jaapv Posted July 4, 2019 Share #1 Posted July 4, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) I decided to send my Vario-Elmar 105-280 to Meister for a commission sale to put the proceeds towards a 90-280 SL. No joy. Meister has the good habit to let Leica check the lenses out before selling them on. Leica CS: it needs some haze removal and the focusing needs lubrication Fair enough, but: difficult, difficult. We might damage the lens and we we are doubtful about the results. And we have no parts (I know that) It will be 800 Euro without guaranty, not even if we break it... I think not. Off to Will van Manen for a nice CLA at a reasonable price I just spoke with Will, the lens is eminently serviceable. It will do well on the CL I should think. So no 800 Euro for Leica and no 90-280 sale... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 4, 2019 Posted July 4, 2019 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Here we go again.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ramarren Posted July 11, 2019 Share #2 Posted July 11, 2019 That's pretty silly of them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted July 11, 2019 Share #3 Posted July 11, 2019 (edited) Yah! Happened with my 28-M v.3 when I sent it for 6-bit coding a couple of months ago. "Balsam fraktur - no parts - won't repair - won't even add coding." (It was indeed showing Newton rings inside, but images quite well). Fortunately. with 2 M10s, I can devote the backup body to using the 28 with an external finder and just leave it permanently selected in the lens menu. I think the unspoken message is "Buy new lenses!" Edited July 11, 2019 by adan 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted July 11, 2019 Share #4 Posted July 11, 2019 Hmm. I sent my Summilux 35 v2 to DAG and asked him to code it. He machined the lens mount flange and painted in the code. I guess Leica just doesn't do that sort of thing. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted July 11, 2019 Share #5 Posted July 11, 2019 Lest there be confusion, the 28mm v.3 (11804) has normally been supported by Leica for 6-bit coding. (Unlike the 35 lux non-ASPH, which never had the modern thin flange required) Doesn't require special machining - simply swapping in a current mount/flange and painting the B/W pits as needed. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! But..... - the generous interpretation - Leica can't repair the separated element, and doesn't want to even touch the lens with a screw-driver lest they be held reponsible. - the less generous version - Leica regrets that commitment they made back in 2006, and is looking for any excuse to drive older-lens users to buy new APO/ASPH goodies, and cut back on the service/support they need to maintain for 40-year-old lenses (or even newer R lenses, to jaap's point). I can test that theory - I have an uncoded 75 Summilux (also listed as supported) that, while working fine, would benefit from a CLA as well (focus ring is just microscopically wiggly). I'll send that in, and if I get the "sorry, no parts" excuse on that also, I'll know what they're really up to. But thanks for the DAG tip. Will use if needed in either case. Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! But..... - the generous interpretation - Leica can't repair the separated element, and doesn't want to even touch the lens with a screw-driver lest they be held reponsible. - the less generous version - Leica regrets that commitment they made back in 2006, and is looking for any excuse to drive older-lens users to buy new APO/ASPH goodies, and cut back on the service/support they need to maintain for 40-year-old lenses (or even newer R lenses, to jaap's point). I can test that theory - I have an uncoded 75 Summilux (also listed as supported) that, while working fine, would benefit from a CLA as well (focus ring is just microscopically wiggly). I'll send that in, and if I get the "sorry, no parts" excuse on that also, I'll know what they're really up to. But thanks for the DAG tip. Will use if needed in either case. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/298942-here-we-go-again/?do=findComment&comment=3776432'>More sharing options...
farnz Posted July 13, 2019 Share #6 Posted July 13, 2019 On 7/11/2019 at 6:23 AM, adan said: Yah! Happened with my 28-M v.3 when I sent it for 6-bit coding a couple of months ago. Did you send your Elmarit to Allendale or Wetzlar, Andy? Pete. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted July 13, 2019 Share #7 Posted July 13, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) Allendale 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 12, 2019 Share #8 Posted August 12, 2019 Andy, Malcolm Taylor explained the problem with Leica lenses made after the mid 1960's to me. The later lens elements were cemented with UV hardening Epoxy cement rather than the earlier natural Canada Balsam (extracted from the Balsam Fir tree). The earlier lens elements can be separated by soaking in very hot water. In order to separate the later elements you have to boil them in Methylene Chloride in a pressure cooker. Methylene Chloride is now a scheduled toxic and hazardous substance, having been removed from non-commercial paint strippers some years ago, which is why they don't work as well now. In pressure cookers, apparently it tends to rot the seals, so that they then leak the very nasty vapour. It can only legally be handled by licensed handlers in the EU, which Leica may not be, hence their refusal to service the lens. Now some smaller repairers may well be prepared to turn a blind eye to the strict letter of the law and still cook up an epoxy cemented lens in Methylene Chloride but the problem is that if their pressure vessel exploded or the leak caused injury, they would be in serious trouble with the authorities. Even after boiling in Methylene Chloride, apparently you often have to pry the elements apart, with a high risk of damage. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted August 12, 2019 Share #9 Posted August 12, 2019 (edited) Dear Lord... i'm certain someone in some mainland Chinese backwater has taken inspiration from this thread and is mixing up the Devil's brew as we write this. Edited August 12, 2019 by james.liam 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitz Posted August 12, 2019 Share #10 Posted August 12, 2019 I've been fortunate that my Leica M's and lenses have not needed service. But not so with my Nikon 80 - 200mm AF zoom. The auto focus motor went bad. Nikon's response - unrepairable, no parts left. Jaap, maybe we could make a pair of bookends with our useless zoom lenses. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted August 14, 2019 Share #11 Posted August 14, 2019 (edited) On 8/12/2019 at 11:59 AM, zeitz said: I've been fortunate that my Leica M's and lenses have not needed service. But not so with my Nikon 80 - 200mm AF zoom. The auto focus motor went bad. Nikon's response - unrepairable, no parts left. Jaap, maybe we could make a pair of bookends with our useless zoom lenses. With all the bitching about Leica QC, back in my Nikon AF days, every new G lens I bought needed repair or replacement, often right out of the box. Blown AF motor, de-centered elements to shutter leaves that came apart in shipping. Without exception. Even the bodies; the first D700 never mounted AIS lenses properly and needed the entire mount assembly serviced. CLA for a 20-year old FM2-T from Nikon? Forget it. Edited August 14, 2019 by james.liam Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 14, 2019 Author Share #12 Posted August 14, 2019 Will van Manen came to the rescue - He CLAd the lens for half the price in a fraction of Leica's turnaround time, and I suspect he did a better job too. Apart from paint wear, the lens is better than new. 3 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
didier Posted August 15, 2019 Share #13 Posted August 15, 2019 On 7/11/2019 at 11:19 PM, adan said: Lest there be confusion, the 28mm v.3 (11804) has normally been supported by Leica for 6-bit coding. (Unlike the 35 lux non-ASPH, which never had the modern thin flange required) Doesn't require special machining - simply swapping in a current mount/flange and painting the B/W pits as needed. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! But..... - the generous interpretation - Leica can't repair the separated element, and doesn't want to even touch the lens with a screw-driver lest they be held reponsible. - the less generous version - Leica regrets that commitment they made back in 2006, and is looking for any excuse to drive older-lens users to buy new APO/ASPH goodies, and cut back on the service/support they need to maintain for 40-year-old lenses (or even newer R lenses, to jaap's point). I can test that theory - I have an uncoded 75 Summilux (also listed as supported) that, while working fine, would benefit from a CLA as well (focus ring is just microscopically wiggly). I'll send that in, and if I get the "sorry, no parts" excuse on that also, I'll know what they're really up to. But thanks for the DAG tip. Will use if needed in either case. I had my Summilux 75 CLA’d and coded in Wetzlar 3 years ago. I couldn’t be happier Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.