newtophoto wrote:
let me know what you find out. i also bought this lens used here but before the recall. and the service e-mail says a proof of purchase is required, but maybe not really needed since it is a service for a recall?
I agree with you. since it's a recall and a repair, we may be ok.
I got this lens and the (cheap) 28 f2 sony lens.
took about 100 pics so far.
so far, I'm amazed at this new world they call sony mirrorless.
truly amazed.
can't wait to get my a7r3. only experience i have with sony is the sony rx1r2. lovely images, but a lot of missed shots (probably user error) and the battery annoyed me to no end. now i have a leica Q as my wide and plan to keep the zony 50 as my portrait/walk around.
so I looked at reviews for Precision Camera in CT, and now I'm afraid to send it in for servicing for the recall. Anyone have luck with this repair center?
They replaced an "optical block", which was the part that was backordered. My receipt also states they performed an internal and external cleaning. It now seems to work as well as it did before I sent it in.
FYI, they did require a receipt/proof of purchase to waive the estimated $498.00 fee. Mine was outside of the one-year warranty period by a few days, but they kindly waived the fee. Not sure if my Pro Support membership helped in this case, and I'm not sure what they've been informing others who may have been outside the warranty period and/or not members of Pro Support.
Pro Support covered for a loaner (shipped overnight) for the entire duration of the service, which was awesome.
newtophoto wrote:
can't wait to get my a7r3. only experience i have with sony is the sony rx1r2. lovely images, but a lot of missed shots (probably user error) and the battery annoyed me to no end. now i have a leica Q as my wide and plan to keep the zony 50 as my portrait/walk around.
Honestly the battery is the biggest problem for the RX1RII. I'm hoping Sony adds a grip and a larger battery for the next version.
drewle wrote:
They replaced an "optical block", which was the part that was backordered. My receipt also states they performed an internal and external cleaning. It now seems to work as well as it did before I sent it in.
FYI, they did require a receipt/proof of purchase to waive the estimated $498.00 fee. Mine was outside of the one-year warranty period by a few days, but they kindly waived the fee. Not sure if my Pro Support membership helped in this case, and I'm not sure what they've been informing others who may have been outside the warranty period and/or not members of Pro Support.
Pro Support covered for a loaner (shipped overnight) for the entire duration of the service, which was awesome....Show more →
i talked to sony support and they said since it is due to a recall, a receipt was unnecessary. i just hope precision camera doesn't deny me of the service when i ship it in...
"To address this issue, subject to the terms and conditions in the Limited Warranty that accompanied the Affected Models, we will repair your Affected Model, free of charge, until October 31, 2019."
sony pulled this link and is no longer advertising the recall on their product page!
anyone save the listed serials that are effected? I can't believe I didn't screen shot it!
found it
issued a statement for a free repair service on the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 FE lens. Lenses with the serial number between 1800001 and 1810699 and the lenses with serial number between 8300001 and 8300119 are affected by a fog issue that appears in certain conditions.
Does anyone know if the 50 1.4 lenses within the affected range will have problems, or is it that they may have fogging problems? I received one that was manufactured 11/2017 and within the 1800001 and 1810699 range.
Hard to believe it could be manufactured so recently and may have the problem.
Chainring wrote:
Does anyone know if the 50 1.4 lenses within the affected range will have problems, or is it that they may have fogging problems? I received one that was manufactured 11/2017 and within the 1800001 and 1810699 range.
Hard to believe it could be manufactured so recently and may have the problem.
May I ask where did you buy it? I'm thinking about this lens but I'm not sure where I should buy to avoid the recall list. Thanks
Out of all the Google searches I've done prior to purchasing this lens I've read about only one person that got a serial number not in the affected range. How many folks reading this thread have a 50 1.4 NOT in the affected range?
Chainring wrote:
Out of all the Google searches I've done prior to purchasing this lens I've read about only one person that got a serial number not in the affected range. How many folks reading this thread have a 50 1/4 NOT in the affected range?
1800001 - 1810699 and 8300001 - 8900119
is that.....
me?
the factory should recall all lenses from vendors, when this happens.
it's actually a really bad recall too.
and who knows that that place in CT (third party) is actually going to do.
even if you don't see it in your images. look with a flashlight, into the glasses, it's insane what you'll see.
glad I returned my to the seller who sold me a used/bad one.
and asked my vendor to send me one from the new batch, which they did!!!
umsl12 wrote:
May I ask where did you buy it? I'm thinking about this lens but I'm not sure where I should buy to avoid the recall list. Thanks
Samy's Camera in San Francisco. It was one of two they had in their warehouse down in SoCal. No idea what the other serial number was...not that it matters since its been sold as well.
the factory should recall all lenses from vendors, when this happens.
it's actually a really bad recall too.
and who knows that that place in CT (third party) is actually going to do.
even if you don't see it in your images. look with a flashlight, into the glasses, it's insane what you'll see.
glad I returned my to the seller who sold me a used/bad one.
and asked my vendor to send me one from the new batch, which they did!!!
Heck, it may have been you. Even if it wasn't, that'd mean I found one other person with the 50 1.4 NOT in the affected range for a big total of...two. Not the greatest of odds.
?