Steve, you have made some very good points in your writeup, thanks. I actually had considered that there could be some operator error in my tests, and possibly the lens isn't as bad as all that anyway. that maybe I could live with softer 1.4, than at 2.0 or 2.8, or 4.0, according to the Manager at Leica, he said it is front focusing, and the reason why it appears spot on at f4.0 is that the depth of field is increased, so that point you are focusing on, is no longer out of focus. Well, makes sense.
The second lens that was supposed to be a 10 rated, MINT lens came to me yesterday. There obviously must be a mistake, a BIG mistake. The lens came to me without a factory box, without a factory end cap. a slight scratch on the lens cap, no factory Leica zipper pouch, no instructions. The lens that came to me's serial number does NOT match what is on the invoice. This is a BIG problem. I am immediately concerned that they will try to say I did some kind of swap. However, I do have one thing in my favor.
The lens did come in the little plastic bag that a new lens comes in from Leica, so the person saved the bag, and not the box? Wow, strange. It has factory Leica sticker on it, with the serial number that matches this lens. Well, that sticker has the serial number that matches the lens, the bag also has the dealer used sticker on it, with their "sku" on the sticker, that matches the "sku" on the invoice. Of course, the serial number does not match the invoice.
Oh, this lens came in a Lens Coat brand neoprene pouch with a cinch strap and buckle like thing on it. I don't think that's factory LEICA. I am being facetious here. I know it didn't come with that! I am very aggravated. I now have 6700.00 in 2 Summilux lenses, and neither is right.
This dealer just went down my list of trusted sources for anything used, that's for sure. The first lens, I can see how this could happen, maybe they don't test 1.4 for accuracy. but this second mistake, is inexcusable.