Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/06/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree with Nathan. Simon On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Peter Cheyne <geordiepete211 op yahoo.co.uk>wrote: > Some weeks back, I sent in my M8 to have the sensor replaced. The price > was reasonable at 782 Euros. I paid an extra 100 Euros to have the LCD > window replace because of an annoying scratch. Now I have that LCD covered > with a protector screen. Solms Customer Services also told me a few weeks > ago that I could send in a couple of lenses that I wanted adjusting to work > better with my M8 ad have that done at no extra cost. The thing is, I was > charged 313 Euro for adjustment of each lens anyway. Actually, Ms Frankl > told me it would be free. Then I was invoiced for 413 Euros per lens. I > complained to Ms Frankl, who then got the price reduced by 100 Euros, but > said she could not reduce more because she had made a mistake in what she > had previously said about the adjustment being a free service in this case. > OK, I accepted that, feeling confident that my lenses would be returned > working as perfectly as possible with my M8. > > Having tested the two adjusted lenses on my M8, I can't say that it was > worth the money. In fact the returned 90 Tele-Elmar is performing worse > than before. I did a tape-measure focus test, as suggested by other > LUGgers, with the camera on a tripod, and focused each lens at 1m, 2m, and > 3m distances. The tabbed 50 'Cron is acceptable, I suppose, although it is > back-focusing at each distance and it becomes a problem wide-open at 3m and > further. I can live with that, but I was expecting better. The > performance > of the 90 Tele-Elmar is now very much unacceptable. It is front focusing > at > all distances. At 1m it scrapes in as usable, at the very back of the > range > of acceptable sharpness. At 2m the point I focused on by rangefinder is > 25cm behind where the focus actually hit. At 3m it is a joke, > front-focusing by about 40cm. My 135 lenses perform better than this. > > I fixed (bodged) the focus on an old Canon 135/3.5 screw mount to work > better than the Leica techs managed with my 90/2.8. The Canon was so OOF > with my M8 that I unscrewed the front of the lens, fitted a rubber plumbing > 'O'-ring to work as a makeshift shim, and the focus was spot on. I'm > surprised that the Leica techs returned my 90/28 to me in such poor > focusing > shape. I've sent an e-mail off to Solms with my test photos, saying that I > would like their technicians opinion on the photos, and for them to try > again with my 90mm lens. > > Here is a link to the test photos: > > 50 'Cron: > http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=73557746%40N00&q=50+%27Cron+test&m=text > > 90 Tele-Elmar: > http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=73557746%40N00&q=90+Tele-Elmar+test&m=text > > Then just for comparison, here is my old 90 'Cron, which Solms did not > adjust, and is working reasonably well: > http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=73557746%40N00&q=90+Tele-Elmar+test&m=text > > I think the best performer was the 135/2.8 (goggles): > http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=73557746%40N00&q=135+goggles&m=text > > Thanks for taking a look. I'd appreciate any comments on the results, > especially if you agree or disagree with me that the 90 Tele-Elmar is not > performing like a lens that I just got back today from being adjusted in > Solms. > > Peter Cheyne > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >