Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/01/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Could you tell us who did the work? If it was someone familiar, we can tell you if they are just trying to brush you off. I use Gerry Smith at Kindermann Canada and have heard good things about DAG as well. Some of the others can be a little difficult to deal with at times and not willing to acknowledge potential errors or omissions. There are lenses that are famous for poor diaphragm construction such that it is recommended you do not use the lens if you find one that works! As far as I know the Canon 50/1.2 is a good user lens though the Canon 50/1.4 and Nikon 50/1.4 were better performers. John Collier On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 09:54 AM, Patrick Jelliffe wrote: > Can I get your opinions? > > 13 months ago I sent my Canon sm 50mm 1.2 lens for a > CLA. The glass was very clear, but both the aperture > and focus were stiff enough to be a problem. There > was oil on the aperture blades. The $100 CLA seemed > to do the trick until 2 months ago, when I noticed the > aperture was stiff from 2.8 to 1.2, and observed a > small amount of lubricant near the inner 1/4 of > several blades. After a roll or two, that migrated, > and now lubricant covers all the blades, causing two > of them to hang-up at 2.0. I've stopped using the > lens for fear of breaking anything. The repair > facility has refused to back their work saying that > the Canon 50 1.2 is prone to this lubricant migration. > The lens was never in extreme conditions--no Gobi > Desert, no glove box storage, etc., and has not seen > much use, (literally under 10 rolls). Am I wrong to > be annoyed about this lack of service? Have others > had this problem with this lens? - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html