Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It's a very early version of the f/1.0 [1975 serial: 2749xxx]. It has the stiffest focusing I've ever encountered with any lens from any manufacturer. I thought it would loosen up with use, but it did not. I was willing to live with it until I made the mistake of attending the Leica Day they had here last fall, when I played with other lenses that focusing buttery smooth. Sherry tried all of her tricks and couldn't fix it, saying it ultimately would have to go to Solms. She also said it was so securely sealed that she thought they would have to go in through the front element [thereby breaking it] to open it up. The reason I'm wanting to make a stink relatively early in the game is that I want the lens back before we go on vacation. It has already been sorely missed during a once-in-a-lifetime family gathering and I want to avoid any further misses as much as possible. /Mitch - -----Original Message----- From: shino@ubspainewebber.com [mailto:shino@ubspainewebber.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 12:17 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] Black Hole? this is rather frightening. what was wrong with the lens? what kind of noctilux is it? - -rei > From: "Zeissler, Mitch" <mzeissle@gcipoa.gannett.com> > > I am now in the same boat with my beloved Noctilux. I sent the lens to > Leica NJ in mid-April and received a very fast response from them > indicating the lens needed to be forwarded to Solms, which I approved. > > It has now been just over two months since I gave approval. I have > called and called Leica NJ. I have sent e-mail to Leica NJ. The latest > response from Leica NJ, dated this past Sunday morning, is that they > "did indeed contact them [Solms] - they had not cleared the lens through > their estimation process yet". > > Can someone forward me off-list the e-mail address of Herr Cohn? I > think that two months without an estimate is beyond reason at this > point. > > /Mitch