Bradley B
Well-known member
A local shop as a pair of Ultravid BR 10x42's that have been on display for a good while and offered at an older price. There was a very small and barely discernible scratch on the surface of one of the objectives, and small bit of "lint" several layers in from the objectives. So the retailer agreed to send them to Leica/NY for remedy.
Leica returned them yesterday having replaced one objective lens. I gave the pair a close going over, thinking to save a couple hunderd dollars on top line bins, but there in both barrels, apparently one layer behind the objectives, were instances of those "specks" that people, such as the perhaps unfairly maligned Mork, have reported. In one barrel were at least three specks -- some sort of film lying on the surface of the lens at different points close to the edges of the lens. In the other barrel were two or three more specks, one of them dead in the middle of the lens. And the lint was still there.
My thoughts as I debated buying these bins or not are as follows.
First, there was that famous picture window view, excellent color and contrast, and the famous Leice "feel." These qualities are emotionally thrilling--so intensely moving that I had to confess to my wife last night that I was involved in an affair. I am left with Leica on my mind.
However, my concerns are, first, the incidence and prevalence of these specks, seen by me in the first pair of Ultravids I hold and reported by others; and, second, Leica's apparently consistent position that these specks do not impair the performance of the bins and, therefore, are not redresed by their "renowned" Passport warranty.
Now I speculate. If Leica corporate is working under the German equivalent of the US's bankruptcy protection for financial reorganization, then what kind of financial pressure is Leica Service U.S. under to reign in and control costs? I imagine them seeing the need to draw a line somewhere between their service costs and the feelings of entitlement a buyer who pays $1600 or $1700 for one pair bins may claim. But in an atmosphere, I speculate, of pressure to control costs, that line may be more in the interest of Leica than in the customer.
OK, so Leica (U.S. at least) has staked a position, apparently decided on a case by case occurence, of what faults do or do not impair performance. How many specks are too many? If the lens were completely covered with that film, there would be no question of impairment. So the presence of that film gets to be an issue at some point. Given the number of specks I observed and the location of one of them at about the middle of the lens, I am not comfortable with Leica's position of "live with it." And it raises other questions, speculations, about their current manufacturing tolerances including grinding and coating. How consistent now is that Leica view from one example to the next?
I question whether Leica now has the level of control on their manufacturing processes that they built their reputation on, and I question whether they have the financial management priorities fully to stand behind their "no fault" warranty. Their no fault warranty does not seem to be so focused on Leica's own faults but on the user's propensity to drop them or run them over with a car. However, like others here, I have been seduced by the Leica view and feel. What to do with a problematic mistress?
I have decided to pass on this particular pair of Ultravids; I don't think the savings offset my concerns about this sample's quality. However, if it's possible to select a good sample from original manufacturing, then the Leicas might still be worth the gamble against warranty support.
My Nikon HGL 8x42's do not seem so shabby in comparison. Smooth focusing all last winter, no trace lint, no hint of specks. Sharp, good contrast, and reasonable color rendition. Oh, but those Leicas....
Good birding,
Bradley
Leica returned them yesterday having replaced one objective lens. I gave the pair a close going over, thinking to save a couple hunderd dollars on top line bins, but there in both barrels, apparently one layer behind the objectives, were instances of those "specks" that people, such as the perhaps unfairly maligned Mork, have reported. In one barrel were at least three specks -- some sort of film lying on the surface of the lens at different points close to the edges of the lens. In the other barrel were two or three more specks, one of them dead in the middle of the lens. And the lint was still there.
My thoughts as I debated buying these bins or not are as follows.
First, there was that famous picture window view, excellent color and contrast, and the famous Leice "feel." These qualities are emotionally thrilling--so intensely moving that I had to confess to my wife last night that I was involved in an affair. I am left with Leica on my mind.
However, my concerns are, first, the incidence and prevalence of these specks, seen by me in the first pair of Ultravids I hold and reported by others; and, second, Leica's apparently consistent position that these specks do not impair the performance of the bins and, therefore, are not redresed by their "renowned" Passport warranty.
Now I speculate. If Leica corporate is working under the German equivalent of the US's bankruptcy protection for financial reorganization, then what kind of financial pressure is Leica Service U.S. under to reign in and control costs? I imagine them seeing the need to draw a line somewhere between their service costs and the feelings of entitlement a buyer who pays $1600 or $1700 for one pair bins may claim. But in an atmosphere, I speculate, of pressure to control costs, that line may be more in the interest of Leica than in the customer.
OK, so Leica (U.S. at least) has staked a position, apparently decided on a case by case occurence, of what faults do or do not impair performance. How many specks are too many? If the lens were completely covered with that film, there would be no question of impairment. So the presence of that film gets to be an issue at some point. Given the number of specks I observed and the location of one of them at about the middle of the lens, I am not comfortable with Leica's position of "live with it." And it raises other questions, speculations, about their current manufacturing tolerances including grinding and coating. How consistent now is that Leica view from one example to the next?
I question whether Leica now has the level of control on their manufacturing processes that they built their reputation on, and I question whether they have the financial management priorities fully to stand behind their "no fault" warranty. Their no fault warranty does not seem to be so focused on Leica's own faults but on the user's propensity to drop them or run them over with a car. However, like others here, I have been seduced by the Leica view and feel. What to do with a problematic mistress?
I have decided to pass on this particular pair of Ultravids; I don't think the savings offset my concerns about this sample's quality. However, if it's possible to select a good sample from original manufacturing, then the Leicas might still be worth the gamble against warranty support.
My Nikon HGL 8x42's do not seem so shabby in comparison. Smooth focusing all last winter, no trace lint, no hint of specks. Sharp, good contrast, and reasonable color rendition. Oh, but those Leicas....
Good birding,
Bradley
Last edited:
