Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ken No. I sent the cards to Leica UK and got my passports. All my equipment is covered for two years in case of damage or defect, accidental or otherwise. Simon - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee, Ken" <ken.lee@hbc.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 1:04 PM Subject: RE: [Leica] 90mm f/2 APO ASPH > > Simon, > > Doesn't that only apply to the US? > > Ken > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Simon Lamb [SMTP:s_lamb@compuserve.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 10:43 AM > > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > > Subject: Re: [Leica] 90mm f/2 APO ASPH > > > > It is a piece of white card that has the serial number and description of > > the lens. You send it to Leica and get a passport back. If it is not > > there > > then it may well be secondhand. > > > > Simon > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Javad Fatemi" <jfatemi@gfigmbh.de> > > To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 10:01 AM > > Subject: RE: [Leica] 90mm f/2 APO ASPH > > > > > > > > > > Simon, > > > > > > I did not see such a passport, sorry, but I'm very new to this area. How > > > does it look? > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > ***************************************** > > > Javad Fatemi > > > GFI Fax & Voice GmbH > > > Technical Department > > > Email: jfatemi@gfigmbh.de > > > Internet: http://www.gfifax.de > > > Tel: +49-40-3068100 > > > Fax: +49-40-306810-10 > > > ***************************************** > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Simon Lamb [mailto:s_lamb@compuserve.com] > > > Sent: Thu, May 18, 2000 10:05 AM > > > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > > > Subject: Re: [Leica] 90mm f/2 APO ASPH > > > > > > > > > Javad > > > > > > I would assume that if it were secondhand there would be no passport > > > papers > > > inside the box as the original owner would most likely have sent them > > > off. > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Javad Fatemi" <jfatemi@gfigmbh.de> > > > To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 8:24 AM > > > Subject: RE: [Leica] 90mm f/2 APO ASPH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I bought yesterday APO R-Elmarit 2.8/180 and I noticed the same very > > > > small white thing. I don't thing that it it was for example a second > > > > hand lens. I took that, because I wanted it. For me is important to > > > > find this out, second hand or no. Any idea if there is a way... > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > ***************************************** > > > > Javad Fatemi > > > > GFI Fax & Voice GmbH > > > > Technical Department > > > > Email: jfatemi@gfigmbh.de > > > > Internet: http://www.gfifax.de > > > > Tel: +49-40-3068100 > > > > Fax: +49-40-306810-10 > > > > ***************************************** > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Dan Cardish [mailto:dcardish@microtec.net] > > > > Sent: Wed, May 17, 2000 4:04 PM > > > > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > > > > Subject: Re: [Leica] 90mm f/2 APO ASPH > > > > > > > > > > > > It probably makes no difference, performance wise. On the other hand > > > > being > > > > hand made implies that someone in the factory should have held the > > > lens > > > > in > > > > their hands and noticed these things, just as you did. > > > > > > > > Dan C. > > > > > > > > At 03:35 PM 17-05-00 +0100, Simon Lamb wrote: > > > > >Hi > > > > > > > > > >I need an urgent response to this or I may miss the opportunity to > > > get > > > > the > > > > >lens. I looked at a new 90mm f/2 APO ASPH today and noticed two > > > > things. At > > > > >the side of the top curved element there was a small bit of white > > > > substance > > > > >trapped between the lens and the inside screw thread. It was very > > > > small and > > > > >when I tried to brush it away there was a very fine and small hair > > > > attached. > > > > >The item seemed trapped and would not move and was, as I said very > > > > small. > > > > > > > > > >There was also a small mark on one of the internal elements. I have > > > > seen > > > > >this on other lenses and they work fine. > > > > > > > > > >My question. I did not take the lens because I figured for my £1,200 > > > > pounds > > > > >I should get a lens without any marks or trapped bits. Am I being > > > > overly > > > > >fussy and do you feel that this is within acceptable limits of > > > > acceptance > > > > >considering it is a Leica (hand made) and therefore subject to some > > > > >imperfections? > > > > > > > > > >I need a quick response before they sell the lens to someone else. I > > > > have > > > > >already waited four weeks for it and, having held it gently in my > > > arms, > > > > I > > > > >want it back! > > > > > > > > > >Simon > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > > >From: "Jason Hall" <JASON@jbhall.freeserve.co.uk> > > > > >To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 1:00 PM > > > > >Subject: [Leica] Leicaflex SL MOT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Following earlier posts about SL MOT > > > > >> production numbers, I had the following reply > > > > >> from Leica UK to an email I directed at > > > > >> Solms:- > > > > >> > > > > >> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > > > > >> "The s/n 1278xxx was allocated to a batch of > > > > >> Leicaflex SL's in 1970. As was often the > > > > >> practice this number (not being used in that > > > > >> batch) would have been carried over to be > > > > >> used in a later production run, i.e. - > > > > >> Leicaflex SL MOT. We have no details of any > > > > >> prototypes, and modification to the original > > > > >> SL is unlikely". > > > > >> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > > > > >> > > > > >> I followed this up with a phone call and > > > > >> their rep claimed that despite the fact that > > > > >> some of the serial numbers fell outside of > > > > >> the designated batches, there were, as far as > > > > >> he was aware only 980 SL MOT''s made, > > > > >> production was limited to 72-74, he also said > > > > >> that there were probably far less than 980 SL > > > > >> specific motor drives made. Contrary to the > > > > >> above mail he said that some of the MOT's > > > > >> outside of the designated serial number > > > > >> runs may have been modified SL's. > > > > >> > > > > >> This doesn't really clarify anything, but I > > > > >> hope its of interest. > > > > >> > > > > >> Jason > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >