Csacwp Posted February 19, 2018 Share #1 Posted February 19, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) My dealer just sent me a replacement 280mm Apo f/4 for the one that had fungus in it. This newer one is fungus-free but has cleaning marks on the front element. It also came with a bill of sale from Leica for a CLA that occurred in 2014 which details:"Clean lube and adjust haze/coating degradation. The factory has provided the following evaluation: Clean optics as well as possible, some residue will remain******** Adjust focusing ring clean optics, adjust all parts" The lens smells a little moldy. Should I be concerned about the haze/coating degradation that was apparently repaired? I'm not sure what residue they are referring to when they say that some will remain. Just to be clear, this lens was sold as being in excellent condition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 19, 2018 Posted February 19, 2018 Hi Csacwp, Take a look here CLA question. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Csacwp Posted February 19, 2018 Author Share #2 Posted February 19, 2018 I should clarify that I don’t see anything particularly wrong with the glass, but I’m not an expert. There is a fair amount of dust and one hairline scratch on the front element (the one below the protective element). The aperture blades and free of oil and the glass looks clear to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McGarrett Posted February 19, 2018 Share #3 Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) I'd send it back again... I mean, probably it's just fine (the tiny mark on the front element means nothing, I would be more concerned about the coating degradation, if it's minimal it's a not problem, otherwise might be...), but, you see, if they say it was mint and you've paid accordingly to that... Edited February 19, 2018 by Steve McGarrett Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masjah Posted February 19, 2018 Share #4 Posted February 19, 2018 I would check the grading terminology of the dealer. With some dealers, "excellent" means just that, whereas with others there's mint (M),M-, excellent++ (E++), E+, and E. All very confusing really. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csacwp Posted February 19, 2018 Author Share #5 Posted February 19, 2018 I just went and tested the lens on my SL. I used a tripod and shot subjects at varying distances, and to make things interesting I also took shots with my 90mm Apo-Summicron M at f/4. I found that the 90mm is sharper and resolves more detail, and that the colors are nearly identical between the two lenses. I was under the impression that the 280mm Apo f/4 should out-perform and out-resolve the 90 Apo, so maybe there is something wrong with the lens that is preventing it from achieving its maximum performance? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted February 20, 2018 Share #6 Posted February 20, 2018 ...The factory has provided the following evaluation: Clean optics as well as possible, some residue will remain******** Adjust focusing ring clean optics, adjust all parts" ... Over the years I had several lenses cleaned by Leica in Solms, and the above quoted evaluation is what they always say. I guess they say what they say for liability reasons. With some older lenses, it will not be possible to clean them to the fullest extent, which is why they indicate 'some residue will remain'. However, that does not mean that some residue will in fact remain, but merely that in some cases some residue may remain. So if your lens is clean, everything is fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csacwp Posted February 20, 2018 Author Share #7 Posted February 20, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) It looks clean, but both my 90 apo and 75 Summilux are noticeably sharper and higher-resolving at f/4, so I think something is wrong with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 20, 2018 Share #8 Posted February 20, 2018 Post the photos for some opinions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csacwp Posted February 20, 2018 Author Share #9 Posted February 20, 2018 I can share the raw files as a we transfer download. I’ll do so in a moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csacwp Posted February 20, 2018 Author Share #10 Posted February 20, 2018 Here are download links to the raw files. The 280mm and 90mm were both shot on an SL on a tripod at f/4. As a bonus, I've added a link to download a shot from the 75mm Summilux, handheld and taken at f/4 (but from a few days ago). 280mm Apo f/4 @ f/4: https://we.tl/0Dg8vEsAyX 90mm Apo-Summicron Asph M @ f/4: https://we.tl/9qL6Ug1M0m 75mm Summilux M @ f/4: https://we.tl/vJoP4lxPnJWhile sharp, I found this copy of the 280mm Apo underwhelming compared to the 90 Apo. It seems to be about equal in sharpness to the 75 lux at f/4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McGarrett Posted February 20, 2018 Share #11 Posted February 20, 2018 It's too hard for me to compare sharpness of pictures that are different from each other. We're splitting hairs here, we're not talking about a razor sharp lens vs an unsharp one, so I think a good old brick wall would be better suited for this... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tritentrue Posted February 20, 2018 Share #12 Posted February 20, 2018 Here are download links to the raw files. The 280mm and 90mm were both shot on an SL on a tripod at f/4. As a bonus, I've added a link to download a shot from the 75mm Summilux, handheld and taken at f/4 (but from a few days ago). 280mm Apo f/4 @ f/4: https://we.tl/0Dg8vEsAyX Looking at the above 2 files at 200%, there's nothing wrong with your lens. In each image, the section that's in focus is sharp. However, in each instance, I'd guess the plane of focus isn't where you intended it to be. The SL offers decent manual focusing cues. Using the SL and the 280mm f/4 at closer distances, peaking cues that occur either in front of or behind the intended focal plane (or both) can sometimes be deceptive. Peaking, magnification, and a bit of extra care are all required in order to fully exploit the sharpness of this lens on the SL. I now use an a7r ii with this lens, and I have to use both peaking and second-level magnification to get the most out of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csacwp Posted February 21, 2018 Author Share #13 Posted February 21, 2018 I didn't use peaking- I zoomed in and focused right on the eye. Just to be sure that I got on in perfect focus, I took about 20 shots and bracketed. The focal plane is right on the eye in those photos... I just think that the 90 Apo out-resolves this particular copy of the 280mm Apo. It's pretty clear when looking at details like the eyebrows and cornea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tritentrue Posted February 21, 2018 Share #14 Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) Look at the near side of the subject's mouth in the first photo and the backpack strap at mid-chest in the second . . . The eyebrows and cornea are not in focus in either shot. Edited February 21, 2018 by tritentrue Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted February 21, 2018 Share #15 Posted February 21, 2018 The 2 photos have little contrast. They are ok, I think. Focussing is not the question either. Isn´t it in this case better to chose a landscape example? With high contrasts, perhaps causing flare? The problem area is the frontlens (cleaning marks, hairline). Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted February 21, 2018 Share #16 Posted February 21, 2018 Forget Leica "service" for this lens. My dealer had a 280/4 APO with internal haze that he sent to me for evaluation. Turns out the internal haze resulted in a loss of contrast, so he instructed me to send it to Leica USA for cleaning (at his expense). It returned with the same internal haze, same loss of contrast. I then sent it to DAG who returned the lens minus the haze, at lower cost and shorter turnaround, and its performance is now everything I expect it to be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csacwp Posted February 21, 2018 Author Share #17 Posted February 21, 2018 So maybe the copy I had had lower contrast than it should have. I took many more photos with it including some shots of leaves. At f/4 and minimum focusing distance, my 90 apo (cropped to match the 280mm field of view at mfd) was far sharper than the 280mm and had a more vibrant color reproduction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now