Zeiss ZM 21mm 2.8 / M9 CODING ISSUE!

[Guest gamincurieux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11134 best code for this lens? Zeiss don't think so, read this!!!

 

Maybe I pay too much attention to Ken Rockwell, but for ages now I also thought 11134 was the best code for this wonderful lens. I've always manually set 11134, and lately with my Dremel & enamel model paint I did a proper self-coding of the lens with 11134, but being an older version bayonet it doesn't bring up 28mm lines. Zeiss are currently sending me a new 28mm bayonet flange so I can do it properly & finally have it all automatic (HEAVEN!!), but they've also given me some surprising advice, which is essentially this:

 

"11134 is an ok profile, one of a few ok profiles, but it is not the best profile for this lens in our opinion, please refer to attached information sheet."

 

Both that very interesting info sheet & pic of my self-coding is attached here FYI, and my email exchange with them below to read. You will see that Zeiss recommend coding the lens as one of the 28mm lenses (I don't remember which one exactly, see the sheet).

 

I've never heard of any profile other than 11134 as being good for this lens, certainly not any 28mm lens profile! Have any of you? I've yet to do some real-world testing of my own to see which works better, but I'm interested to test the water for some opinions before I go definitively coding this new bayonet flange when it finally arrives. Zeiss seem pretty sure that 11134 is not the best profile for this lens... straight from the horses mouth!

 

-----------------------------------

Dear xxxxxxx,

 

Thank you for your inquiry to Carl Zeiss.

 

We did some thorough testings with each of the critical focal lengthes. But just with one individual lens . There can be some slight deviations to our recommendations with your lens . The list should give you just a rough idea for the best setting. So please check out the attached file.

Depending on the lens type there could be some colour aberrations left. In that case use an additional lens profile in Photoshop. But your Biogon T* 2,8/21 should be unproblematic.

 

(See attached file: ZM- Test162.xlsx)

 

Hoping to be of service to you we kindly ask you to contact us again should you need further assistance.

 

Sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

 

Carl Zeiss AG

Geschäftsbereich Photoobjektive / Camera Lens Division

Internationaler Vertrieb / International Sales

Kundenservice/ Customer Support

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Telefon/Phone: +49 7364 xxxxxxxx

Fax: +49 7364 xxxxxxxxxxx

E-Mail:xxxxxxxxxxxx@zeiss.de

Internet: Startseite

 

 

Carl Zeiss AG, Carl-Zeiss-Straße 22, 73447 Oberkochen

Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Dr. Dieter Kurz

Vorstand: Dr. Michael Kaschke (Vorsitzender),

Dr. Hermann Gerlinger, Thomas Spitzenpfeil

Sitz der Gesellschaft: 73446 Oberkochen, Deutschland

Amtsgericht Ulm, HRB 501555, USt-IdNr: DE 811119940

 

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Your original inquiry:

 

Comment:

Hello,

 

My question concerns the use of the lens Biogon T* 2,8/21 ZM with the Leica M9 digital camera. When using this uncoded lens on this camera one must manually choose a lens profile from the M9's menu, in order to correct vignetting/color shading/whatever else.

 

I wish to ask please, which lens profile from the M9 menu does Zeiss recommend is the best for this particular lens?

 

I have mostly heard that the profile '11134' works best, but I have also heard other profiles may be even better. It is all becoming quite confusing I must say.

 

Please confirm which profile in the opinion of Zeiss is the best for this lens.

 

I am very much looking forward to your response

 

Many thanks,

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jaapv]

In practice, a number codes work well on a third party lens. The results as recommended are obtained mostly by eyeballing it, including Ken Rockwells. If Zeiss measured another one, so be it, they are probably right, KR is not the most reliable source on the internet...

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[01af]

Maybe I pay too much attention to Ken Rockwell ...

When you're paying any attention to Ken Rockwell then you're paying too much attention to Ken Rockwell.

 

 

... for ages now I also thought 11134 was the best code for this wonderful lens.

It's a common misconception to think the best code for a 3rd-party lens always was the one from the Leica lens with the same (or closest) focal length and speed spec. For some lenses, it is indeed; for many, it's not.

 

Now you got first-hand information about your lens, so what's your problem?

[Guest gamincurieux]

Now you got first-hand information about your lens, so what's your problem?

 

Thank you for your input.

[jaapv]

When you're paying any attention to Ken Rockwell then you're paying too much attention to Ken Rockwell.

Well said, sir!

 

 

It's a common misconception to think the best code for a 3rd-party lens always was the one from the Leica lens with the same (or closest) focal length and speed spec. For some lenses, it is indeed; for many, it's not.

Very true.

[Guest gamincurieux]

Well said, sir!

 

Clearly I'm not the only one who's paid any attention to KR.... the fact that 11134 is the most spoken-of profile for this lens can probably be directly attributed to him. Nowhere on any forum, least of all here on LCF, have I read about Zeiss' very own recommended 28mm profile. That's why I posted here about it, thought it might help someone.

Edited July 27, 2012 by gamincurieux

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find Zeiss table intriguing, in particular inclusion of 21mm f4.5, conventional wisdom is that lens is not suitable for colour photography on M9.

 

I did some test shots in the shop using 21mm f4.5 with M9 (firmware version 1.162) at ISO 1000 coded as pre ASPH 21mm (AKA 11134) and yes it does have colour cast in corners but managed to remove most of it in Adobe RAW with vignette slider, I would say good emergency 21mm lens for colour, B&W images are OK.

 

Please tell me I am wrong.

[Guest gamincurieux]

In short, if anyone has experimented with this Zeiss-recommended 28mm f/2.8 11809 profile against the well-known 11134 profile, I and probably many others would be very interested to read your thoughts/opinions. Thank you!

[01af]

Clearly I'm not the only one who's paid any attention to KR ... the fact that 11134 is the most spoken-of profile for this lens can probably be directly attributed to him.

What an absurd idea!

 

The fact that 11134 (i. e. Elmarit-M 21/2.8) is the most spoken-of profile for the Biogon 21/2.8 ZM can be directly attributed to the fact that 11134 simply is the closest in basic specifications (i. e. 21 mm, 1:2.8, non-aspherical design) to the Biogon. So it appears as the most-obvious choice to most users—moreover, it causes the correct focal length and lens speed to show up in the EXIF data. As simple as that. Has absolutely nothing to do with this Ken Rockwell person.

 

However, how accurately a Leica M lens profile matches a 3rd-party lens does not depend on focal length and lens speed but on the position of the exit pupil and the shape of the vignetting. Lenses with the same focal length and speed usually have similar exit pupil positions and vignettings but not necessarily the same; some other lens may be closer in these regards even when it has a different focal length.

 

 

I find Zeiss table intriguing, in particular inclusion of the C-Biogon 21 mm 1:4.5 ZM; conventional wisdom is that lens is not suitable for colour photography on M9.

It's an excellent lens in terms of sharpness and lack of distortion, but on digital sensors the vignetting is extreme. That's why in the Zeiss profile table, there are no 'very good' profile choices (sehr gut) for the 21/4.5 but only two labelled 'good' (gut) ... which basically just means 'barely acceptable, better than nothing'.

Edited July 27, 2012 by 01af

[pico]

Perhaps a Biogon expert can help here.

 

I use three Zeiss Biogon lenses of later design for MF and LF and stopping them down does not increase film coverage, and to my eye it has little effect upon vignetting. Perhaps I am deluded. Your experience?

[01af]

I use three Zeiss Biogon lenses of later design for MF and LF and stopping them down does not increase film coverage, and to my eye it has little effect upon vignetting.

This probably means these lenses don't have any (or hardly any) artificial vignetting but natural vignetting only (which does not respond to stopping down).

 

However what does this have to do with the coding of Biogon ZM lenses?

[Guest gamincurieux]

What an absurd idea!

 

This one oozes charm

[pico]

This probably means these lenses don't have any (or hardly any) artificial vignetting but natural vignetting only (which does not respond to stopping down).

 

However what does this have to do with the coding of Biogon ZM lenses?

 

I do not use any Leica wide angles lenses other than an early 35mm Summilux, so I do not know if Leica's follow the same Biogon design. Knowing that might explain why the coding is so tricky. And get off your high-horse.

[01af]

... if Leica's follow the same Biogon design.

Obviously they don't.

 

 

Knowing that might explain why the coding is so tricky.

Coding is tricky because lens designs are different.

[jaapv]

I simply eyeballed it,and in my experimental codings I found the Elmarit 21 asph to work best on the M8 and the Elmarit 28 pre-asph best on the M9. YMMV, There was nothing scientific about it. Btw - I put this on the forum before Mr. R. put it in his blog, so I may be the culprit...

[Guest gamincurieux]

What an absurd idea!

 

Haha... seriously though, your charm aside, I don't believe it's as absurd an idea as you think. Many of us lesser beings have purchased the lens based on "this Ken Rockwell person's" review of it (Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZM Review), where the 11134 profile is promoted as the better one..... many more have than care to admit, I'll bet! You reckon most people think 11134 is the obvious choice for those reasons you mention, you reckon they've figured it out themselves? Pffff! They choose 11134 because they read about it somewhere, if not from KR person (who does state it's a good profile for those same reasons) then from someone else such as here on LCF. They eyeball it & it looks alright to them & they carry on using it. No scientific analysis about it. And now I'm reading about the one Zeiss themselves say ist Sehr Gut. I'd not heard of it before, I had to ask Zeiss directly to find out about it. It's not mentioned anywhere here on LCF that I could find. It's all 11134! Funny that.

 

I agree with Pico, chill out man, get off your high horse, change your manner & tone (which is inexplicably foul right off the mark without any provocation), you're annoying people.

 

Lech mich

[bocaburger]

I found that with the M8, choosing the closest Leica equivalent code for focal length and max. aperture worked fine. Eg, 16 WATE for the 15 CV, 21 ASPH for the 21 CV, and 28 Summicron for the 28/1.9 CV. But on the M9 I found none of those worked well, instead the 15 and 21 do best with the 21 Elmarit pre-ASPH code, and the Ultron does best coded as a type IV 28 Elmarit.

 

Coding for the M8 gets rid of cyan at all four corners due to the front-mounted IR filters. Coding for the M9 gets rid of red along the short edges. I guess that and the difference in crop factor makes the requirements dissimilar. The need for different codes for the same lenses was one of the reasons I decided against keeping the M8 along with the M9.

 

BTW these days it seems like anyone can make himself into an internet oracle, so I tend to take them all with a grain of salt. The experiences of people here on the forum who are more concerned with photography than self-promotion are of great help to me.

Edited July 27, 2012 by bocaburger

[Guest gamincurieux]

The experiences of people here on the forum who are more concerned with photography than self-promotion are of great help to me.

 

Same here

[Nordvik]

Has anyone else done some more testing with coding of this Biogon 2,8/21?

 

Does it matter which code I use if I use Adobe Flat Field? I would prefer to have "21mm" in EXIF.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[250swb]

Mine is coded as a Elmarit M (11134) because I like it that way. It is coincidental that this lens is nearest in spec to the Biogon because as has been said in this thread the design of the lens makes a big difference to the coding that is needed. But it is easy to experiment, just use manual coding and run through the 21mm options. Discover the one that is most perfect, then choose the one you like, it may turn out to be the same code but it doesn't matter if it isn't.

 

Steve