...... 423xxxx ......... and is fine

My M-P from last year is 4906xxx ....... M246 4930xxx ...... Q is 4931xxx ....... and 11-23 T lens is 441XXXX ....... and so it goes on ..... unless you have access to the stock ledger from Wetzlar the numbering will remain mostly a mystery ...... :rolleyes:

Edited by thighslapper
Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on your inside knowledge, "your 423xxxx was one of the first batch after they restarted production", that would suggest my 4189xxx was built before production restarted. It would be safe to say then, my 4189xxxx was likely fixed for the flare issue, then released into the Market and sold as NEW in May 2015.

Edited by keenr
Link to post
Share on other sites

My preference all along (including good iq) has been to purchase in 2015 a 2015 factory built 50 APO. Not a 2012/13 version, possibly shelved then and/or since retrofitted.

 

Simply stating the obvious, if investing in 2015 in a 8kusd lens, one would prefer a most recent factory built product,ie: sn >4499xxx

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

errr...... as I explained ...... only the barrel has a number on it ....... Leica are not going to throw them away ....... the inside of the lens and the glass may be brand spanking new, but if they used an existing spare barrel with an out of sequence number it does not make it an old lens.

 

That is why relying on the serial numbers is entirely misleading ... they are not always consecutive and are only way of Leica cataloguing stock..... not buyers ascertaining the manufacture date of the lens. (*)

 

As far as anyone can ascertain the modifications involved one lens element (probably the coating) and more extensive blacking of the interior components. Nothing else changed at all. 

 

For get the effing numbers ....... they cannot be relied on to tell the manufacture date of any Leica product post 2005. 

 

(*) this nonsense led to the entirely spurious conclusion that there was a 3rd version of the Tri-Elmar 28/35/50 ...... and this argument went on here on the forum for over a year .... until it became apparent it was a result of the discontinuity in the batches serial numbers rather than a modified lens. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...