Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Halogen lights, QA police, frequent contrast degradation
From: Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 16:44:35 -0800

Gary,

Please don't take this personally. This is basically a general statement
about checking equipment. You just happened to have brought it up.

No one is saying that a piece of equipment shouldn't be checked. It's how
it is checked that is at issue here. If you take a microscopic look at it
(virtually anything that is manufactured by human beings,) you will find,
what might be considered, flaws. But if it takes a microscope, is it really
a flaw. In your case, a halogen light. You can look TOO closely at anything.

If one searches for problems, one will find problems. Because one will go
to whatever level it takes, to find problems.

If something fails (Ted's R4, Greg Bickett's 80/1.4), that's one thing.
It's bad. Replace it. But how far should one go when searching for
potential "problems."

So when these lenses get sent in, are you going to also send the halogen
light? So they can see what you saw? If you don't, you are pissing into the
wind!

If a lens passes a reasonable visual inspection, mechanical and optical,
and works perfectly photographing, where's the problem?

It is virtually impossible for human beings to make "perfect" products.
Robots yes, humans no. I personally *do not* buy Leica products because I
think they are "perfect". I buy them because I happen to like how the
lenses render colors and 3-D objects. And how they record very fine detail.
Oh yeah... and the Bokeh. I like the cameras because they can be operated
completely in the manual mode. And they take Leica lenses.

I buy Leica products for photography. You know... I have never even looked
down inside my 70-180 APO zoom. Maybe I'm crazy. But I don't care. A fine
lens it is. Brilliant as a star, sharp as a tack, no flare, likes filters.
Magnificent performer. What more is there?

If I went out and bought a halogen light, then shined it through my 70-180
APO (actually any of my lenses), and saw junk in between the elements,
would I send it in? Hell no! I do not want anyone taking MY lens apart.
Especially one that makes magnificent images. Then I would stop and look at
the situation. I specifically went out, to buy a special light, in order to
look for a problem in my lens. I set myself up for a fall. Sorry... not me.
I don't think Ted either. I like the images just how they are, with ALL of
my 15 Leica lenses, M and R. Speckles or no speckles. Some of my R lenses
are 22 years old. It would be downright scary to halogenize them. My 50mm
Summicron-R is so old, it's on oxygen. But what a performer! Dazzling!

I'm not likely to be buying any halogen lights soon.

Jim

PS... I am indeed happy that someone is acting as the Leica QA police.
Please continue. Also, I suggest, for those that are concerned about inner
element left overs, the very moment you take delivery of a lens, check it
immediately with your halogen light. If it does not pass your muster, don't
accept it. Give it back. DON'T LET THEM FIX IT. Get a new lens.

And remember, this is my opinion on this subject. I'm not chastising you
for what you do. Hell, you might even use UV filters. And I don't care
about that either. However, everyone should read the first paragraph, on
page 56, of Leica document "Code No. 920 083", titled "Leica R-Lenses,
meets all requests under any situation for any application." and note the
words "are relatively frequent."

Jim again.


At 09:43 AM 12/10/98 -0500, Gary wrote:

>  A friend of mine recently received a new 100 f.28 Macro for his R8.
>After receiving it he called me and said that there were 20-30 "very
>small" specs on the glass INSIDE of the lense.  He also told me that the
>only way you can check a lense to see if it is clean is with a halogen
>light.    I always check my lenses and camera with natural light or
>light bulb but have never checked them with a halogen light.  Well, I
>decided to check a few of my lenses and found the same thing - many
>small specs of dust or particles behind the front lense.
>
>Dear Ted,
>
>    You are obviously a "hell of a man".  You don't need to test but you just
>shoot.  Thats great for you but if it is true you are sure wasting a lot of
>money.  Why buy Leica if your not getting more than Nikon or Canon?  Why
>bother.  Their is an inherent obligation of Leica to make sure the lenses and
>bodies are perfect.  At least as perfect as possible.  My point is simply
this:
>if the lense is delivered in a condition LESS than it should be then why?
 Why
>accept it?  Why ignore it?  Do you do the same with your cars, house, stocks,
>shirts, shoes, picture frames, etc.  You have to inspect your stuff if for no
>other reason than to keep Leica up to its own high standards.  If checking
>expensive equipment for flaws is stupid then I have some land I want to sell
>you.
>
>Ted Grant wrote:
>
>> Jim Brick wrote:
>>
>> >I have often wondered if people buy Leica's to use for photography, or as
>> >an exercise in mechanical/optical study.>>>>>>
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Until I joined the LUG and started reading what some of them go through
>> testing and checking, I have to say that in all my years I never thought of
>> these nit picking things. Actually never occurred to me to do the testing
>> many of them  describe.
>>
>> hell I was just glad to get the lens in hand, onto the assignment allowing
>> me to capture images others couldn't unless they had the equal lens. These
>> tiny little thingies that are seen, certainly blasting a halogen light
>> through the lens are bound to show something and mean diddly squat!  Who
>> cares, get out and take some dam pictures and see what you get! That's the
>> best test of any!
>>
>> If you find the images are lousy, maybe look at self ability first and lens
>> second! :)
>>
>> But as you & Leica say, I'll repeat.  These little speckies in no way make
>> any difference to the recorded image on the film.
>>
>> Most of these guys going through this "light look through thing" will have
>> created a twitch in the knickers of a bunch of Luggites, hell they'll all
>> be running out buying halogen lights to shine through the lens. Then
>> there'll be a hundred posts whining about speckies inside the lens and
>> whine whine etc.
>>
>> I know a couple of users, you and I, that are not going to be doing it, a
>> total waste of time, besides I'd hate to look in mine after all these
>> years! :) Or even at the new ones.
>>
>> Besides as long as my images come out Leica looking, then I don't need to
>> look through them. I'd much rather be out shooting than fiddling and
>> farting around over this twaddling nonsense!
>>
>> >About your 100/2.8 . Are you really interested in someone taking it all
>> >apart, attempting to clean it, then reassembling it, without introducing
>> >more problems? I personally would just use it. I wouldn't have this dilemma
>> >in the first place...
>>
>> I can't imagine anyone whining about a situation like this without shooting
>> film to see what the outcome is. And for someone to even suggest finding a
>> technician to take it apart to clean before using it, is ludicrous! Then
>> what would happen when it's reassembled and the owner sees more thingies
>> than there were before? Tear down and start all over?
>>
>> To accomplish an absolutely "clean air environment" the lens would have be
>> done in one of the "clean air labs" for medical or aerospace work. Quite
>> frankly I fear the posts that are going to arrive in the days ahead!
>>
>> I guess it's quick delete time for them. Me? I'm out shooting! :) To hell
>> with the halogens and speckies! :)
>>
>> ted
>>
>> Ted Grant
>> This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler.
>> http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant
>
>
>