Possible fungus in V5 Summicron

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 13 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

I doubt whether a lens group could be replaced for the price mentioned. 

I had the front element of my Elmarit-R 2.8/180 replaced at some point (in Solms) and paid less than that. Replacing a lens element or lens group is relatively easy and requires less work than some other repairs.

 

vor 13 Stunden schrieb pedaes:

Don't hold out any hope of a 'free' Leica repair - lenses do not get in that state stored in its box.

Well, in fact they may if the cause is a manufacturing error (which is what I would assume here, as it is hard to imagine any state which would be able to cause that sort of damage. Modern cemented lens groups do not separate easily at all).

vor 12 Stunden schrieb Brancbūth:

I've really been drawn to qualities of the rigid, but they seem to be so volatile. 

There are rigids out there which are perfect, you just have to find them. And they are not that rare, as the rigid was produced in large numbers over the years. I own three of them (a screw  mount version, a bayonet mount version and a dual range version) and they are all optically perfect, that is, have no scratched front elements.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

50 minutes ago, wizard said:

I had the front element of my Elmarit-R 2.8/180 replaced at some point (in Solms) and paid less than that. Replacing a lens element or lens group is relatively easy and requires less work than some other repairs.

When was that? Leica has had no spare parts for R lenses for quite a while. Yes, lens elements vary in price depending on the type of glass, but we can safely assume that replacing a whole group (what this looks like) is more costly than a single front element. I was not really thinking of high labour costs. Anyway, would you be willing to take the repair cost risk and the hassle instead of returning the lens? It is not as if it were an unique rarity.

[wizard]

vor 42 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

Anyway, would you be willing to take the repair cost risk and the hassle instead of returning the lens?

Jaap, that's not what I wrote. I recommended that the owner (not the potential buyer) of the lens should send the lens to Leica to find out what Leica thinks of it. In my view, with such a modern lens this sort of defect can only be due to a manufacturing error (e.g. not properly cleaning the lens surfaces to be cemented together, using adhesive which may have been exposed to the environment for too long, etc.). If Leica agrees and takes responsibility, they may even repair it for free, as this sort of defect simply should not happen with any modern lens (things were different when Canada balsam was still used for cementing purposes, but that was long before the Summicron v5 came into existence).

[jaapv]

Ah - I see. Sorry  . Well, I have little sympathy for a seller who sells a lens like this as anything but condition C-

[pgk]

1 hour ago, wizard said:

..... it is hard to imagine any state which would be able to cause that sort of damage. Modern cemented lens groups do not separate easily at all.

Its difficult to say what caused the damage to this lens without physically examining it. That said, to me it looks like partial separation which can be caused by impact even though the exterior of the lens shows no sign of this (I say this from the experience of owning such a lens). Sometimes you can see Newton's Rings on the separated sector of the glass if it is cleanly separated but this looks to have cement debris in the area so probably won't. Whatever the cause it will potentially be an expensive repair.

[lct]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

I have little sympathy for a seller who sells a lens like this as anything but condition C

+1 or who sells that kind of lens w/o warning buyers about its apparent defect.

[Brancbūth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you all, again, for the responses. The lens is in the post, on its way back to the seller. Unfortunately, this means that I'll have more time to obsess over whether or not I'm making the right decision in a V5 'Cron (I'm between the V5, a clean Rigid, or a pre-ASPH 'Lux). I have gone through some of the "dealer recommendation" but I haven't found anything too promising. I will check the classified often.

[jaapv]

I see it as rather unlikely that Leica would accept this as a courtesy repair more than four years after the statutory “fit for use” guarantee has expired. 

[wizard]

vor 19 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

I see it as rather unlikely that Leica would accept this as a courtesy repair more than four years after the statutory “fit for use” guarantee has expired. 

It is as least worth a try, isn't it? Else, as I already said, that lens is basically just a paperweight.

[pedaes]

42 minutes ago, wizard said:

It is as least worth a try, isn't it?

Ás you will see the OP has already sent it back, which is the only sensible action. It is not a rare lens, so why have the problem?

[wizard]

Am 15.1.2021 um 17:19 schrieb pedaes:

It is not a rare lens, so why have the problem?

As pointed out to Jaap before, my idea was that the owner of the lens (not the OP) should give it a try and send the lens to Leica.