Oops. I may be a victim of mail order camera stores

[rob scott]

I may have just really goofed up. I purchased, from Adorama, a used

Leica Summilux, 35mm/1.4.. Lotta bucks for me.

 

When I received the lens, it was in bubble wrap, no lens covers. I

immediately looked at the lens glass. The front end lens has a 1/2 mm

defect in the lens coating.. I have presume that from what I can see

with a magnifying lens.

 

My first impulse is to send it immediately back to Adorama, and ask

for a refund. (I also bought "demo" M7, which comes no strap and no

manual.). Before I do that, I need to ask the obvious question: what

does a small defect in lens coating cost me in terms of photo

quality? I'm a serious amateur and treat my lenses with all the care

they deserve, so I've never tried to limp along with a ding in a lens.

 

Rob

[richie chishty]

Just send it back immediately. I am sure Adorama has a return policy. Earlier this year I returned a lens because it had oil on the aperture blades. It took about a month for Adorama to send the refund to my credit card. Nowadays I buy my used Leica stuff from Keh.com.

[terry_rory]

If the lens is not exactly matching the description offered by Adorama then simply repackage and arrange a full refund.

 

However the caps should not be difficult to obtain and the defect does not sound like it will affect images in any way. It is not even a scratch going from what you say.

 

Do you need a manual for a camera as basic as an M7 ? The archives are full of straps and strap related threads (rather too many actually) so that should not be a problem. The manual can be obtained by e-mailing Leica or maybe some contributor on these forums can scan one and e-mail it to you.

[SolaresLarrave]

I once purchased a Minolta MD converter from Adorama. It looked good, but the fit was awful (terribly loose). I sent it back right away after calling them for a RAN (return authorization number). Sure, it took them a month to credit my card, and they even called me home on a Sunday to learn about my reasons to return the converter, but afterwards, the refund showed in my credit card. Within a month.

 

Now... the lens is a demo. I'd try it and see if the small spot has some effect on the image. Chances are it won't but still return it if that makes you happy.

[rob scott]

Thanks guys. This is a tiny defect in the coating. I'm going to shoot a roll or two, get it processed and see what the images look like.

 

The camera seems sound. I just put a roll of color film in it and it's making all the right noises.

 

I agree with all, the lack of strap and manual is just a bad way to start off you un-boxing experience. I convinced, now that it doesn't have an actual chip in the lens, just very small defect in the coating (as manifested by small change in color of the exterior of the lens).

 

Should shot with a wide-open aperture or a tight one to look for a defect? Right now I'm shooting around f8 to f11.

 

Rob

[runkel]

<i>". . . limp along with a ding in a lens."</i><p>

 

I love this construction in reference to a .5 mm coating imperfection. There is no possible way that you or anyone else will ever notice a difference in image quality under any conditions. I doubt there is a film or a machine that could record the difference in image quality.<p>

 

If you want to take your mind off the .5 mm imperfection, I suggest you go into a darkened room and examine your lens by shining a powerful flashlight through it. On second thought, you should never, ever do this.

[frank_farmer2]

Make sure you contact them prior to packing it up and sending it in for a refund. They likely require prior return authorization. Once you've contacted them, they will probably give you a number to put in with the lens that allows them to access the account in their system. Speeds things up considerably.

 

Frank Farmer

[andy m.]

<i>'what does a small defect in lens coating cost me in terms of photo quality</i>'<p>

 

Most probably nothing at all. The cost to your peace of mind will most likely be much more significant.<p>

 

Send it back.

[steve_barrett]

You could ask them to 'adjust' the price downward. They might do it...

[stephen_w.]

I have an M7 manual that I never cracked open. I send it to you for shipping cost, but I don't have the time. I only have three business days until I leave, and am extreemly busy.

 

Funny, I once rented a car that when it rained I couldn't figure out how to turn on the wipers. I had to nudge the poorly marked and non-intuitive stalk manually. I had to look in the 500 page manual to figure it out, LOL.

 

The lens defect will only affect resale. So, if you got a good deal (~$700, which I sold a perfect glass, user barrel), I wouldn't worry about it. If considerably more, I'd return it.

[james mitchell dc]

I bought an M4 from Adorama. When I received it, the shutter locked up on the fourth frame of film. I worked the camera without film. It locked up over and over again after a few winds. So I called them and was promised a full refund--including shipping. I returned the camera, and heard nothing for quite a while. When I called, they sent me from one department/person to another. Then someone called me back and wanted to know the history of the problem. When I told him, he said he'd look into it. He disappeared for two weeks. When I called back, no one seemed to know about the camera at all. I called American Express and asked them to look into it, as I had used their card for purchase. A few days later, I received a refund of the camera price only. I would never do business with that company again. They misrepresent a lot of their used equipment. They have no respecatable reputation. And they're not at all pleasant to deal with.

[capocheny]

Rob,

 

"I'm a serious amateur and treat my lenses with all the care they deserve... limp along with

a ding in a lens."

 

Sounds like you're anal retentive (and you have a right to be after spending your hard-

earned $$$s!)

 

If I were in your shoes, I'd send the thing back to them and get a refund. Even if they

knock off a few bucks on the original cost of the lens... it'll bug you silly knowing that the

defect is there!

 

Frankly, don't accept anything less than what you really want! It's your money and you

shouldn't accept second best, IMHO!

 

I know I wouldn't. :)

 

Besides, there are better sellers out there who don't/won't pull this kind of BS on folks!

 

Lastly, there's quite a few M7s and Lux 35s on "that auction site" at the moment too!

 

Good luck.

 

Cheers

[jorn ake]

I buy developer and film at Adorama, but nothing else. Too much of what they sell is in what I like to call "buyer-beware" condition - i.e. if the buyer doesn't see/realize/know the true condition/value of the item, well then Adorama got rid another one.

 

If the price and condition don't match, get authorization and send it back.

[jbq]

Even if you stop down to f/22 the "cones" of light are still 1.6mm in diameter, 10 times larger than the spot. You didn't buy that lens to shoot at f/22, did you?

 

If it's just an issue in the coating, I'd be surprised if you could ever see the results. If there's an actual defect in the glass, things could be different, but if it's only an issue in the coating I wouldn't worry much. Now if the thought bothers you do, return it.

[peter_n1664876959]

To be honest, I would send both back. I wouldn't buy used from Adorama or B&H either for that matter. Both great companies to buy new from but if you want used buy from a member here or over at RFF or from KEH.

[stephen_w.]

I now agree that you should return it. It will bug at no end, given your original post.

 

I have a rare night off (check my account), so am quite active now.

[rob scott]

One of the great things about this website is you get generally great information in a timely fashion. Between a Karate lesson for my daughter and grocery shopping, I managed to shoot two rolls of film, (color and C41 BW). They're in the hopper now. I'm sure my biggest challenge will be exposure and focus, not discerning any defects from the lens.

 

I know enough about physics to appreciate the fact that a .5mm defect is unlikely to render much. Sorry, Matt, next time I'll work harder on my syntax for you. I think I'm just offended by Adorama. Sending out a camera w/o neck strap, owner's manual, and lens cap may be meeting the letter of the tendered offer, but it's pretty cheeky all the same. I'm inclined to send it back, just on principal. This purchase is over $3K, and I could buy a lot of good Nikon gear for that cash. The Leica is an experiment with a more fundamental camera, with a good lens.

 

I will say this for the Leica M7, you can limp along (that's for you Matt), pretty well w/o the owner's manual. It's a pretty intuitive camera. Once you stop it down below f8, you've got great DoF and fast shutter speeds.

 

Thanks to all.

 

Rob

[peter_a__nyc_]

I get great used deals from Adorama, but maybe because I go there in person. I have seen

quite a few of their used litems labled incorrectly. Also, some very clean "E+" items which,

upon close inspection, reveal a serious hidden problem. If you want a particular lens, ask

to see three or four in the price catagory you want. They have a huge stock. Their website

is only a rough estimate.<p>

Last week I wanted a clean Nikon 105 2.5 early (Sonnar) version. Among four samples, all

the usual ailments were there-- stiff focusing, sluggish oily diaphragm blades, fungus,

some were AI'd and were labled AI, etc. Only one was really good, and after bargaining I

paid $75.<p>

Also, I never had problems returning items purchased there.

[stephen_w.]

Do what your logic tells you. You'll be happier. It has always worked for me.

 

Negociate

[rich815]

Why is everyone saying "return it! return it!" when no one knows (he has not mentioned) what kind of condition the lens was represented. If it was not sold as MINT or MINT - then a tiny, tiny (and we are talking tiny! 0.5 mm??!! Has anyone bothered to look at a metric ruler and see how tiny that is?) "defect" in the coating (it does not sound like a real deep scratch here) might actually be acceptable based on the item's description and price. It is used after all. Did the listing say "with caps" or "in boxs"? If not why would you expect caps or a box?

 

So, Robert, was it represented as NEW or MINT? What did you pay?

[rob scott]

Interesting comment about visiting Adorama in person. I've heard several folks mentiont that as the only way to buy high-end equipment from them, and I think it was on a Leica string.

 

My business takes me to Washington, DC and Columbus and neither cities make it easy to actually find a Leica that's fairly new. In DC, Strauss is about as robust as it gets and they quit carrying new M7s and Contax about a year ago. You have to "special order." I can't recall the place in Columbus, but it's a jumble of old Leica lenses and "parts."

 

Having never bought a "used" camera from a mail-order house, I'm probably the last guy on the planet to figure this out, but I've learned my lesson. In fairness to Adorama, both lens and camera were priced well below new and the camera seems in good order, the lens leafs are clean and dry, and the level of wear is quite minimal. But.. as one contributor put it, it's still a lot of bucks and if you going to buy into this level of camera, taking more time to search out a good one is a good investment. I didn't do that.

 

Rob

[stephen_w.]

Richard,

 

It is because we Leica "cultists" want MINT glass (I could care less about barrel condition as long as there were no other issues), and pay for it. If you payed for mint glass and didn't get it, no matter the effect, wouldn't you be upset if you didn't like the lens and tried to get your money back from resale and had to take a big loss? Isn't that one of the benefits of owning a Leica: resale value? I've never lost a penny on Leica gear, add that to all the enjoyment in their use. A better investment I can't imagine, for me. Point being: get what you want; wait if you have to; pay a good price; don't like it sell it for what you paid, or more.

 

Robert is upset to some degree. That's the reason for his post, no? Quite understandable.

 

Cheers

[rjm photo]

I wouldn't sweat the manual and camera strap unless they said the two items came with the camera. I have bought used cameras on ebay and private party and I have never gotten either with any of the cameras....no big deal. I started off with new strap and got the manuals on line.

 

If you don't return the lens, again it is not a big deal, Leica lenses are not always perfect even when they are brand new Leica USA. I have gotten two that I thought would have been more perfect but it sure doesn't effect any pictures I'll ever take. Very little in the world is perfect or worth stressing over. If you keep the lens just think of it as your lens with that peculiarity you will soon forget about especially after you discover just how fantastic this lens is.

 

My only dealing with Adorama was an on-line purchase of a used TC-14B and it was descibed as excellent. When I got it it was in the original box with the instruction sheet and in as-new condition. It works swell, arrived quickly and I paid under $225. I would consider shopping there again.

[peter]

Three thoughts.

 

First what did you pay and was it a fair amount taking account of the flaw? Remember even if the flaw does not affect picture quality when the time comes to sell, it will affect selling price further down the track so if you paid too much then you will eventually have to wear this pain.

 

Secondly a question in two parts. Was the flaw disclosed prior to sale? - I presume not - and does it affect your peace of mind to find it there now? I often find that small things like this bug the hell out of me when I buy an expensive new toy only to find a scratch/nick/dent/falw. If you are the same - send it back it is not worth your peace of mind.

 

Finally; I had a Nikon with a similar flaw (although from your description I would say it was larger) on its standard lens (front element) and believe me EVERYTIME I shot into the sun I got a nice big flare from it. At the time I was not especially knowledgeable about cameras and I kept the thing (after being fobbed off by the Australian Nikon distributor.) I do not think I would make that mistake now.

 

Personally on balance my own inclination would be to send it back although I admit that had I been fully informed before the sale and went ahead anyway I probably would have a differing view.

[runkel]

Rob,

 

Nothing wrong with the syntax. I'm sorry I was unclear and gave the impression I was criticizing your syntax.

 

What I loved was what I saw as the huge disproportion between the phrase "limp along" (which I associate with serious injuries, badly damaged warships and such) and the objective hardship you faced, which was having to use one of the best 35mm lenses ever made with what sounded to me like a truly immaterial coating blemish.