Astounded and livid at the advice I have received from Leica CS

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In spite of the buffoonery that Wilson has had to endure, I still find myself longing for a CL kit - with the 18/2.8 lens rather than the 18-56. 

 

It's a shame that Leica has created such a brilliant little camera and has at the same time embarrassed themselves in this manner.

Ummm... There is a reason that lenses have no obligation to carry a sell-by date . I think the deterioration argument is spurious - these things are built to withstand decades of use.

[Advertisement]

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

[earleygallery]

C'mon, people.  Given two alternatives -- have a lot of nice lenses and develop the new CL to sell them, or introduce the new CL and then sit down to develop some new lenses over the coming few years... Which would you choose?

 

And remember that Leica's practice has been to assign numbers before they make cameras or lenses, so we don't even know how old the lenses really are.  Let's get real. 

 

OK, get real. Leica told Wilson his lens was made in 2014. I think from that we can deduce that it was made in 2014.

[Herr Barnack]

 

Ummm... There is a reason that lenses have no obligation to carry a sell-by date . I think the deterioration argument is spurious - these things are built to withstand decades of use.

 

@Jaapv, my comments in post #79 were not in reference to the deterioration argument but rather to the dreadful way in which the lens problem was originally responded to by Leica Customer Service.  IMHO, Wilson clearly deserved better; that's all I'm trying to say.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Herr Barnack

[jaapv]

Well, yes, I agree, but I can assure you from my experience that it is rather unusual with CS Wetzlar. I had a similar one, quite a while ago about an AF gone wrong in a D-Lux, and guaranty was refused because of "impact damage" - meaning a dent in the camera that had been there for months. One telephone call and my explanation was accepted without hesitation. You cannot forbid people to make mistakes, it is the way they are resolved which counts.

[scott kirkpatrick]

OK, get real. Leica told Wilson his lens was made in 2014. I think from that we can deduce that it was made in 2014.

And as Jaap says, if it was made in 2014, so what?  Almost all of my CL lenses (I have 6 now) were NewOldStock or used.  They're doing fine.  And since I bought them while they were orphans, I paid less than current prices.

Edited February 22, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick

[mhoutman]

You serial seems quite old. Mine is 4353421 bought as kit lens included with box stamped last Januay 24th

 

How is your ‘old’ lens included in a November 2017 kit delivery?

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And as Jaap says, if it was made in 2014, so what?  Almost all of my CL lenses (I have 6 now) were NewOldStock or used.  They're doing fine.  And since I bought them while they were orphans, I paid less than current prices.

 

So what indeed. I was just correcting you when you said that we couldn't know how old the lenses were. I don't expect many would think that their 'new' lens was actually 4 years old though, but as long as Leica stand by their warranty then yes, so what.

Edited February 22, 2018 by earleygallery

[ayewing]

You serial seems quite old. Mine is 4353421 bought as kit lens included with box stamped last Januay 24th

 

How is your ‘old’ lens included in a November 2017 kit delivery?

My CL + 18-56 TL lens kit was also stamped 2018/01/24 as was the guarantee card for the CL. The card for the lens  Serial 4353308 has no date on it.

[docdave]

My lens serial number is #4353703. The number on the lens and the enclosed warranty card are the same.

 

The boxing date was 1/30/2018.

 

I still have not heard from the leica email support staff in response to my query.

 

They still have no recognition of the serial number in their system. Very peculiar.

 

Dave

[thighslapper]

So what indeed. I was just correcting you when you said that we couldn't know how old the lenses were. I don't expect many would think that their 'new' lens was actually 4 years old though, but as long as Leica stand by their warranty then yes, so what.

 

Hong Kong do a good line in 'as new, old stock' (or at least they did) ..... I bought a clearly unused, boxed and 6 bit coded MATE a couple of years ago when the last production was 2007 ..... I didn't complain ..... 

[wlaidlaw]

So what indeed. I was just correcting you when you said that we couldn't know how old the lenses were. I don't expect many would think that their 'new' lens was actually 4 years old though, but as long as Leica stand by their warranty then yes, so what.

 

What really concerns me is ending up with a taken-apart and repaired old stock lens, for which I paid full price. Not acceptable in my view. Mechanical lenses fine but far more complicated AF electronic lenses - no thank you. I want a new replacement lens and Leica can sell my original at reduced price as a refurbished lens (would you pay full price for a refurbished lens, which is what my original lens will be - I think not) or give it to one of their boutiques as a demo lens. 

 

Ditto for the CL body. 

 

Wilson

[Guest Nowhereman]

Wilson - I understand your feelings. I've had very fast service from Solms and Wetzlar, but the results were mixed. On my first M9, I had the first camera with a sensor crack, straight out of the store, but discovered only two weeks later, after I had picked up the camera on my last day in Paris and then only had a chance to look at my first shots in Bangkok. Solms replaced the sensor, but the camera developed an intermittent electronic fault — it took four months before CS figured out what it was and returned the camera to me fixed, By then I had lost confidence in it and sold it a dealer in Bangkok who knew the camera's history. (The M9s were still in short supply).

 

My M10 quickly developed a shutter problem and, in Paris, the camera was returned to me within two weeks with a new shutter — and no further problems. 

 

The upshot is that it would have been better for me to insist that the M9 should have been replaced, but they were in short supply and there were possible customs complications in Thailand had I received a new camera rather then the repaired one.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Nowhereman

[pgk]

Mechanical lenses fine but far more complicated AF electronic lenses - no thank you.

 

Trying to be objective about this, I am sure that complex AF electronic lenses are somewhat modular in terms of what can be repaired - mostly I would guess that this means replaced block component sections rather than individual small part replacements. Certainly the 'stripdown' blog pieces at lensrentals suggest this. So having a fully repaired/refurbished/carefully checked lens may just result in a higher level of quality control being applied to the lens in comparison to a new one, simply because much more time will have been spent on checking it. I have bought three Leica bodies as ex-demos and all have been very reliable, other than any 'known' problems (one had to have a sensor remap and two ended up having replacement sensor - neither was an issue foreseeable or correctable at manufacture), and I would happily do so again. Personally, given the choice, I would happily stay with the lens I bought irrespective of its potentially earlier manufacture date, rather than take a new one, but we all have different aspirations as to how our equipment should be supplied and problems dealt with, so equally I can understand why you may be happier with a replacement.

[wlaidlaw]

Paul,

 

Given my poor past experience with failed Leica repairs of electronic items, I have very little faith in their ability to get both the lens and camera correctly assembled and adjusted. I too have watched with awe, Lens Rentals' videos of their disassembly of lenses. What of course, you will never see, is a video of them failing with a lens and sweeping a bench-full of half assembled bits into the trash can.

 

Wilson

[lct]

Indeed. Do you know if TL lenses made in Japan are repaired in Germany? 

[jaapv]

Yes, they are.

[pgk]

Paul,

 

Given my poor past experience with failed Leica repairs of electronic items, I have very little faith in their ability to get both the lens and camera correctly assembled and adjusted. I too have watched with awe, Lens Rentals' videos of their disassembly of lenses. What of course, you will never see, is a video of them failing with a lens and sweeping a bench-full of half assembled bits into the trash can.

 

Wilson

 

Wilson, you raise a fair point and I do have to admit that, having been given a water damaged AF electronic lens to take apart (from a well known independent manufacturer) I was amazed at the complexity, substantial use of hard plastics and, dare I say, fairly obvious inherent unrepairability. My guess is, as suggested in my post above, that components are replaced as blocks rather than as small parts, but thinking about it I do wonder just how 'small' these blocks might be? My impression of the lens I dismantled was that it would very quickly be uneconomic to repair because there was vast interdependency of components. Many sections seemed to be sealed and discrete but to dismantle to get to them meant opening up other sealed sections which would then need replacement too. The lens I was given had slight water damage but was indeed irrepairable.

 

So to Leica. I wonder just how many areas with even Leica's apparently well made AF electronic lenses are genuinely repairable and just how much significant replacement takes place rather than parts being actually repaired as such? Despite this I would hope that a hand rebuilt lens would be highly quality controlled, but then again perhaps initial assembly is such that this is not necessarily the case.

 

My experience with M lenses and cameras has been good but even this was a learning curve for Leica with the M8 if I remember correctly. The trouble with new technology is just that; its new and its foibles appear with usage and experience.

[jaapv]

I don't think this is specific for lenses. The times of repair are long gone. Ever piece of equipment, from vacuum cleaners to the space station, is made up from replaceable modules.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[docdave]

I heard from Leica support this morning with a very candid response. They said they were having technical issues with registering many T lenses. It was a glitch in their system. It has now been remedied. I was able to register both my camera and 18-56mm lens separately this morning without any issues.

 

They then showed me a stock designation that indicated my lens was manufactured on December, 2017. So my kit was about as "fresh" as possible.

 

Their response was very courteous and very quick. Count me in as a happy customer.

 

And, of course, the Leica CL is simply a little jewel of a camera and a thorough pleasure to use. I am also very impressed with the performance of the zoom lens. Now my only dilemma is whether to buy the 23mm or 35mm. I enjoy both focal lengths equally.

 

Dave

[wlaidlaw]

Leica are still trying to lever me into accepting a repair on both camera and lens, even though I have made it abundantly clear this is not my wish. I have had to get firm and point out to them that under EU Consumer law, when a product becomes faulty within three months after purchase it is the consumer's option as to whether they opt for a repair or replacement and my option is replacement. It comes down to my having confidence in both the lens and camera to be fault free after dis and reassembly for repair, which on past performance is very low. 

 

Wilson

Edited February 23, 2018 by wlaidlaw