Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/01/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Someone in here posted a note in the past few days about buying a 35mm Summilux ASPH and having a problem with coma. (Was it you Dan C.?) They then sold the lens and bought another that didn't have this problem. Something troubled me about that post and I'm sorry I didn't jump on it then...but I will now. My first question is how did the user identify the coma problem...what method of test demonstrates coma or "no coma" in this lens? What was looked for? What measure was used? How does the author define coma? If the coma was truly there, why wasn't the lens returned to Leica as defective? It was a new lens was it not? I'm certain if this lens had this quality especially one that Leica went to such trouble to perfect that they would have remedied the problem post haste. Of course, they would have wanted to test it (and Leica has that capability in Northvale) and if it were found to be defective, it would have been replaced. My experience has been that they never resist when an item has a flaw and will promptly make a replacement. Was this a grey market, non-USA lens? I'm very much interested in hearing exactly what criteria was used to determine the coma problem. In practical use, how does one know coma when they see it? Appreciate your response...whomever you were. Thanks. Michael Hintlian