6-bit coding Voightlander 15mm f4.5 VM III

[DMJ]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just got this lens & I realise it's a silly question with regards to version III but which Leica lens have people found best to code too with the previous VM 15mm? I understand that the 16-18-21 is a retrofocus lens so coding as the 16mm will cause problems.

[luigi bertolotti]

Seems to me there is a certain consensus about Elmarit 21 (unasph) as the preferred coding.... but my 15 screwmount, with an adapter coded like this, on M240 still showed a significant magenta shift on edges... I sold it to an APS Fuji user and am thinking (with no hurry) to the III version.

Edited March 24, 2015 by luigi bertolotti

[Advertisement]

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

[ayewing]

The new v3 of the Voigtlander 15mm is now available. Mine arrived yesterday afternoon so I have only managed a few trial shots in the garden but it does seem that the magenta shift has been nearly eliminated. I will try some codes later today.

 

I posted some images on the other thread about this lens.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/367219-voigtlander-15mm-f4-5-vm-iii-2.html#post2909601

[terrycym]

16mm seems to work ok for me.

 

Is it possible to replace the flange with one with pits so you can physically code it?

[Mornnb]

What exactly is the point of coding a non-Leica lens? Leica doesn't have a profile for any Voigtlander lenses built into the camera, and it would only be able to identify the lens as a Leica lens.

 

You are better off manually selecting the lens profile in Lightroom.

[IWC Doppel]

I'm interested in the comparison as I have the VII and would like a quicker solution to the magenta shift if the performance is as good or better

[terrycym]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What exactly is the point of coding a non-Leica lens? Leica doesn't have a profile for any Voigtlander lenses built into the camera, and it would only be able to identify the lens as a Leica lens.

 

You are better off manually selecting the lens profile in Lightroom.

 

What if you want to use the in camera profile and find the 16mm close enough?

 

I know lots of people who've coded their non Leica lenses

[Guest JonathanP]

What exactly is the point of coding a non-Leica lens? Leica doesn't have a profile for any Voigtlander lenses built into the camera, and it would only be able to identify the lens as a Leica lens.

 

 

 

You are better off manually selecting the lens profile in Lightroom.

 

 

Lightroom lens profiles don't correct for colour casts in the corners or edges, only geometric corrections. For example, with my CV28/3.5 the in camera corrections allow me to dial out the edge casts which I would have to run through corner fix plugin otherwise. It just simplifies the workflow to have those errors fixed in the raw file in-camera.

 

Jonathan

[bocaburger]

Someone said "Flat Field" correction in LR5 works to correct the edge color cast some people are having. Idk, I don't use LR as I shoot only jpg. Same with Cornerfix, I used it with the M8 because I was forced to shoot DNG anyway. Before Cornerfix arrived I used the Radial Luminance plugin of Panorama Tools (Panotools), which worked with jpgs. With the M9 I had no casts needing fixing, the 21 pre-ASPH code worked fine. As it does with both of my (LTM) CV 15's on both of my M240's. I have no idea why so many people have color casts with theirs, but maybe I got 2 "defective" lenses...luckily

[uhoh7]

What exactly is the point of coding a non-Leica lens? Leica doesn't have a profile for any Voigtlander lenses built into the camera, and it would only be able to identify the lens as a Leica lens.

 

You are better off manually selecting the lens profile in Lightroom.

 

disagree. case in point ZM 81/4. Code as 21 pre-asph and it looks great, otherwise you must do extra steps in LR.

[jrp]

This lens delivers (on the M240). You're not going to get much foreground isolation at f4.5, so you may as well go to f5.6 or f8 where you can, and savour the absence of CA and the micro-contrast that is up to Leica standards, if not beyond (at a quarter of the price of a Leica wide angle).

 

I have not felt the need to apply in-camera correction; I'll wait until Adobe produce a profile and apply it, where necessary; I don't really like polluting my metadata with incorrect profiles and, more to the point perhaps, munging my raw pixel data.

 

This lens is clearly designed for 36MP+ Sony cameras. It is my first Voigtlander and I am mightily impressed.

[DMJ]

........ It is my first Voigtlander and I am mightily impressed.

 

Couldn't agree more with that observation.

[peterjcb]

I use 16mm also for the coding. I've got the 2nd version and it's renders beautifully with my M8...I use it without a viewfinder.....I guestimate the FOV by eye and just zone focus most of the time.

 

spring_arrives_DxO by peterjcb, on Flickr

 

landscape_SEfex2 by peterjcb, on Flickr

[algrove]

What exactly is the point of coding a non-Leica lens? Leica doesn't have a profile for any Voigtlander lenses built into the camera, and it would only be able to identify the lens as a Leica lens.

 

You are better off manually selecting the lens profile in Lightroom.

 

You WILL understand after you forget to manually change a lens when out shooting and changing lenses. I like to review my EXIF data and that can be accurately done when all my lenses are coded.

[thighslapper]

as above - general consensus is code as 21/2.8 as that has the most aggressive italian flag and vignetting correction of all the Leica w/a lenses...... and should give you the best chance of images requiring little work.

 

as long as you don't have a Leica 21/2.8 as well the exif data will not confuse you .... and you can always search and batch process them later to change the lens name in your catalogue ...

[bocaburger]

I have a 21/2.8 pre-asph, 21/4 CV and 15 CV all coded as 21 pre-asph since the M9 days. I've never minded not being able to differentiate them from EXIF info. None of my lenses longer than 35mm are coded, so they don't appear in EXIF either.

[IWC Doppel]

Any more views on the coding options for this lens on the M9 ?

 

The reason I ask is I am not keen to use the 21 2.8 coding as I have one of these lenses and don't want to have LR recording my 15 as a 21. I can have an experiment, but I'm sure someone have been there already with the 9