Jump to content

The Leica Forum uses cookies. Read the privacy statement for more info. To remove this message, please click the button to the right:    OK, understood.

Photo
- - - - -

M lens codes


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#21 ljclark

ljclark

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 492 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 20:02

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)
Not to beat a dead horse, but...

1. The picture of the lens at the top of the code page needs to be rotated 180 degrees. This will align it (figuratively and literally) with the text explanation.

2. Codes that work for the M8 may not be best for the M9 because of the M9's larger sensor. The Zeiss table (generated by Zeiss) illustrates this. What we need are separate tables for the M8, the M9/M-E, and (possibly, when it comes out) the M.

#22 andybarton

andybarton

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 28,042 posts
  • Location----- Airstrip 1 ----- 53°17'36"N, 02°31'53"W

Posted 30 September 2012 - 20:06

But, there's only one code per lens.

Zeiss lenses have to take their chances with a Leica near equivalent.

Andy

Any comment here is just my opinion. Yours may differ.

Posts made with my Moderator hat on are in Bold Dark Red

Blog: "Still My Turn This Year?" - 5th February 2017

Leica User Book 2014

 


#23 wlaidlaw

wlaidlaw

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Premium Member
  • 11,669 posts
  • LocationLewes, UK and Tourtour, France
  • City / Ort:Tourtour, France and Sussex UK

Posted 01 October 2012 - 08:21

Not to beat a dead horse, but...

1. The picture of the lens at the top of the code page needs to be rotated 180 degrees. This will align it (figuratively and literally) with the text explanation.

2. Codes that work for the M8 may not be best for the M9 because of the M9's larger sensor. The Zeiss table (generated by Zeiss) illustrates this. What we need are separate tables for the M8, the M9/M-E, and (possibly, when it comes out) the M.


The implementation of the correction is bound already to be different in each of the bodies. You don't need a different lens code for each body, just a different implementation in firmware for each lens. Once the camera knows what lens is fitted, the body will provide the appropriate correction for that lens. For example, I have my 15/4.5 CV Super Heliar coded as a pre-ASPH 21/2.8 Elmarit. This works much better than the suggested WATE coding in the Wiki, as the WATE is quite telecentric and does not vignette anything like as much as the Elmarit/Heliar. The Elmarit correction seems to work equally well in my M8 and 9 and in a few months we will see how well it works on my M.

When various forum members were beta testing M9 FW earlier in its life, we went though various implementations trying to improve the red edges on the WATE. This was pretty much eliminated. During this period, the M8 FW was not changed at all, as it did not need it.

Wilson
  • andybarton said thank you to this

#24 playa7

playa7

    Neuer Benutzer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • City / Ort:Daegu

Posted 04 October 2012 - 14:23

Is there any information 6bit code for tele elmar 135/4? The production number is 11851.

#25 wlaidlaw

wlaidlaw

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Premium Member
  • 11,669 posts
  • LocationLewes, UK and Tourtour, France
  • City / Ort:Tourtour, France and Sussex UK

Posted 04 October 2012 - 15:34

No but you can use the code for the 135/3.4 APO Telyt 110101 (not as I posted above, where I got my 1's and 0's the wrong way round. The correction will make no difference but at least 135mm will show up on EXIF's.

Wilson

#26 playa7

playa7

    Neuer Benutzer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • City / Ort:Daegu

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:00

But in the menu of lens detection, 135/3.4 is different from 135/4. Is there only to mark lens information using manual setting?

Attached Files


  • k-hawinkler said thank you to this

#27 wlaidlaw

wlaidlaw

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Premium Member
  • 11,669 posts
  • LocationLewes, UK and Tourtour, France
  • City / Ort:Tourtour, France and Sussex UK

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:30

As far as I know, there is not a six bit code for the 135/4, so although you can set it manually, you cannot code a lens for it. My personal view is that in due course, Leica will have to add another two bits/photocells in the lens detection array to cope with more and new lenses. At the moment they have only 64 options (000001 to 111111). As far as setting up parameters in the camera, I doubt that there is a whit of difference between the settings for 135/4, 135/3.4 and no correction at all. The only reason I have hand coded my 135 T-E, is so that a later date I can tell from the EXIF, what lens I had mounted.

Wilson

#28 01af

01af

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 6,981 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 14:56

The code for the Tele-Elmar 135 mm 1:4 (11851) and the Tele-Elmar-M 135 mm 1:4 (11861) both is 39-0. This means the 6-bit lens code is 39; the 2-bit frameline code is 0. Codes with a zero frameline code cannot be 6-bit-coded on the bayonet flange.

#29 wlaidlaw

wlaidlaw

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Premium Member
  • 11,669 posts
  • LocationLewes, UK and Tourtour, France
  • City / Ort:Tourtour, France and Sussex UK

Posted 31 October 2012 - 15:09

The code for the Tele-Elmar 135 mm 1:4 (11851) and the Tele-Elmar-M 135 mm 1:4 (11861) both is 39-0. This means the 6-bit lens code is 39; the 2-bit frameline code is 0. Codes with a zero frameline code cannot be 6-bit-coded on the bayonet flange.


......other than as a 135/3.4 Apo Telyt, which if you hand code it on a T-E 135 bayonet will work. I posted a photograph of the code coming up on my M9 earlier in this thread to prove it works.

Wilson
  • k-hawinkler said thank you to this

#30 bbriv

bbriv

    Neuer Benutzer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 00:43

Hi everybody, Just new in this website. I own a used M8 bought few weeks ago, only 1200 activations, well kept no signs.I bought it with 35mm f2 summicron Canada, noted that if I activate the lens recon option in the menu, even if this lens is not coded, the pict info screen reports. The correct lens format 35mm.
Does this just normal? Have anyone experienced it before?

Another issue is the lens frame mechanism, which seems far less precise than the one in my M7.

Thanks!

bbriv

Edited by bbriv, 16 November 2012 - 00:52.


#31 farnz

farnz

    Sponsoring Member

  • Premium Member
  • 16,133 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 16 November 2012 - 00:55

bbriv,

Welcome to the forum and congratulations on your 'new' M8!

On some lenses one of the bayonet mounting screws is located opposite the diodes that read the 6-bit code and fool the M8 it into thinking a particular lens is mounted. My 90/2.8 Elmarit used to fool my M8 into thinking that a 90mm lens was mounted even though my Elmarit wasn't coded. If you're lucky the 6-bit reader will be fooled into thinking the correct lens is mounted but if not ... :o

Pete.
Eur. Ing. Pete F@rnsworth
Live and let live.
My tea is brewed in Russell's Teapot.

#32 bbriv

bbriv

    Neuer Benutzer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 16:16

Thanks for the explanation, indeed my 35/2 sum micron type III fools the reader into a perfect match 35mm! When saying luckier than a horseshoe...;)
  • farnz said thank you to this

#33 janrzm

janrzm

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 133 posts
  • LocationNZ
  • City / Ort:Tauranga

Posted 19 November 2012 - 06:53

Can I make a suggestion for those using the VC 15mm Super Wide Heliar f/4.5 and Cornerfix.

Code the lens as Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8 11134 in my experience this returns the best results - 15mm Voigtlander Super Wide Heliar f/4.5 Asph Mk-1

#34 playa7

playa7

    Neuer Benutzer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • City / Ort:Daegu

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:44

The code for the Tele-Elmar 135 mm 1:4 (11851) and the Tele-Elmar-M 135 mm 1:4 (11861) both is 39-0. This means the 6-bit lens code is 39; the 2-bit frameline code is 0. Codes with a zero frameline code cannot be 6-bit-coded on the bayonet flange.


The lens using 6bit code as 39 is Macro Elmar M 90/4. When I set as Tele-Elmar 135/4 manually, I noticed that Adobe LightRoom read the lens information on EXIF as above. So recently summarized, manually selection is best way to set a Tele-Elmar 135/4 (11851).

Thanks for informations.

#35 wlaidlaw

wlaidlaw

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Premium Member
  • 11,669 posts
  • LocationLewes, UK and Tourtour, France
  • City / Ort:Tourtour, France and Sussex UK

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:55

Can I make a suggestion for those using the VC 15mm Super Wide Heliar f/4.5 and Cornerfix.

Code the lens as Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8 11134 in my experience this returns the best results - 15mm Voigtlander Super Wide Heliar f/4.5 Asph Mk-1


Agreed - much better. I also think this code works better for vignetting correction of the 28 APSH Summicron on an M9, if you are shooting it wide open, than the standard correction applied by setting lens detection to auto.

Wilson

#36 wlaidlaw

wlaidlaw

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Premium Member
  • 11,669 posts
  • LocationLewes, UK and Tourtour, France
  • City / Ort:Tourtour, France and Sussex UK

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:06

The lens using 6bit code as 39 is Macro Elmar M 90/4. When I set as Tele-Elmar 135/4 manually, I noticed that Adobe LightRoom read the lens information on EXIF as above. So recently summarized, manually selection is best way to set a Tele-Elmar 135/4 (11851).

Thanks for informations.


So why not code a 135/4 as a 135/3.4, which does then appear as a 135 on ACR/C1/LR/Aperture EXIF's? For this length of lens, the camera is very unlikely to be applying any corrections at all. In the unlikely event that it does, I bet the corrections are identical for the 135/4 and 135/3.4. The only benefit of coding therefore, is that you get the lens information in the EXIF's, for future interest. As most people would only have either a 135/4 or a 135/3.4 not both, you will know once you see 135 on the EXIF, which lens you used. I can see no downside.

Pic of a PS CS6 EXIF with a 135/4 hand coded as a 135/3.4

Wilson

Attached Files


Edited by wlaidlaw, 23 November 2012 - 09:11.

  • k-hawinkler said thank you to this

#37 01af

01af

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 6,981 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 11:21

For this [focal] length of lens, the camera is very unlikely to be applying any corrections at all.

And yet, it does.


In the unlikely event that it does, I bet the corrections are identical for the 135/4 and 135/3.4.

Most likely, the vignetting patterns of the Tele-Elmar 135/4 and the Apo-Telyt 135/3.4 are not identical but very similar, so the Apo-Telyt's correction applied to the Tele-Elmar should be close enough. If you want to be sure, simply try both manual settings, then compare.

Edited by 01af, 23 November 2012 - 11:24.

  • wlaidlaw said thank you to this

#38 wlaidlaw

wlaidlaw

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Premium Member
  • 11,669 posts
  • LocationLewes, UK and Tourtour, France
  • City / Ort:Tourtour, France and Sussex UK

Posted 23 November 2012 - 12:00

Here are the test shots at all 4 permutations. Very little if any difference to be seen in vignetting. All taken with a 135/4 Tele-Elmar at f4

Given that these are in camera JPEG's and all taken within seconds of each other in a north facing room, then all processed identically in CS6 with no alterations made at all, other than re-size, the slight variations in white balance are slightly surprising. Maybe the Maestro processor in the new M-240 will be more consistent.

Wilson

Attached Files



#39 flyalf

flyalf

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 677 posts
  • City / Ort:Tromsø

Posted 30 November 2012 - 13:42

Question showing my ignorance: should I use white, black or both for coding? I have one of the crome type m39 -> M adapters with groves for coding.

Thanks!
-
Most my the time is a pause between two fishing trips.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alf M. Sollund, Norway
http://alfsollund.com/

#40 01af

01af

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 6,981 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 14:11

[schmal]Question showing my ignorance: Should I use white, black, or both for coding? I have one of the chrome type M39 -> M adapters with groves for coding.[/schmal]

As silver chrome is the same as white in this context, you only need to paint the black patches (which, by the way, stand for the ones in the binary code).
  • flyalf said thank you to this


0 user(s) are reading this topic