Zeiss 35/2 front focus repair

[brbo]

Can anyone suggest a good repair service center in EU (preferably in Germany or Austria) that can fix a front focus in my Zeiss Biogon 35/2?

I bought here a used 35/2 described as 'perfect with only some small paint wear' only to find out that not only the lens has wobble and focus ring play, but also a severe front focus (after first roll I immediately knew something was not right and confirmed it with shooting test charts and side by side test with Nokton 40/1.4).

My other lens (Nokton 40/1.4) and all other lenses I had in the past focused correctly on this body. At infinity focus rangefinder patch alignment is perfect (with Biogon 35/2, too).

My question is, should I just send it to Zeiss Germany (heard that they can be slow and expensive) or are there others that are know to provide reliable and quick service? What I want to avoid is wasting time by sending it someplace other than Zeiss only to hear back that that kind of focusing issues can only be fixed by Zeiss. Apart from getting front focus issue fixed I would like to have lens wobble, focus ring play and a bit stiff and a bit uneven focusing ring movement fixed at the same time.

I know that nobody can tell me for certain, just asking for opinions. Anyone had the same problem(s) fixed? Where? How much?

I know that there is a very very slight possibility that the problem is in my body or the combination of the body + lens (tolerances adding up). Even if that turns out to be the case, having the lens checked will give me opportunity to sell the lens with clear conscience.

Additionaly, looking at Zeiss web page, they offer 'Repair' and 'Function proofing'. What would be best to choose?

Thanks!

 

[Nigel Meaby]

I don't know about in Germany or Austria but I know Malcolm Taylor in the UK will fix Zeiss lenses as we had a conversation about it recently. But I'm sure someone else will come up with a name of someone closer to home. There is also Wil Van Manen in The Netherlands a little bit closer to you, actually.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I'd get a refund from the person who sold it to you falsely described. The repair will not be cheap. I've seen others here say wobble repair cost $170. Don't know if calibrating the focus would add to that or not.

 

[brbo]

I did try to get a refund. Most I got out of him is a 'Sorry, no return or any compensation for getting it up to advertised description possible! Lens seemed OK to me'. After all the years of purchasing used photo gear on eBay I apparently ran out of luck with the first purchase through randefinderforum.com classifieds.

But I guess I'll just have to let it go. I'm just looking at getting 700+ EUR paperweight into something usable as quickly as possible. I know that at the end it will cost me more than a new Biogon 35/2. Lesson learned.

Thanks Nigel, I'll try to get in contact with Malcolm Taylor and Wil Van Manen.

 

[Toni Nikkanen]

So how severe is the front focus, and when shot at what distance?

The uneven focusing ring friction seems to be a feature of ZM lenses; my brand-new ZM Planar had it (though no wobble) and many people on this forum report that their ZM lenses have it. I don't consider that one a problem.

 

[sebastel]

if the optical group is loose in the focusing group, it may have too big distance from the film, resulting in front focus. this may be easy to fix.

i just checked on my on 35mm biogon - the ring that keeps together the optical group and the focusing group lies a bit recessed just inside the rangefinder coupling ring. what you need are either a tool that engages in the two little screwhead like slits, or you use two thin screwdrivers, calm hands to turn that ring, and a third hand to hold the lens.

the special tool can be made out of a metal tube of the correct diameter, or you buy a specialised adjustable tool for those purposes.

the method using two little screwdrivers is not recommended, as you can easily slip off with unpredictable damage to your hands' skin or the lens, depending on what will happen. still, if applied with care, it may give you a chance to see whether it's only the loose optical group causing the problem, or whether the lens has a greater defect.

tighten the aforementioned ring softly, with not too much force. the wobble should almost disappear, and you go ahead with another test.

regards,
sebastian

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I did try to get a refund. Most I got out of him is a 'Sorry, no return or any compensation for getting it up to advertised description possible! Lens seemed OK to me'. After all the years of purchasing used photo gear on eBay I apparently ran out of luck with the first purchase through randefinderforum.com classifieds.

But I guess I'll just have to let it go. I'm just looking at getting 700+ EUR paperweight into something usable as quickly as possible. I know that at the end it will cost me more than a new Biogon 35/2. Lesson learned.

Thanks Nigel, I'll try to get in contact with Malcolm Taylor and Wil Van Manen.

Who was it?

 

[Nigel Meaby]

Yeah I think you should reveal who the seller was so we can all avoid him in the future. It's very poor that he most likely knew it was like that when he sold it and you got shafted! You paid 700 euro for it as well. Should have been mint for that price!

 

[brbo]

So how severe is the front focus, and when shot at what distance?

The uneven focusing ring friction seems to be a feature of ZM lenses; my brand-new ZM Planar had it (though no wobble) and many people on this forum report that their ZM lenses have it. I don't consider that one a problem.

Agree, I don't consider uneven focusing ring friction to be a problem. Just thought that if I'm sending the lens away I might get that fixed as well. Heard people commenting that Zeiss repair service apparently uses better lube than Cosina production plant as they found CLAd lenses better than new in this regard. It might or might not be true, though.

About front focus, I would say it's about 3 cm at less than 1m, more at longer distances.

I've made some 100% crops of some of my test shots:

Biogon 35/2 @f2:

1. close distance (about 1m):

2. mid distance (about 3m):

Comparison to Nokton 40/1.4:

1. close:

2. mid:

 

[pmu]

Yeah I think you should reveal who the seller was so we can all avoid him in the future. It's very poor that he most likely knew it was like that when he sold it and you got shafted!

I was the seller.

I will not comment anything else about this deal other than what I am wriiting in this post. Our conversation/negotiations finished yesterday - permanently.

I am stating only that:

1. The lens was absolutely in PERFECT WORKING CONDITION when I sold it.
2. The buyer is not telling the whole truth. For example, I offered to pay for the adjusting in a very reputable Finnish camera repair. The buyer declined my offer.

I sold a perfectly good item (other than minor paint loss - as mentioned in the add) and I will not take back a broken one.

Most likely the package was mishandled during shipment and some screw got loose or something like that.

I have never ever cheated anyone and never will.

Period.

 

[Nigel Meaby]

Apologies PMU if my post appeared to jump to conclusions and I made assumptions without hearing the story from the other side.

 

[brbo]

2. The buyer is not telling the whole truth. For example, I offered to pay for the adjusting in a very reputable Finnish camera repair. The buyer declined my offer.

You offered 60 EUR! After 3 days emailing and dragging me through your bull**** arguments. 60 EUR covers my p&p to Finland. I turned down the offer in disgust. I will have it fixed on my own expense. I never ever intend to make your name public as I still believe that the possibility is still there that you really didn't know of any of the defects.

Just to shed some light on the matter so anyone can form an opinion (if one cares). Those were my prepositions to resolve the matter:

1. Seller refunds the money, I send the lens back and I cover p&p
2. I send the lens to Zeiss for inspection on my expense and if Zeiss says lens is OK, seller will get my sincere apologies; if Zeiss finds wobble, focus play or focus inaccuracies seller settles the bill of repairs
3. Seller pays full cost of repair in any other repair shop
4. I even suggested that I would take only 100 EUR to cover a part (might not be even half) of cost that I will have getting the lens up to advertised condition

Seller dismissed ALL of the above suggestion. And I can't think of another way that would be fair to both parties.

60 EUR was an insult to me after wasting 3 day in communication with the seller. I'd rather be 60 EUR poorer than leaving seller in thinking that I was treated fairly.

I really didn't want this stuff sneak into this thread, but I guess it's too late now.

 

[brbo]

I offered and made straight to bank account money transfer to save the seller PayPal fees.

 

[sanmich]

Just wanted to tell that from first hand experience, photo gear do suffer from shipping.
The vibrations of the trip can set a camera off or release an optical block retaining ring.
Happened to me, and I'm excessively careful when packing since then.

 

[brbo]

Sure, it's possible. Lens was packaged very well, though. Original Zeiss box with all original styrofoam (sp?!) in place put in a much larger well cushioned box. No marks on the box when I picked it up at post office.

 

[jljohn]

I was the seller.

I will not comment anything else about this deal other than what I am wriiting in this post. Our conversation/negotiations finished yesterday - permanently.

I am stating only that:

1. The lens was absolutely in PERFECT WORKING CONDITION when I sold it.

I sold a perfectly good item (other than minor paint loss - as mentioned in the add) and I will not take back a broken one.

Most likely the package was mishandled during shipment and some screw got loose or something like that.

I have never ever cheated anyone and never will.

Period.

Dear PMU,

I don't know you, and I have no knowledge of your reputation--good or ill, but here ore my thoughts, since you both brought this issue to light here. (Please recognize that I am in the US, so best practices may be different than in your location.)

First, you say that the lens was perfect. Did you specifically check each of the functions the buyer claims are faulty. Did you specifically check for wobble (for a person who is not aware of wobble or has never seen it, you might not even know your lens has a wobble issue). Did you specifically check the focus mechanism? Did you put the camera on a tripod and run a focus test at 1 meter? If you didn't, you cannot claim in good faith that the lens did not have these issues. I think that unless you can say that you checked these functions, the best you can attest to is that you thought your lens was in perfect working order.

Second, you mention that any damage may have been caused in shipping. You sold the lens, and I think it was your responsibility to ensure that it arrived to the buyer in the condition sold (and advertised). As a responsible seller, I assume you insured the lens for the amount paid. If you believe the damage happened in the post, refund the buyer's money and file your claim.

Third, there is the possibility that the buyer is making all this up, but why? What is to be gained. It is far more likely in most people's minds that you simply missed the issues with the lens.

Finally, and this should go without saying, one of the great things about RFF is that it is, to a large extent, a community of trust. I will buy things here that I will not touch from ebay, CL, or other forums, because I can deal with people I trust. I suspect I am not alone in this. I would encourage you to resolve this issue with the buyer, fairly, and let us know how it worked out. Right or wrong, from my perspective, you have lost trust. I haven't bought from you in the past, but I certainly would not buy from you in the future, just based on what I have seen here.

I hope you both figure this out in an amicable way.

 

[ferider]

I bought here a used 35/2 described as 'perfect with only some small paint wear' only to find out that not only the lens has wobble and focus ring play, but also a severe front focus (after first roll I immediately knew something was not right and confirmed it with shooting test charts and side by side test with Nokton 40/1.4).

At a DOF of 9cm, since when is 2-3cm front-focus on a 35/2 and 1m focus distance "severe" ? Which camera ? Did you shoot your Nokton at f2 (I assume so, since DOF seems similar to the Biogon) ? Does the Nokton shift to the front when shot wide open ? Have you shot anything longer on that camera ?

Try to tighten the span ring, and you'll likely be fine. Or adjust your camera. And yes, span rings can come loose during shipping.

My point being that 2-3cm focus variation are completely normal when moving from one body to another one, in particular when moving from one lens brand to another. As is adjustment of lens/camera pairings.

Roland.

 

[jljohn]

since when is 2-3cm front-focus on a 35/2 and 1m focus distance "severe" ?

Try to tighten the span ring, and you'll likely be fine. Or adjust your camera. And yes, span rings can come loose during shipping.

Roland.

You might be right about the span ring--I hope you are. But I certainly would consider a 1 inch front-focus at 3 feet severe. I regularly photograph people with a wide lens wide open, where the person at or near 3 feet. Having the tip of their nose in focus and the eye OOF would be absolutely unacceptable to me. If the bulk of the buyers work is street stuff, then maybe not.

 

[ferider]

Me too, John, with a 75, a 90, or a fast 50 ....

With a 35, Nose and eyes will be in focus even at closest distance.

1.) If the test shot was taken at a 45 degree angle, less than 3 cm "front focus" actually translate to less than 2.

2.) We don't know if the OP used a tripod. A Leica or ZI, etc. For example, just misaligning your eye with a ZI can cause 2-3cm misfocus. Or using the center of the patch vs. the border. Or, if he didn't use a tripod, that can cause the same error. It's certainly within the focus shift of a 40/1.4 Nokton, going from f1.4 to f2, as well. Etc.

 

[jljohn]

Fair enough Roland--good points.