Re: [Leica] 90mm f/2 APO ASPH

["Simon Lamb" <s_lamb@compuserve.com>]

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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >