Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don't follow this logic. In that Nathan's initial results with the 135 were good, and he said his other lenses are still fine on the M3, my first suspicion would be that the lens' collimation has somehow slipped. It will be interesting to follow this chain of events. I feel empathy for Nathan having paid a princely sum for this lens and now experiencing aggravation with it. On a similar note, are there any US LUG'ers who've purchased "gray market" Leicas and needed service? Has the US Leica agency performed repairs or refused to? If so, how was service obtained? Regards, Nigel On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 15:18:22 -0500 Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> writes: >Nathan > >I think the problem might be in your M3 body. My 3.4/135 gives me >identical readings on my M3 and M6, and I checked this with a number >of >other lenses as well. All seems in order. > >If the lens registers properly on your M6 body but not on your M3, >then the >problem is more likely with the M3 body. > >Marc > >msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 >Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! > > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]