Older lenses and M9

[Jean-Michel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have 3 older Leica lenses(and 3 bodies, M3, M4 and M6):

35 mm Summicron: 1743xxx (1960?) Made in Canada; with the 'goggles' finder

50 mm Summicron: 2115xxx (1965?) Made in Germany

135 mm Tele Elmarit: 2621xxx (1973?) Made in Canada; with the 'goggles' finder

I also own a 21 mm Voigtlander (could not afford the Leica 21 :-) )

None can be coded according to Leica.

Does anyone has similar vintage lenses that they use on an M9, or even an M8?

 

For the last two years I have been using a Canon 5D, and now 5D2 but very much miss the way i used the M's -- I have not used film since purchasing the Canon.

 

Thanks and Click!

 

Jean-Michel

[michali]

I've used my 1939 50mm Elmar, 1952 35mm Summaron (via screw to M adaptors) on the M8 & M9.

 

1954 models: 50mm Summicron, 35 Summaron & 90mm Elmar, & 1960 135mm Tele Elmar on both the M8 & M9.

 

I've also successfully hand coded both the 1954 50mm Summicron & 35 mm Summaron, so don't believe them when they tell you these lenses can't be coded.

BYTW with the M9 there's no need to code lenses as there is the menu option to manually select the focal length of the lens you're using on the camera.

[adan]

Short version: all the lenses you list should fit on the M9, and work fine (unless your 50 is the dual-range version). And all are more or less supported by the M9's manual lens selection menu, so they don't need coding if you are willing to pause to change the lens setting manually each time you change lenses.

 

More detail:

I tried a 135 f/2.8 with goggles on the M9 - seemed to work at least as well as it does on film cameras. The 135 f/2.8 can be coded in some models, and is supported by the in-camera list of lenses - and really does not need corrections anyway so far as I can tell. I use a 135 f/4 from the same era and it does fine with not corrections.

 

The 50 should also be no problem, unless it is the "Dual range" 50 f/2 (physical obstructions). If it is the collapsible version, DON'T collapse it (it may damage the shutter). Put some Dymo tape or other obstruction on the barrel to keep it from collapsing accidently.

 

So far as I know the goggled 35 should also fit on the M9 and work fine. It may produce a faint green tint around the edges (see: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/102999-35mm-m9.html ), but can be set manually thanks to the internal lens list in the M9 menus. The pre-ASPH 35s are all pretty similar in basic optical formula, and the v.4 pre-ASPH is included in the M9's internal lens menu and should handle correcting your earlier version, too.

 

It should be noted here that the 35 goggled brings up 50mm framelines, but that if a lens is manually selected in the menu, the M9 ignores all other input as to lens type (framelines or coding). As I found out when I forgot to turn off manual lens selection for a 35mm lens. Shot quite a few pix with 75 and 21 lenses that the M9 still insisted were made with a 35 (they looked OK, though).

 

There are also manual setting options in the M9 menu for several Leica 21mm lenses - you would have to experiment to see if any of those correct for vignetting or color shift with your 21 C/V.

[ModernMan]

135 mm Tele Elmarit: 2621xxx (1973?) Made in Canada; with the 'goggles' finder/quote]

I've used the 138/2.8 on my M9 quite a bit and it works great. As has been pointed out, coding isn't too important since there isn't much "correcting" to be done. With the 135/2.8, oblique incidence angle of rays on the sensor is not much of an issue.

 

The magnification of the 135/2.8's "eyes" offset the low magnification finder of the M9, so its good match. Leica recommends stopping the current 135 Apo-Telyt down a couple of stops on the M9, presumably to mitigate focus issues with the low mag finder.

 

I was previously unaware that Leica couldn't code the 135/2.8. That's interesting. Guess I can stop saving up for that.

[adan]

Actually, Leica did offer to code at least recent versions of the 135 f/2.8 when the M8 first came out, since it uses the 90 frames and thus was more functional on the M8 than the other 135s.

 

But I notice the 135 f/2.8 is now no longer on Leica's list of codable lenses as of Jan. 2009.

[Jean-Michel]

Thank you for your replies.

With any luck I may be able to at least mount my lenses on an M( before I purchase it, with a year I would hope. I like the idea of being able to use my goggled 35 as it makes it easier to use the 50mm frames for my own goggled eyes.

[Sspector15]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm curious about what code to use for the 35mm Summaron with goggles -- and why there isn't one specific to the lens, either onboard the camera or in any of the coding charts available on the Web or in the D-Coder.

 

Since the goggles were meant for the M3's 50mm frame setting, should I use a 50mm setting on the M9 to get the correct frameline? Or should I use a 35mm setting to get the better meta-data-- and which 35mm lens setting?

 

Thanks,

 

Steve

[lars_bergquist]

The reason why these early lenses are not codeable, is that the lens bayonet is simply exchanged for a new one. The rear end design of these oldtimers preclude that. In some cases, it may be possible to send in the whole lens to an independent operator, like Mr. Milich, and have it milled with recesses for self-coding (you apply the paint).

 

On the M9, as on any other M, goggled 35mm lenses do bring up the 50mm frame. There is a little tab in the lens bayonet that actuates a lever inside the camera bayonet, and this system has not changed since 1954! Just mount the lens, identify the lens by the menu and all will be OK.

 

The old man with the goggles

[wlaidlaw]

Here is what I think is a good combination. It is a 1950's Stuttgart built Zeiss Opton Sonnar 50mm F1.5 on an Amadeo Muscelli adapter. It is an amazingly small lens for an f1.5 and is actually smaller than the modern 50/f2 ZM Planar I also have. It is very nearly as sharp as the Planar at f2, although a little soft wide open, in comparison say to a 50/1.4 ASPH Summilux. I normally use it with a 40.5mm to 46mm adapter ring then a Contax GG2 titanium hood. The focus with the AM adapter is spot on but the coding pits are not quite in the right position to pick up. Less of an issue with the M9 than it would have been with the M8, as this is pretty much the only uncoded lens I use regularly.

 

Wilson

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!

[Tom M]

Re the CIIa->M9 adapter, would you, please, post Amadeo Muscelli business address or contact me privately. Thanks,

Tom

[jaques]

the 135 2.8 works very well on the M9. I don't find the focusing to be much of a problem- even wide open:

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!

[Guest ccmsosse]

the 135 2.8 works very well on the M9. I don't find the focusing to be much of a problem- even wide open:

 

I have the 135 tele elmar m for mid 1960's - beautiful images and focus is right on

Cheers

[Shade]

I don't see any problems using vintage lenses on the M9, but I have trouble remembering to change the lens codes when I switch lenses.

[wlaidlaw]

I have stuck Dymo tape on the inside of the lens cap of my non-coded lenses saying "Code?" on fluorescent red tape. Does not always work but it sometimes reminds me.

 

Wilson

[scottwallick]

I'm curious about what code to use for the 35mm Summaron with goggles -- and why there isn't one specific to the lens, either onboard the camera or in any of the coding charts available on the Web or in the D-Coder.

 

Yes, me too. If someone could share the six-bit code for the 35 Summaron, I would also appreciate that. Thanks.

[01af]

If someone could share the six-bit code for the 35 Summaron, I would also appreciate that.

As far as I can tell, the Summaron 35 mm has no 6-bit code assigned. Many older lenses can be coded but not all—I am afraid the Summaron 35 mm belongs to the latter.

 

You may have it coded as a Summarit-M 35 mm 1:2.5 instead; the code is 43 = 101011.

[scottwallick]

As far as I can tell, the Summaron 35 mm has no 6-bit code assigned. Many older lenses can be coded but not all—I am afraid the Summaron 35 mm belongs to the latter.

 

You may have it coded as a Summarit-M 35 mm 1:2.5 instead; the code is 43 = 101011.

 

See, I also have the Summarit 35, so I was hoping of having it coded as a Summaron—or at least differently (to distinguish lens use via metadata). Appreciate the tip, though.

 

I had assumed that Leica had assigned codes for all their lenses, so now I know. Thanks.

[wlaidlaw]

I think you will find that coding for 35mm and above is not too fussy. I have been trying the various codes for 50mm lenses on the M9 for use with my 50/f1.5 Zeiss Opton Sonnar. As far as I can judge, it makes not a blind bit of difference to the end result, which 50mm lens you put in manually on lens selection. The only possible upside of using the early version Summilux code which I do, is there might just be detectable extra vignetting correction when using the Sonnar wide open but I am not convinced. The other thing is that you can get a computed aperture of 1.4 showing up on the EXIF - wow!

 

Wilson

[stephan_w]

I have a 1966 Summicron 50, that is amazing on the M9. Unfortunately, it cannot bet coded.

 

Same for the 135/2.8 that is also a very nice lense, even I find it a bit difficult to focus (for me). But if the focus is right, the results are great!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M