Advice about three-year old 75mm Summarit-M

[nlk10010]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't like being a pain but I'm not terribly familiar with the history of Leica lenses so I thought I'd ask you good folks.

 

I decided to buy a 75mm Summarit-M 2.4 for my M10 (new). I didn't think to look in the bag so I brought it home; when I decided to take the lens out of the bag I found that the lens box had a 03/02/2015 date on it; i.e. the lens is apparently three years old (almost to the day). Is this an issue from the perspective of any subsequent lens redesign or from lens component deterioration? Notice I'm not talking about the fact that this lens was clearly returned (at least once) since the seal was broken. That's another issue (i.e. perhaps the reason was that it's defective, I'll have to check that).

 

My guess is these lenses are made to last for quite a long time (I mean, there's a thriving market for decades-old lenses) but I'm not certain if that applies to this particular model. 

 

Any thoughts or pointers, etc. would be appreciated.

[jaapv]

No redesign and utterly irrelevant.

[Advertisement]

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

[nlk10010]

Thanks. I like your smilie.

[earleygallery]

What seal was broken?

[wattsy]

Must have been the round piece of tape that fastens the now all-important outer plain cardboard box.

 

A concern about the age of the product seems to be the latest buyer neurosis (we have previously had concerns about whether certain lenses have the right kind of rattle when moved) which I guess is an inevitable consequence of putting the date of manufacture (or, more realistically, the date the product was boxed) on the packaging. Dealers can’t be pleased with this development as customers will now be scrutinising these dates and rejecting perfectly good products in case they have gone stale like some out-of-date sandwich.

[nlk10010]

There are two white seals on the outer (plain gray) box. The top one was broken, so someone had taken out the inner (display) box and from the way the contents looked someone had been at the lens before. Unless they just broke the outer seal and took out the box for kicks my guess is the lens had been sold and returned.

 

Look, could I be wrong? Could an employee have broken the seal and taken out the inner box to see what kind of lens it was? Or taken out the lens just to look at and not to try out? Sure. In my younger days I was this anal and unapologetic about it, but know I really don't care AS LONG AS the lens is not damaged, outdated, in a deteriorated state or a "bad copy". Jaapv has assured me that I don't need to worry about the second and third of these. The lens doesn't LOOK damaged. As to bad copy, well, I'm not too good at testing but I am in the process of taking some interior snaps and looking at the sharpness and rendering. We'll see.

 

Chasing after "pristine" photographic equipment, I have come to realize, is a pointless task. For example, the lens could have been used and the retailer can find another outer box and two fresh seals and make it look all new, if they wanted. All that matters is if I get a genuine Leica warranty and the lens  meets my expectations. But it is not unreasonable to at least make note of these possible problems.

[nlk10010]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Must have been the round piece of tape that fastens the now all-important outer plain cardboard box.

 

A concern about the age of the product seems to be the latest buyer neurosis (we have previously had concerns about whether certain lenses have the right kind of rattle when moved) which I guess is an inevitable consequence of putting the date of manufacture (or, more realistically, the date the product was boxed) on the packaging. Dealers can’t be pleased with this development as customers will now be scrutinising these dates and rejecting perfectly good products in case they have gone stale like some out-of-date sandwich.

Yes, thanks, I noticed this in the thread in the CL forum about supposedly outdated kits.

 

The fact the outer box had its seal broken means the inner box had been taken out, I realize nothing more, or in fact less. Once you see that you can't bury your head in the sand, just be careful, because I do not have unadulterated faith in the retailer being as careful as Leica would to check the lens before reselling it. I thought it couldn't hurt to ask and that this forum was a good place to inquire about objective criteria; e.g. redesign, component degradation (although I realize this latter is a bit silly). I will now check the lens out for signs of handling and do some tests as I would with a lens that didn't raise any suspicions. Face it, IF everything checks out then I don't WANT to go through an exchange because I run the risk of the new copy being bad. 

Edited March 4, 2018 by nlk10010

[wattsy]

I think your lens will be fine. If you are concerned that your lens isn't new or returned due to some unspecified problem, I think you should ask your dealer about this. I certainly don't think the date on the box has any bearing because dealers often have stock of some items sitting on their shelves for years.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nlk10010]

I think your lens will be fine. If you are concerned that your lens isn't new or returned due to some unspecified problem, I think you should ask your dealer about this. I certainly don't think the date on the box has any bearing because dealers often have stock of some items sitting on their shelves for years.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh I agree entirely. In fact I emailed my dealer about this issue and prefaced things by saying that I realize they probably don't sell many of these so it's not surprising to get one that old. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't returned because of an obvious problem or because it was a "bad copy" and of course anytime it goes through someone else's hands there is the risk of scratches and subtle damage (which, frankly, can occur even in a "factory fresh" copy, although it's less likely). After some preliminary testing (and allowing for the razor thin depth-of-field of this lens at wide apertures) it seems fine. We'll see.

 

Thanks again for your thoughts.

[earleygallery]

I worked in a camera shop a long time ago. We didn't have a display version of every single item we sold. If someone came in and wanted to look at an item we'd open up a box and show it to them. If they didn't buy it we boxed it back up and put it back on the shelf. We didn't consider the item to now be 'secondhand' just because it was removed from the box. I don't ever recall anyone refusing to buy a lens that we'd taken out to show them either.

 

If your lens looks ok and works ok, it probably is ok.

 

Perhaps Leica need to change their dating system to show a 'best before' date ?

[nlk10010]

Thanks, your scenario is certainly plausible, as is mine (i.e. someone purchased then returned it). Thing is, my purchase was from B&H who, I surmise, has dedicated sample copies of everything they sell. Of course, with a lens like this they might have only had one copy in stock and if someone wanted to see it I could see the clerk breaking the box open.

 

Regardless, they have assured me I can exchange it or return it or order a new one, as I see fit. They are very good that way.

[mkur]

Just to comfort you - on Saturday I have bought a new Summarit 90mm from my dealer. The lens was made in December 2015. The outer cardboard was intact and he broke the seals to inspect the lens. Asked about the date, my dealer replied that, to keep costs down, Summarits are being made in larger batches.

[nlk10010]

Just to comfort you - on Saturday I have bought a new Summarit 90mm from my dealer. The lens was made in December 2015. The outer cardboard was intact and he broke the seals to inspect the lens. Asked about the date, my dealer replied that, to keep costs down, Summarits are being made in larger batches.

Thanks for posting and trying to allay my "fears" (I mean, fear is a bit much, it's just a lens, right? ).

 

If the seals were intact then the three year age wouldn't have bothered me as much. But there is really no reason for the seal to be broken unless the box was opened to show someone or the lens was sold and returned (at least once). My feeling is that if I wanted an open box item I could have found one at a discount, I'm bringing the lens back today and ask (nicely) for one that's sealed.

Edited March 5, 2018 by nlk10010

[tobey bilek]

Why ask if you do not believe what people tell you?

[nlk10010]

Why ask if you do not believe what people tell you?

What is it exactly you think I don't believe?

[pedaes]

When my M10 arrived the packaging date was three weeks earlier, but the 'seal' as you call it was broken. Then I realised the Dealer could not tell what colour the camera is without removing the grey wrapper, as it is only shown on the black box. I think, stress think, that there were both silver and black lenses when yours was 'fresh' so a possible answer for you. And don't get started on camera serial numbers as they are alll over the place.

Edited March 5, 2018 by pedaes

[nlk10010]

When my M10 arrived the packaging date was three weeks earlier, but the 'seal' as you call it was broken. The I realised the Dealer could not tell what colour the camera is without removing the grey wrapper. I think, stress think, that there were both silver and black lenses when yours was 'fresh' so a possible answer for you. And don't get started on camera serial numbers as they are alll over the place.

Certainly reasonable, thanks for that perspective. Something you wouldn't think of off-the-bat, although the outer box DOES indicate the color in that the black and silver have different "Stock#s" and that # is on a label stuck on the outer box. However, it is easy to imagine that people fulfilling the order didn't feel like checking which was which (the Black is #11682) and simply cracked the seal to double-check.

 

And no, Serial#s I DON'T go by. I recently learned this when I wanted to date a wristwatch I had had lying around for about fifty years. I was told the manufacturer "randomized" Serial #s and would NOT tell me the year of manufacture of the watch. Now I don't think Leica lenses sell at a premium when they're real old, but I guess it's the same idea:  The manufacturer's version of "Don't bother me.". 

Edited March 5, 2018 by nlk10010

[jdlaing]

Customs opens the packages too. At random.

[Exodies]

It’ll be funny if he gets a sealed one which turns out to be broken.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Herr Barnack]

Oh I agree entirely. In fact I emailed my dealer about this issue and prefaced things by saying that I realize they probably don't sell many of these so it's not surprising to get one that old. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't returned because of an obvious problem or because it was a "bad copy" and of course anytime it goes through someone else's hands there is the risk of scratches and subtle damage (which, frankly, can occur even in a "factory fresh" copy, although it's less likely). After some preliminary testing (and allowing for the razor thin depth-of-field of this lens at wide apertures) it seems fine. We'll see.

 

Thanks again for your thoughts.

 

If a Leica retailer has a customer return a lens because there is a problem with it or it is a "bad copy," they are ethically obligated to return the lens to Leica as defective and have it replaced; to try to pawn off a defective lens on another customer is a really low-life, smarmy way of doing business. 

 

Leica dealers have a reputation to uphold; when customers are plunking down thousands of dollars for a new camera or lens - even a "bargain priced" Summarit - they deserve a certain level of integrity and consideration from the dealer. 

 

A reputable, ethical Leica dealer will even stand behind used Leica gear that they sell with their own store warranty, usually a 90 day "repair or replace" policy.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Herr Barnack