Brand New APO 75mm with Visible Cracks

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The dust inside the lens is concerning too.

If you came to sell the lens after some time I expect that these matters would affect the price you'd be able to ask so if it was me I'd be pressing Leica to put it right.

Pete.

[Wonzo]

It seems that the lens was in a dealers showcase for quite a while suffering the variations in temperature. Maybe it was even exposed to direct sunlight. Such treatment can affect the outside and the inside of a lens. Definitely a case for replacement !

[Danner]

Looks very bad to me.

Maybe someone else could post a picture of their 75 APO so we could see what it 'should' look like.  However, what the hell is that material, some kind of plastic foam!?!?!  Leica lenses should be made from metal and glass, certainly not that stuff.

[MrFriendly]

26 minutes ago, farnz said:

High humidity might show up in the cardboard but not high, dry heat.

Pete.

I live in Texas, it's hot and very humid.  I now wonder if in couple years the inner ring of my new 75 (assuming i get it replaced) is going to look like that.  And why would Leica use rubber (or whatever that black stuff is) on the inside of the lens?

[farnz]

A good question, MrFriendly, to which I have no answer since the 75AA is one of the Leica lenses I've never owned.  

I would hope that Leica would not use materials that deteriorate over time and, to its credit, its lenses normally stand the test of time. I currently have a 1939 7.3 cm f/1.9 Hektor attached to my M10 and it is still in excellent condition after 81 years.  There will be many others here who could doubtless offer anecdotes about lenses that are older than my Hektor so Leica's ethos has always been to produce products that endure.

I'm interested to know what Allendale's response is and I would be grateful if you would very kindly keep us updated here please?

Pete.

[adan]

I've used 75 APO-Summicrons on and off since they were first introduced in 2005. At least half a dozen, usually used (I have a love/hate relationship with the lens )

None of them has ever shown anything like this - at any age.

The sample you show is completely abnormal, so I would not worry about this happening with a different unit (assuming it is checked striaght out of the box and is correct).

Something very strange happened to this particular copy in the 16 months since it was made - anything from a flawed piece of material in assembly, to actual water (not humidity) damage somewhere in the supply chain.

________________________

A clean box sealed with official Leica stickers is no guarantee the lens has never been out of the box - especially not if Leica itself is selling it directly. They do possess boxes and stickers.

I've worked in a camera store selling new Leica gear, and there is a lot that can happen behind the scenes. Leica sells refurbs, Code U and QM2 lenses (the last two meaning "used by Leica reps/employees" or "minor cosmetic flaws" - although I forget which is which, and this would not count as a "minor flaw"). Generally those come with a discount - but also come in "like new" sealed boxes.

As well as accepting open-box returns from dealers in some cases (usually not for cash, but as a credit towards some other new lens or camera).

I doubt that Leica sold this intentionally with such damage - but it is altogether possible it was a dealer return, which appeared to still be in "like new" condition otherwise (this internal mess was missed), and was simply reboxed and resealed, with a new SN sticker printed and applied to match the lens.

Send it back noting the flaw, and I expect Leica NJ will simply say "Ooooops! - Sorry about that!" and send a replacement.

[MrFriendly]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, farnz said:

I'm interested to know what Allendale's response is and I would be grateful if you would very kindly keep us updated here please?

Pete.

Yes, definitely, I will update as soon as I get a response from Allendale.

[MrFriendly]

55 minutes ago, adan said:

I've used 75 APO-Summicrons on and off since they were first introduced in 2005. At least half a dozen, usually used (I have a love/hate relationship with the lens )

None of them has ever shown anything like this - at any age.

The sample you show is completely abnormal, so I would not worry about this happening with a different unit (assuming it is checked striaght out of the box and is correct).

Something very strange happened to this particular copy in the 16 months since it was made - anything from a flawed piece of material in assembly, to actual water (not humidity) damage somewhere in the supply chain.

________________________

A clean box sealed with official Leica stickers is no guarantee the lens has never been out of the box - especially not if Leica itself is selling it directly. They do possess boxes and stickers.

I've worked in a camera store selling new Leica gear, and there is a lot that can happen behind the scenes. Leica sells refurbs, Code U and QM2 lenses (the last two meaning "used by Leica reps/employees" or "minor cosmetic flaws" - although I forget which is which, and this would not count as a "minor flaw"). Generally those come with a discount - but also come in "like new" sealed boxes.

As well as accepting open-box returns from dealers in some cases (usually not for cash, but as a credit towards some other new lens or camera).

I doubt that Leica sold this intentionally with such damage - but it is altogether possible it was a dealer return, which appeared to still be in "like new" condition otherwise (this internal mess was missed), and was simply reboxed and resealed, with a new SN sticker printed and applied to match the lens.

Send it back noting the flaw, and I expect Leica NJ will simply say "Ooooops! - Sorry about that!" and send a replacement.

Thanks for sharing your experience.  I've heard stories about how some camera dealers try to sell open-box or demo items as new, which is something they're not supposed to do, apparently because they receive demo copies to be used in the store.  I was hoping this wouldn't be the case with Leica dealers/vendors.

The APO 75 certainly wasn't advertised as used or open-box.  It was supposed to be brand new, and I paid the full price of a brand new lens:

 

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!

[rijve044]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb Kwesi:

Do the serial numbers match on box and lens?

Yes please check the serial on box and lens (around the barrel) and I can tell you

the year of manufacture.

[MrFriendly]

24 minutes ago, rijve044 said:

Yes please check the serial on box and lens (around the barrel) and I can tell you

the year of manufacture.

Thanks, the serial number is 4758472.  I posted pictures of it  in my post #14.

[rijve044]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb MrFriendly:

Thanks, the serial number is 4758472.  I posted pictures of it  in my post #14.

Yes I see produced in 2019. Very strange to see a lens in this condition. 
As others have stated send it back for a pristine one or refund. 
Good luck.

Andreas

[a.noctilux]

Examining my wife's Apo-Summicron 75, # 3 98x xxx, used 2005 made, I've not seen the cracks,

but when I took minutes ago some pics, showed some cracks not seen with naked eyes

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!

 

Maybe Leica made same mistake as the Leica R5/R6 mirror chamber choice of "rubber coating" with same kind of "cracks"

[MrFriendly]

42 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

Examining my wife's Apo-Summicron 75, # 3 98x xxx, used 2005 made, I've not seen the cracks,

but when I took minutes ago some pics, showed some cracks not seen with naked eyes

The cracks don't make sense even for a 15 year old lens;  for a $4K lens, they seriously couldn't use better material than whatever it is they used?  Even cheap plastic would have been better.

I still can't figure out what it is; to me it resembles asphalt (i'm not saying that's what it is).  it's sticky (maybe greasy), and it just crumbles so easily.  If I wanted it, I could probably peel the whole thing off with my finger without much effort.

[LeicaR10]

MrFriendly,  I own a new 75 Summicron it does not look anything like your photos.  Like so many, I strongly recommend you return it for another or refund.  Could well be this was a refurbished old stock lens with a "new serial number".  But who knows, all speculation including mine.  Bottom line:  Save yourself the grief, ship it back on Monday and be done with it.  Happy New Year.  r/ Mark

[MrFriendly]

18 minutes ago, LeicaR10 said:

MrFriendly,  I own a new 75 Summicron it does not look anything like your photos.  Like so many, I strongly recommend you return it for another or refund.  Could well be this was a refurbished old stock lens with a "new serial number".  But who knows, all speculation including mine.  Bottom line:  Save yourself the grief, ship it back on Monday and be done with it.  Happy New Year.  r/ Mark

I'm new to all this, but how is that all legal?  If I took a 2001 Civic, zeroed the odometer, gave it a new VIN, and tried to sell it as a brand new car, I would be in prison for fraud.  But if a Honda dealer did the same thing, that would be okay?

p.s. Happy New Year 🙂

[LeicaR10]

Mr Friendly,  I don't know if you are familiar with US consumer protection laws.  You have the right to return your lens to Leica and ask for either total replacement of all the seals, gaskets that are cracked, worn or exchange the lens or get a refund.  You have the receipt, it was just purchased.  Simply pack up the lens, copy of the receipt and letter of explanation describing the issue.  Ship by either UPS or FedEx.  If you wish, call Leica NJ first.  They will not give you a hassle.  More likely you will get an apology and a new lens.  You could have bought the same lens from any Leica Store or authorized dealer and they would have done the same for you.  Your post #35 above is not relevant to the obvious issue presented with your photos and receipt.  r/ Mark

[Jeff S]

8 hours ago, MrFriendly said:

One of the first things I noticed with the 75 was that it had plenty dust particles on the front element, even more on the rear element, and some dust particles on the inside of the lens.  My other Leica lenses in the past were always in absolutely pristine condition.  Now, dust on a lens doesn't bother me, but does this mean the lens was used at some point?  Maybe a demo lens?  Would a Leica vendor try to pass off a used lens as new? 

Well, this is one reason I prefer to stick with proven, trustworthy Leica dealers. I know some that I wouldn’t use again.  And I avoid the online store, even if quicker availability, so that there is a real person available by phone or in person for any questions, concerns or follow up on my behalf.  In a situation like yours, I would have the  conversation and have the item back in the mail, at dealer expense, the same day.  
 

When I recently purchased a new 35 Summilux M (FLE), I asked the dealer to open the box and check for loose aperture ring and/or tight focus action (two common issues) before sending.  He was happy to do so and ensured that I got a fine sample.  Can’t do that shopping online.

Jeff

 

 

[MrFriendly]

2 hours ago, LeicaR10 said:

Simply pack up the lens, copy of the receipt and letter of explanation describing the issue.  Ship by either UPS or FedEx.  If you wish, call Leica NJ first.

I have made a Return request at Leica online store.  Once I hear back from them, I'll be sending it back.

I would appreciate it if you could post pictures of your 75 Summicron; i'm interested to know if the black inner ring exists on recently built lenses.  The one a.noctilux posted is from 2005.  Thanks.

[adan]

2 hours ago, MrFriendly said:

I still can't figure out what it is; to me it resembles asphalt (i'm not saying that's what it is).  it's sticky (maybe greasy), and it just crumbles so easily.  If I wanted it, I could probably peel the whole thing off with my finger without much effort.

Possibly related to the matte anti-reflection/flare material called Palpas that Hasselblad (speaking of expensive cameras sytems) glued inside their cameras starting about 1990±.

It was a sheet of - something - not paint, and not exactly rubber, but possibly a ultra-fine foamed rubber/plastic, which had an adhesive backing. Cut to size/shape and stuck in place.

The Hassy palpas material is notorious for developing expansion/contraction cracks. See pictures 3-5 in this post: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4397088

Anyway, with a.noctilux's additional pix and info, I guess it was just the luck of the draw that I never encountered this (or anything vaguely like it) myself.

[andyturk]

FWIW, I have a 75 f/2.0 which I purchased new more than a decade ago. The black foam inside my copy has some cracks in it too, similar to that of a.noctilux. The stuff is dry do the touch and none of it came off on my finger.

Maybe not the best choice of material. I suspect it was chosen to reduce flare by reflecting as little light as possible.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M