AF Drive Problems Leica S Lenses: Official Statement by Leica

[Brewster]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 New lenses that were stiff or moved a lot of elements failed early .  The 120 and 24 failed frequently when brand new . 

 

This, of course, makes a lot of sense. I wonder if it is why the 350 never found its way to the dealers shelves.

[Guest VVJ]

 

This, of course, makes a lot of sense. I wonder if it is why the 350 never found its way to the dealers shelves.

 

IMHO the S user group is probably too small...

 

If Leica was convinced that they could sell new lenses in sufficient quantities they would be churning them out... now the last lens announcement dates from 2014...

 

The T/TL has exactly the same problem.  Leica stopped after 6 lenses... not enough demand, not enough sales...

Edited April 7, 2017 by JorisV

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[djmay]

I understand the strong emotions expressed by those who had bad experiences. I had my share of bad experiences as well, however, Leica responded in a manner that convinced me to stay with the S.

 

A few comments:

1. Although the bad experiences caused substantial pain to the owners, the quantity of responses to the announcement seems low, whether negative or positive. Either I am missing something or it has not been perceived as big news.

2. I suppose the 5-year statement is driven by the legal department; unlimited timeframe would not pass legal risk review. I also suppose that a measurement is behind it as well, meaning that the history of failures indicates 5 years will cover the failures.

3. The failures affected a minority of lenses produced. I know this from conversations with Leica. I am not at liberty to repeat any more detail.

4. Like all manufacturers, Leica depends on a supply chain. The failure was in the supply chain, which has been changed to deliver the proven solution.

5. Because Leica will presumably charge about USD 400 for a pre-emptive upgrade, it cannot be assumed that the cost to Leica is USD 400. I would suggest that the cost is much more. Think about how much labor USD 400 would pay for in Germany. Not much, and there are parts in addition. If Leica were your company, would you pre-emptively upgrade all lenses, knowing that a limited number had a failure-prone component?

 

Everyone has to make their own decision. I have decided to stay with the S and ordered another lens (Super Elmar-S 24) yesterday.

 

Jesse

Edited April 7, 2017 by djmay

[R3D-D0T]

"3. The failures affected a minority of lenses produced. I know this from conversations with Leica. I am not at liberty to repeat any more detail."

 

Sounds like you were very well taken care of so that they wouldn't lose you as a customer

[xiaubauu2009]

I understand the strong emotions expressed by those who had bad experiences. I had my share of bad experiences as well, however, Leica responded in a manner that convinced me to stay with the S.

 

A few comments:

1. Although the bad experiences caused substantial pain to the owners, the quantity of responses to the announcement seems low, whether negative or positive. Either I am missing something or it has not been perceived as big news.

2. I suppose the 5-year statement is driven by the legal department; unlimited timeframe would not pass legal risk review. I also suppose that a measurement is behind it as well, meaning that the history of failures indicates 5 years will cover the failures.

3. The failures affected a minority of lenses produced. I know this from conversations with Leica. I am not at liberty to repeat any more detail.

4. Like all manufacturers, Leica depends on a supply chain. The failure was in the supply chain, which has been changed to deliver the proven solution.

5. Because Leica will presumably charge about USD 400 for a pre-emptive upgrade, it cannot be assumed that the cost to Leica is USD 400. I would suggest that the cost is much more. Think about how much labor USD 400 would pay for in Germany. Not much, and there are parts in addition. If Leica were your company, would you pre-emptively upgrade all lenses, knowing that a limited number had a failure-prone component?

 

Everyone has to make their own decision. I have decided to stay with the S and ordered another lens (Super Elmar-S 24) yesterday.

 

Jesse

 

 

Jesse, I don't believe the 3. you have just made. Cause if it's minority, then the sample of my collection with a fail rate of about 30~40% on the lens AF motor, I don't consider minority... and there's quite a lot of the forum user has express similar or even worse fail rate.

remember minority can also means 49.99% if you really want to dig into it....

 

Anyway, like you said, all these grief is just from bad experience with the S, that's all. Nothing against the brand. Every Leica camera in the digital age has have some issue or sort. Maybe they are just not that good in electronics domain....

[LeicaS2]

I'm fine with the policy.

They fixed my 120 very fast for free and it was over five years old.

I suspect if my 24 fails after 5 and a half years they will fix it for free. They just don't want someone in seven years saying fix it for free. I suspect if your lens is suspect and you are using it, it will go soon.

And $400 is very reasonable for a lens that may have cost as much as $9000.

If I were going to Iceland I would preemptively send my other lenses in very fast to get to the front of the line.

 

No I don't work for Leica. The camera works for me.

[EoinC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...

4. Like all manufacturers, Leica depends on a supply chain. The failure was in the supply chain, which has been changed to deliver the proven solution.

...

This is a statement from Leica? That would mean that the material specification was not complied with. How does that tie in with them creating a new specification to replace the failing item?

[mwilliamsphotography]

I understand the strong emotions expressed by those who had bad experiences. I had my share of bad experiences as well, however, Leica responded in a manner that convinced me to stay with the S.

 

Jesse, staying with the S has NOT been in question for me despite the incredible failure rate I've experienced in the past 2 years of my well over 5 year S system ownership ... and Leica's slow response ... and Leica's even slower/unreliable service ... and the lack of communication.  

 

A few comments:

1. Although the bad experiences caused substantial pain to the owners, the quantity of responses to the announcement seems low, whether negative or positive. Either I am missing something or it has not been perceived as big news.

 

You are assuming everyone affected is vocal on this site, or stayed with the S long enough to get to this point. The owners that stayed the course have availed themselves of the goodwill fix already being done by Leica ... however, that wasn't a permanent solution one can count on as evidenced by some multiple failures of the same lens.

 

The "GOOD NEWS" here is that a permanent fix is now "official" (which most of us loyal S owners were confident was coming) ... but the BIG BAD NEWS is that the fix is retro to 5 years from new purchase.   

 

2. I suppose the 5-year statement is driven by the legal department; unlimited timeframe would not pass legal risk review. I also suppose that a measurement is behind it as well, meaning that the history of failures indicates 5 years will cover the failures.

 

5 years from new purchase leaves loyal earlier adopters like me holding the bag. It should be 5 years from this announcement for the original owner. If it is true that that the incidence of failure is low, coupled to "original owner", then Leica's exposure should be very low. 

 

3. The failures affected a minority of lenses produced. I know this from conversations with Leica. I am not at liberty to repeat any more detail.

 

Again, if the percentage of lenses affected is low, why punish the loyal original owner who bought into the S lens system before the 5 year cut off date this official statement inflicts on them?  As it is currently worded, no owner of a S lens bought used has any recourse other than to pay for the new fix either preemptively or after a failure. That should considerably reduce Leica's exposure. 

 

4. Like all manufacturers, Leica depends on a supply chain. The failure was in the supply chain, which has been changed to deliver the proven solution.

 

This assumes the new AF fix is a permanent one. After all the launch hype about the S system followed by so many failures with the firmware upgrade, we will have to give them the benefit of the doubt, and hope it is fixed long term.

 

5. Because Leica will presumably charge about USD 400 for a pre-emptive upgrade, it cannot be assumed that the cost to Leica is USD 400. I would suggest that the cost is much more. Think about how much labor USD 400 would pay for in Germany. Not much, and there are parts in addition. If Leica were your company, would you preemptively upgrade all lenses, knowing that a limited number had a failure-prone component?

 

Not asking for a preemptive "recall" upgrade to every lens they made. 

 

I'm not suggesting that a blanket warranty until the end of time be initiated. Simply that those of us who bought into the system, and paid dearly for new lenses at Leica prices, be covered against a fault we had no control over and certainly did not expect when purchasing such premium products touted as professional grade and peerless in performance.

 

I've invested over $45,000. in new Leica CS lenses and the S100mm on top of two S cameras and plenty of pricey accessories.  It is the centerpiece of my work flow.  

 

Everyone has to make their own decision. I have decided to stay with the S and ordered another lens (Super Elmar-S 24) yesterday.

 

Hope it has the new AF fix : -)

 

Jesse

 

 

See my responses above.

 

- Marc

[erlingmm]

I also have a large investment in the S system, S007 (after S2, S006), 6 lenses.

I have stayed, hoping for and expected a solution. Since I have a handful of lenses, I have not been unable to work even when 1 lens has failed.

 

I have sent in 5 lenses for pre-emptive repair (the 24 is already on new solution).

 

I positively know from discussions with my dealer that a new AF motor is available that is thoroughly tested.

 

I travel with my system, and want to feel confident about it. The cost of repair is approximately what I pay in insurance for 1 year.

 

I can live with that, finally I can trust the system.

 

And if I want to sell a lens, I expect to recoup the costs of pre-emptive repair, after all is is a low cost compared to the prices of S-lenses.

Edited April 8, 2017 by erlingmm

[AB007]

I'll contact Leica NJ tomorrow. My Summarit 35 needs repairs.

[alan.y]

3. The failures affected a minority of lenses produced. I know this from conversations with Leica. I am not at liberty to repeat any more detail.

 

Does this ride on a technical definition of "minority" as under 50%? 

[JeffWright]

I'll contact Leica NJ tomorrow. My Summarit 35 needs repairs.

 

 

Do yourself a favor and skip Leica NJ. Ship straight to Germany, much faster turn around and much better communication. Leica USA remains dysfunctional.

[djmay]

Does this ride on a technical definition of "minority" as under 50%?

No. I would not be adding a lens if that were the case. The Super Elmar-S 24 arrived today.

Jesse

 

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850L using Tapatalk

[proenca]

I understand that some people are angry about being the 400 euros/usd per lens, but to be fairly honest, I find the fee very very reasonable. 

 

my question is much more pertinent ( to me ) 

 

if I buy a S lens used, that does not have the warranty card stamped, how are the 5 years calculated ? because you can have two lens, with similar serial numbers and one is sold once it arrives at the store and another after a few years. 

 

Im curious... since I do not see Leica asking the store "hey man, when did you sold this lens with this serial number". 

[Alo Ako]

... since I do not see Leica asking the store "hey man, when did you sold this lens with this serial number". 

 

Maybe they ask you for a copy of the receipt....

Edited April 16, 2017 by Alo Ako

[proenca]

Maybe they ask you for a copy of the receipt....

 

 

I have quite a few M lenses, most of them bought used. Only one came with the original purchase receipt. 

 

I'm about to buy a S006 +70mm+30mm and I suspect that neither have their original receipt. So if the lens fails and warranty cards are not stamped, how it will work ? 

[Alo Ako]

I think, only Leica knows the answer. You should ask them before your next purchase of used equipment.

[Jeff S]

I have quite a few M lenses, most of them bought used. Only one came with the original purchase receipt.

 

I'm about to buy a S006 +70mm+30mm and I suspect that neither have their original receipt. So if the lens fails and warranty cards are not stamped, how it will work ?

 

I and others have already raised the question of when the clock starts ticking. Just one of many reasons the policy is stupid.

 

Jeff

Edited April 17, 2017 by Jeff S

[hoppyman]

I have quite a few M lenses, most of them bought used. Only one came with the original purchase receipt. 

 

I'm about to buy a S006 +70mm+30mm and I suspect that neither have their original receipt. So if the lens fails and warranty cards are not stamped, how it will work ? 

Perhaps ask Leica S service in Wetzlar? Everyone on the forum is only guessing, not the authority of course. The (5 year limit) policy is only very new. As far as I am aware we haven't seen a single report of an AF fail rejected as warranty work so far.

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by hoppyman

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[leicapages]

2. I suppose the 5-year statement is driven by the legal department; unlimited timeframe would not pass legal risk review. I also suppose that a measurement is behind it as well, meaning that the history of failures indicates 5 years will cover the failures.

 

 

That's an interesting point. I had been thinking about that earlier and, in fact, depending on your legal system, the situation may actually be quite differerent. This AF defect is clearly known to the manufacturer and documented by the many cases that we have witnesses here. As such it clearly constitutes a hidden defect, inherent to a flawed design or built. It does fall upon the manufacturer to remedy for a hidden defect, which affects the well-functioning of the lens. Depending on where you live and what your legal system is, you may be eligible to a remedy without the five year time limit, in a reasonable time period from the moment when you discover the hidden defect (and not from the moment of original sale).