Dr. No Posted July 8, 2009 Share #41 Posted July 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) An Audi is built for sure at much higher standards than a Volvo. Just for clarification Steve talking about yours? OLAF (online) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Hi Dr. No, Take a look here My new defective APO Summicron 75 ASPH...still not up to Leica standards!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
xjr Posted July 8, 2009 Share #42 Posted July 8, 2009 Invest in lottery tickets Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_newell Posted July 8, 2009 Share #43 Posted July 8, 2009 Just for entertainment purposes, I'm going to post a photo of a lens serviced by a very well known service provider that will drop all your socks. The OP faint. And, no, I did not return it for correction... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcraf Posted July 9, 2009 Share #44 Posted July 9, 2009 An Audi is built for sure at much higher standards than a Volvo. Just for clarification Steve Not saying otherwise. I've owned several models of all 3 brands over the years. Audi is pretty much on a par with Porsche for build now, maybe better. Volvo is not is the same league. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacobh Posted July 9, 2009 Share #45 Posted July 9, 2009 Just for the record: My M 2/75 ASPH bears serial 4044657 and has scales in proper alignment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrie Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share #46 Posted July 17, 2009 In a moment of weakness I decided to try again for a properly assembled replacement lens from B&H. Bad decision. Three for three, all with the same defect. Before leaving for vacation two weeks ago, I spoke with a nice gentleman from Leica USA who identified himself as the VP of Marketing. He told me that both of the first two defective lenses were from a manufacturing lot of 20 lenses of which 18 were shipped to B&H. This is certainly consistent with my experience. Only 15 more to go! A month ago when I ordered this lens from B&H I didn't realize that I was signing on as the QC inspector for their Leica inventory. As much as I do like doing business with B&H, I already have a day job and can no longer provide this valuable service. Mike 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/89413-my-new-defective-apo-summicron-75-asphstill-not-up-to-leica-standards/?do=findComment&comment=964671'>More sharing options...
Valkyrie Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share #47 Posted July 17, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Mummy, mummy, it really hurts when I keep beating my head against the wall.Then why are you doing it!!!?? Because it feels good when I stop. Not to worry, just ignore the initial offer to make this right by Leica in Germany and the advice from Leica USA that B&H apparently have or had almost all of a suspect batch. Don't let BHphoto know that there apparently a large problem with their inventory either. Just keep on ordering replacements. You have 15 more angry smilies left to use up. I guess I'm just old fashioned and expect a $3000 lens to be assembled correctly! To be clear, I didn't ignore Stefan's kind offer but as I posted at the time, the lens had already been returned to B&H by the time I read it. And as I just posted, my decision to return the second lens for an exchange was a bad decision that I will not repeat. I have communicated this problem on five separate occasions to both Leica and B&H in addition to my posts to this forum. It's not my fault that Leica allows defective lenses to leave their factory and B&H will not check their stock when advised of the problem. Leica could have easily replaced B&H's entire inventory two weeks ago but chose not to do so. Apparently, Leica is willing to accept these defects in so much as they have not taken the actions that could have removed the defective lenses from inventory. I hope my post encourages them to do so. Geoff, your ridicule is misplaced and is not appreciated. Mike Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted July 17, 2009 Share #48 Posted July 17, 2009 You are right. That was bad manners on my part and I apologise. I have deleted my original post. I should have said that I might have dealt with this differently and perhaps avoided further problems after the first occurrence. Geoff' date=' your ridicule is misplaced and is not appreciated. Mike[/quote'] Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrie Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share #49 Posted July 17, 2009 You are right. That was bad manners on my part and I apologise. I have deleted my original post. I should have said that I might have dealt with this differently and perhaps avoided further problems after the first occurrence. Thanks, I appreciate your kind words. I certainly agree I could have handled it differently and maybe even had my lens by now, but I somehow convinced myself lightening won't strike three times in the same place. I knew better then and I certainly know better now. But even if I had solved my problem, that doesn't solve Leica's problem. I really can't understand why the remaining lenses from this batch weren't immediately recalled. Maybe they have been by now? I have a call in to Leica (voicemail message) and if I find anything out I'll let folks know. Mike Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted July 17, 2009 Share #50 Posted July 17, 2009 With 18 or perhaps all 20 of this batch showing the same fault one has to ask if the signature on the card that comes with Leica stuff means anything at all. It is not just a missed individual lens but it could be as much as 20. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
budrichard Posted July 17, 2009 Share #51 Posted July 17, 2009 Valkyrie, thanks for the update. I stand by my original assertion, "If I were to guess the problem, I would look for inadequate training of a new employee who did not learn how the lens should be correctly assembled. It is my experience performing Root Cause investigations that it rarely is neglect by the employee that causes the problem. Of course everyone always blames the employee first and most of the time these problems are not fixed and actually made worse by sanctions against the employee, when the real problem is somewhere in management" The above assertion was ridiculed by members of this Forum of which I provided lucid responses to. "en advised of the problem. Leica could have easily replaced B&H's entire inventory two weeks ago but chose not to do so. Apparently, Leica is willing to accept these defects in so much as they have not taken the actions that could have removed the defective lenses from inventory" The problem you unfortuneatly unearthed is very disturbing as it does imply a total lack of commitment to Quality by Leica. Nothing to be gained by further discussion here.EOT-Dick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 17, 2009 Share #52 Posted July 17, 2009 With 18 or perhaps all 20 of this batch showing the same fault one has to ask if the signature on the card that comes with Leica stuff means anything at all. It is not just a missed individual lens but it could be as much as 20. Jeff It is more likely to be very basic human error. These lenses are built in batches. What could be more simple than for instance an employee signing the cards en masse before taking a coffee break, somebody from the shipping department taking away the gear thinking it had been inspected and somebody else from production putting the next batch on his desk. The only thing he would have thought would be: "Strange, I thought I signed these cards. Oh well, maybe I'm confused with yesterday"..... Just speculation, of course, but that is the way these kind of things happen - everywhere. In hospitals, with NASA, and also with Leica. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted July 17, 2009 Share #53 Posted July 17, 2009 Come on Jaap if the scenario you describe is possible then I dont think they should sign the cards at all. They are pointless. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 17, 2009 Share #54 Posted July 17, 2009 I don't think so. Stack of cards, stack of lenses. Examine one lens, take one card, add and put in the box. Next one.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted July 17, 2009 Share #55 Posted July 17, 2009 What could be more simple than for instance an employee signing the cards en masse before taking a coffee break Jaap, you wrote the above. If this happened then of course the signature is meaningless. What is the wording on the certificate? 'This Leica product was meticulously examined by experienced professionals at several stages of production' followed by unreadable 'squigle' I must admit that the final handwritten squigle does look as if it could have been done on block paying no real attention. The signature on these lenses is meaningless in anycase because they have a fault obvious to the 'experienced professional', unless it is the office cleaning staff that sign of. Perhaps they should add a phrase about final inspection before the shipping and take care to properly sign their name. Somehow I dont think Leica's procedures are quite up to NASA's in their rigor. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 17, 2009 Share #56 Posted July 17, 2009 Hmmm. I should change my job. I have a stack of pre-signed drug prescriptions in a locked drawer. I use them after diagnosing correctly (one should hope;)) and running it through the printer for the correct drug. I do not think pre-signing makes them less to the point. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted July 17, 2009 Share #57 Posted July 17, 2009 A locked drawer? that is the difference:D Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted July 17, 2009 Share #58 Posted July 17, 2009 Somehow I dont think Leica's procedures are quite up to NASA's in their rigor. Don't tell us about NASA's rigorous procedures. Wasn't that the entity that had one of their space shuttles come back to the ground in a zillion pieces due to a leaking seal worth a couple of dollars? Andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted July 17, 2009 Share #59 Posted July 17, 2009 Yes that was a terrible tragedy, but I think that what NASA are trying to do is a few notches up on what Leica is trying to do. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted July 17, 2009 Share #60 Posted July 17, 2009 Agreed (and I sincerely hope that NASA's standards are quite a bit higher than Leica's, as there are people at risk with NASA, but not with a misassembled Leica lens), but it serves to show that no matter how high your standards are, mistakes may and eventually will happen. Andy 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.