Proof of concept regarding self coding of lenses

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean, I had the same problem. So I ditched the template and went back to my original method of mapping the sensor points onto a piece of tape on the camera body, mounting the lens, and then marking the lens in the proper spot along the mount edge , removing the lens and marking the full area.

 

p.s. glad you have successfully coded so many of your lenses. Any quick test results on how well the VC lenses are performing with the lens correction?

 

_mike

 

Hi Mike,

 

I've been able to nail all of them except the Zeiss 25 but I was tired and need to try again this weekend. Those old Leitz adapters are just the ticket for the LTMs. The screw on the ZM lenses (that sits in the code area) make things a bit tougher. Will revise the 28s review live draft with coded/uncoded comparisons of the various non-Leica 28s as soon as time allows for testing, etc. First blush impressions? - they benefit from the coding. BTW, those aren't all my lenses, some are test lenses and the companies lending them were happy to have them coded by hand.

 

Thanks to you and Mark Norton for turning us on to this idea. It works and the next step (as Rex suggested) is finding a way to make the marks more durable.

 

As one can guess, I have a soft spot for the CV (Cosina gets first billing in the trade name) lenses - so much performance for so little money and some of them so compact to boot. Leica lenses are still the gold standard but many people have no idea how great many of these other lenses are. Not just "OK" but great. I am very pleased that this process will, by extension, make the M8 much more accessible to people who may not have $10 - $20 K free for lenses. I couldn't care less about cameras and lenses as status symbols but I'd love to see more people able to afford experimenting with a DRF that is supported by the manufacturer. Hand coding will help make that possible.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[rvaubel]

Hey, Leica impersonators

 

The ironic thing about this DIY coding is the permanent solution is easier to achieve for the CV and older screw mount lenses than for the bayonet mount. I could easily set up to convert the old Leica adapters to codeable adapters in a few hours. I could probably do the conversions in a few minutes each. The best part is the user could apply the black markings to the counterbored "dots" as required for each individual lens . And if a change needed to be made a little acetone and a rag would get you there.

 

The situation for the bayonet mount is more complicated since the counterbores would have to be applied to the lens itself.

 

Isn't this fun

 

Rex

...ARF, ARF!!

[scott kirkpatrick]

 

CV 28/1.9 Ultron (sucessfully coded) - use older Leitz 28/90 adapter and code as 28/2.0 Summicron *but* that may over-correct the vignetting because the Ultron vignettes less than the Summicron. This one lens may do better uncoded. I'll find out through tests when time allows.

 

 

Not a very workable solution without an external viewer, but how about coding this one as a 35/1.4 summilux to get a slightly lighter correction than 28/2.0 affords? At least it could be checked with your other tests.

 

scott

[Asher Kelman]

Sean,

 

Great work! Opening up the M8 platform will help its acceptance. I can see a lot of people getting the M8 and starting with maybe one 28mm Leica lens and the rest CV or older lenses for now.

 

The main thing is that the more people that buy the M8 and continue to buy the RD-1, not to be forgotten, the more robust will Leica Solm's advances be brought to market..

 

Asher

 

The Open Photography Forums Initiative

[KJB]

Hi Mike,

 

The screw on the ZM lenses (that sits in the code area) make things a bit tougher.

 

Sean, I'm having this problem with the ZM 21. Did you fill the screw area with anything like white out that was suggested somewhere before?

[carstenw]

Another update, not allowed to edit above now:

 

CV 21/4.0 (sucessfully coded) - use older Leitz 28/90 adapter and code as 21 Elmarit

 

CV 25/4.0 (sucessfully coded) - use older Leitz 135 mm adapter and code as 24 Elmarit.

 

CV 28/3.5 (sucessfully coded) - use older Leitz 28/90 adapter and code as 28/2.8 Elmarit Aspherical

 

CV 28/1.9 Ultron (sucessfully coded) - use older Leitz 28/90 adapter and code as 28/2.0 Summicron *but* that may over-correct the vignetting because the Ultron vignettes less than the Summicron. This one lens may do better uncoded. I'll find out through tests when time allows.

 

CV 35/1.7 Ultron (sucessfully coded) - use an older Leitz 135 mm adapter and code as a Summicron 35/2.0 (older version 1, version 2, aspherical? - we'll need to see) For now I'm coding for the newest version.

 

CV 35/2.5 Pancake II (sucessfully coded) - no adapter, code as a Summicron 35/2.0 (older version 1, version 2, aspherical? - we'll need to see) For now I'm coding for the newest version.

 

CV 35/2.5 LTM (sucessfully coded) - use an older Leitz 135 mm adapter and code as a Summicron 35/2.0 (older version 1, version 2, aspherical? - we'll need to see)

 

Zeiss 21/2.8 (sucessfully coded) - code as Elmarit 21/2.8

 

Zeiss 25/2.8 - code as Elmarit 24/2.8 and hold lever for 24/135 frame lines (testing only)

 

Zeiss 28/2.8 (sucessfully coded) - code as Summicron 28/2.0

 

Zeiss 35/2.0 (sucessfully coded) - code as Summicron 35/2.0

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Rick and Sean, I fully intend to add this information to the table, but only once the pictures are known to have improvements. It isn't helpful to anyone to post Leica-21mm-to-Zeiss-21mm equivalence, if it doesn't help in practice, for example.

 

Sean, if you give me the word that all these resulted in improvements, I will add them all right away.

[rfleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

this is an immensely useful thread. thanks to all for the work.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Let's not drop the encouragement for Leica to make an open software solution available. They can see that the most motivated users can do it; it can't be stopped. So maybe they will take the initiative to do this their way.

 

And we still need to ask for the software switch to let the firmware know if an IR filter is or is not mounted. Everybody needs that one. The trick of pressing the viewfinder lever turns off ALL the firmware support.

 

scott

[J_Brittenson]

I took a look on the US PTO site and can't find anything. Problem is, there's a long lead time - years - before a patent is granted so it's tough to know if there's a patent application in progress.

As of Sept it's apparently 18 months. Some applications from March last year showed up in September this year. Some applications I made later (Novemember IIRC) aren't up yet, and will probably show around May is my guess. I don't know if this 18 month lag time is intentional (to facilitate secrecy around product launches) or not. My gut feel WAG says it is.

[carstenw]

I am looking for codes, and photos of the codes, for the following lenses:

 

Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8

Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 (III)

Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 (II)

Summicron-M 50mm f/2 (III)

Summicron-M 50mm f/2 (IV)

Summicron-M 90mm f/2 (II)

Tele-Elmarit-M 90mm f/2.8 (II)

Apo-Summicron-M 90mm f/2 ASPH. <--- should be easy to find!

Macro-Adaptor-M

 

I am looking for photos of the codes for the following lenses:

 

Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH.

Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 (IV)

Summilux-M 75mm f/1.4

Macro-Elmar-M 90mm f/4

 

The table has been updated with a picture of the 135mm f/2.8 as well as the presence of the Macro-Adaptor-M, which will apparently be coded.

[artur5]

Another update, not allowed to edit above now:

....

 

 

.Zeiss 21/2.8 (sucessfully coded) - code as Elmarit 21/2.8

 

 

 

Sean, do you mean that ZM 21/2.8 is recognised as Elmarit 21/2.8, even if it brings 50/75 frames instead of 28/90, as the Elmarit does ?

 

BTW Many, many thanks for your help to you -and all - Guy, Carsten, Mark N., J.Roberts ..

 

Regards

Arturo.

[sean_reid]

Hey, Leica impersonators

 

The ironic thing about this DIY coding is the permanent solution is easier to achieve for the CV and older screw mount lenses than for the bayonet mount. I could easily set up to convert the old Leica adapters to codeable adapters in a few hours. I could probably do the conversions in a few minutes each. The best part is the user could apply the black markings to the counterbored "dots" as required for each individual lens . And if a change needed to be made a little acetone and a rag would get you there.

 

The situation for the bayonet mount is more complicated since the counterbores would have to be applied to the lens itself.

 

Isn't this fun

 

Rex

...ARF, ARF!!

 

 

Hi Rex,

 

PM me, lets talk.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Not a very workable solution without an external viewer, but how about coding this one as a 35/1.4 summilux to get a slightly lighter correction than 28/2.0 affords? At least it could be checked with your other tests.

 

scott

 

Hi Scott,

 

It's interesting in theory (as someone suggested earlier in the thread) but because it isn't a usable solution, I want to concentrate only on 28 codes.

 

Best,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Sean, I'm having this problem with the ZM 21. Did you fill the screw area with anything like white out that was suggested somewhere before?

 

No, fortunately I didn't need to.

[sean_reid]

Rick and Sean, I fully intend to add this information to the table, but only once the pictures are known to have improvements. It isn't helpful to anyone to post Leica-21mm-to-Zeiss-21mm equivalence, if it doesn't help in practice, for example.

 

Sean, if you give me the word that all these resulted in improvements, I will add them all right away.

 

Hi Carsten,

 

They haven't been tested yet (with respect to how they perform) so I wouldn't add anything about results. I'll be testing them within the lens reviews.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Sean, do you mean that ZM 21/2.8 is recognised as Elmarit 21/2.8, even if it brings 50/75 frames instead of 28/90, as the Elmarit does ?

 

BTW Many, many thanks for your help to you -and all - Guy, Carsten, Mark N., J.Roberts ..

 

Regards

Arturo.

 

One needs to hold the frame line lever in the 28/90 position for that to work so it's only useful for testing. I think I remembered to put that in a post but forgot to add that note on the list, sorry.

 

Sean

[wparsonsgisnet]

Sean -- just for the record:

 

1. I plan to use RAW -- if my M8 e-v-e-r arrives (but who's counting?)

 

2. The IR-blocking filter solved the IR problem, whether using RAW or JPG

3. The new firmware will solve the banding/spotting problem (expectable problems with an infant, you know)

 

4. So, the question is -- will the M8 apply cyan (and vignetting?) correction to a RAW file or only to the JPG? I'm not totally clear on this -- even after reading threads about it since dirt was invented.

 

Regards,

[sean_reid]

Sean -- just for the record:

 

1. I plan to use RAW -- if my M8 e-v-e-r arrives (but who's counting?)

 

2. The IR-blocking filter solved the IR problem, whether using RAW or JPG

3. The new firmware will solve the banding/spotting problem (expectable problems with an infant, you know)

 

4. So, the question is -- will the M8 apply cyan (and vignetting?) correction to a RAW file or only to the JPG? I'm not totally clear on this -- even after reading threads about it since dirt was invented.

 

Regards,

 

Both RAW and JPEG as discussed in Part One or Two of my M8 review. The light streaking, etc. problems are fixed with a hardware, not firmware, change.

 

Best,

 

Sean

[lct]

... will the M8 apply cyan (and vignetting?) correction to a RAW file or only to the JPG? I'm not totally clear on this...

Neither am I.

Any idea folks

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sean_reid]

Neither am I.

Any idea folks

 

I guess my response wasn't clear. It applies to RAW and JPEG files.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean