Yet more lens tightness....

[charles barcellona www.bl]

I know, and have Dykem (blue stuff)here, but prefer the magic marker as was suggested. The problem (minor) is twofold. One, the lens just doesn't drop thru the hole as easy as the other lenses. IOW you have to wiggle it and get it just right to actually slip into the body. Its not a problem, but its just noticably tighter. The second problem is that when you rotate the lens, the lens release button doesn't snap into place when its mounted on the M6. On the M4-2 its just fine. I've traced this down to the frame index, being pushed farther, to its limit on the 90's. On the M6, it seems to be bottoming out before the lens is locked. I have an LTM adapter that is cut for the 90, and it works fine on both bodies. So... I'm figuring the flange on THIS 90 is a wee bit out of spec. Looking very close, it seems that the index points are hand cut, as you can see that there is some uneven machine (file?) work on all the lenses, that was done before chroming. I shudder to think of what a new flange would cost, but this one is out of warranty - even though its a definate out of spec part, I doubt if LeicaUSA would want to replace it at no cost to keep me happy (wishful thinking).

 

<p>

 

I think I'll just use it as is, giving a more rapid "twist" to the lens when mounting it.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

"One two, One two, and through and through,

The Vorpal blade went snicker-snack!"

 

<p>

 

I couldn't stand it. I had to file off the index a smidgen at a time,

testing as I went.

 

<p>

 

Result: Lens still enters the hole in the body a bit tight (no

change), but now it smoothly rotates into place, indexes proper frame

on both bodies... AND... I get that nice "snap" of the release button

telling me I'm snugly locked home.

 

<p>

 

All the above falls into the "don't try this at home kids" catagory.

I used a VERY tiny safe sided riffler, and removed little more than

the chrome.

 

<p>

 

Speaking of which, this COULD be a case of chrome buildup. All high

precision parts that are to be plated, need to take into consideration

the thickness of the plating when figuring the final size. Plating

thickness CAN vary considerably... especially "electrical" plating (as

opposed to chemical electroless plating).

 

<p>

 

YaY its fixed!

[keith_davis1]

Leica's tolerances are the most precise in the industry. There's

nothing wrong with your camera or your lenses and you know it.

I'm sure that Dr. Eliot Rosen will say that you're a liar too. If he

won't, I will, because I also want to be an unquestioning Leica

cheerleader.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

(LOL) Well, then I'm a happy-as-a-clam liar tonite. I got all this

stuff from a fellow forum member (Godfrey) and it was in 100 top

cosmetic condition. Its a real @#$#@$ when you have one snikery

little snag to an otherwise great collection of gear. Hey... I

figured the MOST I could do was screw up the lens flange, and it was

already screwed up, so nothing to lose!

[andrew_schank]

Gee Whiz, and I though you needed to buy something with the

name "Kiev" stamped on it in order to find a lens made specifically

for a camera that won't fit on it. I was wondering if that lens was

mis-handled at some point in its short existance, and got a bugger on

the mount edge somehow.

[johann_fuller]

Difficult to accept but not impossible for leica to get it that far

out of tollerance - could have slipped through their QC??

Another explanation is that the flange has been replaced at some

point and not quite made to the Leica spec - a tech may have just

hand adjusted it to fit a particular body assuming it would fit all? -

the movement required to change the framelines is very small.

Bottom line is if it measures out of spec and tests wrong it's wrong -

whoever - made it!