Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/03/19

[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: Patrick Jelliffe <pbjbike@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:25:44 -0800 (PST)

Austin and Jerry,

Yes, I emailed him at the 9 month mark when it first
became stiff, but was still working.  He told me not
to worry about it, as it wasn't an SLR lens, no auto
diaphragm, etc...Three months later, the next time I
used it, it had become much worse and would not open
up past 2.8 without a lot of force, which I did NOT
continue to use.  Upon close inspection, grease
appeared to be coating all the blades. I rarely use
the 1.2, only when it's really called for.  It
literally had two rolls of use and sat in a bag in the
closet the rest of the time.

Another email sent right away, this at the 12 month +
two week time line, and he first claimed not to
remember me or the repair. He only warranties work for
6 months, and said he'd extend it to a year, but since
it was over even that, he couldn't help me. He told me
the 50 1.2 had a tendency to have migrating lube
problems. [Somehow, it had survived 45 years without
this issue] Others on Photonet have had similar
experiences.  I think he's extremely busy and takes
short cuts and has no one checking things before they
go out.  Return packing was a joke--He discarded my
double box with padding separating the two, and
several layers of bubble wrap around each of three
lenses.  What I got back was a small single box, my
lenses in baggies, and packing peanuts.  By the time
the box arrived, the lenses were all nesting together
with nary a shred of styrofoam between them.  No
apparant damage, but I was nonplused.

Needless to say, any repair work I have in the future
will go to Ken Ruth and Sherry Krauter.  Thanks for
your concern.  I, too, really thought he was the best
choice at the time.

Regards,

Patrick




- --- Austin Franklin <darkroom@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Patrick,
> 
> > I did have a Canon 50 f/1.2 screw mount lens
> serviced
> > by Focal Point.  Apparently, VanStelten used a
> GREASE
> > with a high viscosity.  It migrated over a period
> of 9
> > months, and a total of TWO rolls of film using
> that
> > lens, no extreme temperatures either in use or
> > storage.  Because it wasn't oil, the grease caused
> the
> > blades to bind and rendered the lens unuseable.
> Even
> > under examination, because of the use of grease
> and
> > not oil, there was no shiny telltale sign. Your
> case
> > is totally different, but mine is an example of
> > improper repair technique, and probably improper
> > volume of lubricant.
> 
> This is an astounding story, Patrick.  John is the
> best known lense repair
> expert on the planet.  This is the very first, out
> of hundreds of people
> I've known use him, that I've heard a thing bad.
> 
> Did you call him and ask him about this?  If not,
> why not?  If so, what was
> the rest of the story?  I just can't imagine him
> doing as you suspect,
> "botching" a repair, or him not making it right for
> you if in fact he was at
> fault for some reason.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, see
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html