Lens has play on mount

[Jared]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's what I thought. This CL might go back to Leica. I'm kind of annoyed. It doesn't let light in, but it might allow water intrusion if it gets any kind of moisture on the camera or lens. Also,  just removing the hood allows the lens to turn radially about 1/16 of an inch or more. This is not what I would expect from Leica's quality standards.

 

 

Hey, if you're not happy wit the play by all means send it back to Leica and see what they say.  Maybe they'll provide a body that is much better than your current one in this regard.  However, keep in mind the camera and TL lenses are not in any way advertised as weather sealed, and water intrusion at the junction of the lens and body is a possibility even with a fairly tight fitting lens.  The only way to ensure this is not a problem is to include rubber gaskets into the lens and/or body, and the CL/TL combo doesn't have this feature.  In other words, I wouldn't use this camera in the rain even if Leica gives you a sample with tighter fitting lenses.

[Jdphoto]

Yes, I'm aware they're not advertised as WR. I've had the CL in a wind driven sea spray with no effects on the camera. I just would prefer a tighter fit with the lens to camera and think it should be designed to do so.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jared]

Yes, I'm aware they're not advertised as WR. I've had the CL in a wind driven sea spray with no effects on the camera. I just would prefer a tighter fit with the lens to camera and think it should be designed to do so.

 

 

Perfectly reasonable desire in my book.  I find it mildly annoying on my CL that the lenses don't fit tighter.  Probably wouldn't be anything I worry about if it weren't a Leica.  I'm used to the rock solid mounting I got with my 'M' lenses on an 'M' body.  Also, my 24-90 on the SL is solid.  The difference in tolerances for the CL comes across as surprising.  

[jaapv]

My adapter and M lenses is rock solid. If yours isn’t send it in. Radial play on native lenses is less than one mm, which is OK in my book.

[Jdphoto]

The M adapter with M lenses has never been the issue, but the adapter to CL does not have the tight tolerances one would expect with Leica. The T does not have play using TL lenses, so why shouldn't the CL?

[jaapv]

You'd have to ask the designer.

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The play between TL lenses and L mount is perfectly normal. It is made this way be design, in order to accommodate the lesser tolerances of polycarbonate lenses, due to their propre dilatation properties.

There are also no play at all by design between M Lens and M-Adapter-L and the L mount. Because M lenses needed very strict tolerance for bonding the full metal lens to the camera. Due to their specific dilatation property.

[wlaidlaw]

Are the TL lenses part or wholly polycarbonate? Do you mean the elements or the body? Given their price, I would have assumed at least the optical  elements were glass. I recall distinctly being told during a visit to Solms, while being shown the very balletic computer controlled aspherical element grinding machines, that whereas pressed polycarbonate or other plastic material aspherical lens elements could be made far cheaper (by Sigma and other far eastern companies) , they did not last very long and were not therefore a good fit with Leica's philosophy. 

 

Wilson

[thighslapper]

The play between TL lenses and L mount is perfectly normal. It is made this way be design, in order to accommodate the lesser tolerances of polycarbonate lenses, due to their propre dilatation properties.

There are also no play at all by design between M Lens and M-Adapter-L and the L mount. Because M lenses needed very strict tolerance for bonding the full metal lens to the camera. Due to their specific dilatation property.

Cobblers. With an AF system the need for stringent tolerance vanishes ...... as long as there is enough leeway at the infinity end of the lens system it will work fine.

 

A lens/mount fit does not have to be tight to achieve perfect alignment. As far as I can determine there is only rotational play of a few mm on the TL mount which is irrelevant optically.

 

I would suspect Leica would consider plastic lenses heresy. If they are using them at all I think it would alienate most of their current customers.

[wlaidlaw]

I wonder if the Fuji Instax lens re-christened as a Hektor in the Sofort is glass or plastic? 

[Jdphoto]

 

 

Cobblers. With an AF system the need for stringent tolerance vanishes ...... as long as there is enough leeway at the infinity end of the lens system it will work fine.

A lens/mount fit does not have to be tight to achieve perfect alignment. As far as I can determine there is only rotational play of a few mm on the TL mount which is irrelevant optically.

I would suspect Leica would consider plastic lenses heresy. If they are using them at all I think it would alienate most of their current customers.

Moisture intrusion is my primary concern with the TL mount. However, Nikon's best primes are also made with polycarbonates components and the tolerances are tight as Leica M cameras. Both the rear lens and  CL mount are a metal to metal connection, so if a polycarbonate material is porous enough for extreme dilation, then perhaps it's not a good material for this particular mount.

[Jdphoto]

I received an email from Leica about the lens play. This is their response​...

 

We haven’t come across this reflection effect displayed in your images with another T/TL lens.  I forwarded the images to the Leica headquarters in Germany to see what they have to say.  I also mentioned your concern about tolerance when it comes to the lens to body connections.  I checked myself and found that though the T lens on the CL body felt and sounded like it moved more than an M System lens/body combination, closer examination seemed to show similar actual movement of about half a millimeter at best on both. 

 

I’ll let you know what kind of feedback I get from Germany.

[pgmj]

I just received this reply from Leica:

 

 

The play in the bayonet you mentioned is indeed more recognizable in comparison to other lens/camera models. Due to the inside diameter versus the measurements of the camera body in connection with the focal length it is constructively normal.

 

We accepted this additional play to make the usage of up to 280mm lenses on the camera possible.

[jaapv]

Now the remark about 280 mm lenses is highly interesting. Are they contemplating a 130-280  TL zoom? Or are they referring to the 90-280 SL?

[scott kirkpatrick]

There is a 90-280 L-mount zoom already in the product line.   It works quite well on a CL.

[wlaidlaw]

I am afraid that response from Leica sounds like a load of pseudo-technical bull pucky to me. The L mount dimensions on the 90-280 will be identical to other L mount lenses. Why on earth would they have to allow additional tolerance on the camera mount for the longer lens?

 

Wilson

Edited April 24, 2018 by wlaidlaw

[jaapv]

There is a 90-280 L-mount zoom already in the product line.   It works quite well on a CL.

Too heavy, too bulky, too expensive. I short, overkill.

Compare to the DG 100-400 Vario-Elmar.

[jaapv]

I am afraid that response from Leica sounds like a load of pseudo-technical bull pucky to me. The L mount dimensions on the 90-280 will be identical to other L mount lenses. Why on earth would they have to allow additional tolerance on the camera mount for the longer lens?

 

Wilson

I could imagine that the respective weights of mount and lens play a role. Anyway, if Leica tells us it was designed that way, we must decide whether to trust them on that. In any case, rotational movement is an irrelevant parameter if the lens has no mechanical coupling to the body (i.e. the helicoid-roller connection on the M)

[wlaidlaw]

I don't think Leica were describing radial play but axial play. Radial play would be controlled by the dimensions of the locking pin not the mount. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jdphoto]

It's the pitch and yaw that should be a concern for light intrusion, but also of moisture.