Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/03/18

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] 35 Summilux from KEH, should I complain?
From: "Don Dory" <dorysrus@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:23:04 -0500
References: <14F29ECF-59BD-11D7-80DD-0050E42E6E0B@shaw.ca> <3E77FB6E.E83BE95D@pacbell.net>

All of this angst over oil on the blades?  You can bet that the lubrication
used inside the lens is non-volatile.  Why you ask?  Because it's inside the
lens and it doesn't matter whether you can see it on the aperture or it is
hidden at the hinge points, the lubricant is still inside the lens.

If this was the lens I had thoughts about then you got a really good price
on an amazingly good lens.  Shoot a controlled roll of film, if the lens
delivers as it should then enjoy many years of biting sharp no flare images.

As to KEH, they have always tended to grade conservatively on cosmetics.  I
know many of their people and they really do try to parse the equipment
fairly within their categories.  My issues last year were through their
inability to find someone who could fix a Contax II, and they willingly did
the right thing.

Look at the bright side, in ten or twelve years, you can have the lens CLA'd
in Solms and it will be like new for an additional $200 or so: and you still
would have paid much less than new.

Don
dorysrus@mindspring.com

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from John Collier <jbcollier@shaw.ca> (Re: [Leica] 35 Summilux from KEH, should I complain?)
Message from Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@pacbell.net> (Re: [Leica] 35 Summilux from KEH, should I complain?)