6-bit coded Leica 135mm f/3.4 Apo Telyt M

[Guest ccmsosse]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does anyone know why the Leica 135mm f/3.4 Apo Telyt M is not 6-bit coded - or is a brand new purchased one now indeed 6-bit coded?

[Ario Arioldi]

This issue has been rcently sicussed here:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/113895-odd-exif-issue-135-apo-telyt.html

Cheers,

Ario

[lars_bergquist]

None of these gentlemen seem to have thought of asking the salient question:

 

-- WHY is there no six-bit code for the Apo-Telyt? --

 

Is this just oversight on the part of Leica? No. It must be because the lens itself is being phased out. There will probably be a new 135mm lens. Or, alternatively, the existence of the 135mm frame in the M9 finder is a just nod to all those people who do own old 135mm lenses. From a strictly technical point of view, no 135mm lens needs coding, after all.

 

It is a strange situation however, and one of the factors why I do think Leica should scrap the 135mm length and introduce a 105mm Elmar. This would be within tolerances for focusing, and a better addition to a 50mm lens than the 90. There is a thread about that ("A Crazy Proposal", http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...apo-telyt.html).

 

The old man from the Age of the 13.5cm Hektor

[tom0511]

None of these gentlemen seem to have thought of asking the salient question:

 

-- WHY is there no six-bit code for the Apo-Telyt? --

 

Is this just oversight on the part of Leica? No. It must be because the lens itself is being phased out. There will probably be a new 135mm lens. Or, alternatively, the existence of the 135mm frame in the M9 finder is a just nod to all those people who do own old 135mm lenses. From a strictly technical point of view, no 135mm lens needs coding, after all.

 

It is a strange situation however, and one of the factors why I do think Leica should scrap the 135mm length and introduce a 105mm Elmar. This would be within tolerances for focusing, and a better addition to a 50mm lens than the 90. There is a thread about that ("A Crazy Proposal", http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...apo-telyt.html).

 

The old man from the Age of the 13.5cm Hektor

 

The question is why do they put 135mm in the manual menue but not offer it as a code?

[UliWer]

As far as I understand it, the code does not release the function for the lens detection alone but only together with the mechanics of the manual lever for the viewfinder frames. The Apo-Telyt does not trigger the right frames on the M8 as there are none for it. You can only release the frames for 90mm by turning it in the bayonet a little bit more as it is supposed to be.

 

This is different for the M9, where you have the frames for 135mm again. So they might need different electronic functions for the lens detection of the Apo-Telyt for the M8 and M8, which might be too complicated or just forgotten by the "gnomes" from Solms or Jena.

 

There is no real necessity of lens detection for this lens. If you really want it in the EXIF of the M9, you may use the code for the 135mm Elmarit - even if your EXIF tells you that the biggest aperture of the lens is 2.8 but not 3.4.

 

There has been an Age when the Apo-Telyt was called one of the best lenses Leica ever made. During this Age most people who used it, recognized the lens on their photos and didn't need an EXIF for this.

May be this Age has gone. May be some people at Solms would take this for a reason to

phase out the lens. This would be a shame.

[lars_bergquist]

Maybe we could have a finder with switchable magnification. That might be acceptable, while a full zoom finder would be a monstrosity -- a Frankencamera!

 

The old man from the Age of the 13.5cm Hektor

[sandymc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

-- WHY is there no six-bit code for the Apo-Telyt? --

 

Because there's no need for any vignetting correction. Which is the only reason why 6-bit codes exist at all.

 

Sandy

[lars_bergquist]

Because there's no need for any vignetting correction. Which is the only reason why 6-bit codes exist at all.

 

Sandy

Well, then the 90mm codes are unnecessary, too.

 

The old man from the Age of the 13.5cm Hektor

[UliWer]

Maybe we could have a finder with switchable magnification. That might be acceptable, while a full zoom finder would be a monstrosity -- a Frankencamera!

 

 

Leica produces a zoom-ocular for their Televid spectives. It has the size of a M-Lens. Perhaps it won't be impossible to develop one which fits the M-viewfinder. Though I fear this would have the price of an expensive M-lens.

 

On the other hand the viewfinder magnification is something else than the question for coding. I don't think it would be impossible to have an own code for the Apo-Telyt. Though is there so much necessity for it.?

[swamiji]

Leica Says:

 

M9 FAQ

 

Can I use my 135mm lenses on the LEICA M9?

The LEICA M9 possesses a 135mm bright line frame. 135mm lenses can be used on the M9. Because of the narrow depth of field of this focal length and resulting ultra precise focusing required, we recommend stopping the lens down at least 2 aperture steps. The current LEICA APOTELYT-M 135mm/f3.4 will not be available in a 6-bit coded version.

 

List of 6-Bit

 

The only lens in the current range that will not be given a 6-bit coding is the LEICA APO-TELYT-M 135 mm f/3.4. It is not codable later, either, as its extension factor of 1.33 makes it unsuitable for use on the digital M camera.

 

M9 Manual

 

• Limited use

Despite the high precision of the view and range -finder on the LEICA M9, exact focusing cannot be guaranteed when using 135mm lenses at full stop due to the very shallow depth of field. Stopping down by at least 2 stops is therefore recommended.

 

However:

 

Leica M Lens Codes says

 

Elmarit-M 135mm f/2.8 (I/II) has a code of 11829.

 

Hmmm

[adan]

I think it is pretty simple - Leica thinks (and we may disagree, but we don't run the company):

 

- that the 135 focal length is not optimal for use with the M8/M9 (witness their caveat about using 135s only stopped down 2 stops)

 

- that the percentage of M users that use 135s is too low to make it worthwhile machining the mounts needed - or tying up one of their 64 available "slots" for one low-volume, marginal lens - or tying up staff time installing new mounts (since I'm sure if a coded mount was availble, they would get some requests for updating legacy lenses).

 

- especially if it is really only needed for EXIF data, which can be handled by the internal menu if one really has to have it.

 

Please note I am just giving my interpretation of Leica's reasoning for not setting up the infrastructure to support 135s with 6-bit coding (except for the f/2.8, which uses the 90mm framelines and thus was supported for the M8 originally).

 

If you want to quibble with my points, that's OK - but the people you REALLY have to persuade are Leica. So long as THEY don't think it's worth the time and effort (taking ALL those points into consideration), it won't happen.

_____________

 

swamiji: Yes (although the code is actually 001001 --- 11829 is just the product catalog number), but the 135 f/2.8 has a built-in 1.5x magnifier that increases the effectiveness of the rangefinder (when it is aligned correctly!) - and also enlarges the scene so that a 135 FoV fills the 90 framelines.

 

Since the M8 had 90 lines but not 135 lines, at that time (2006) Leica probably figured "what the heck" and set up a code for the one 135 version that could be used with M8 framelines, and had the extra magnification to make the RF reasonably effective.

[swamiji]

And all it would take is a Firmware upgrade, and they would get a fresh batch of lenses to code... However if it's a choice between coding a new class of lenses or getting caught up with M9 deliveries... What would you do?

[UliWer]

And all it would take is a Firmware upgrade, and they would get a fresh batch of lenses to code... However if it's a choice between coding a new class of lenses or getting caught up with M9 deliveries... What would you do?

 

I'd give the users of the Apo-Telyt with the M9 the chance to use the manual lens detection menue for the 135mm-Elmarit, for they will be able to know which lens they used, even if the EXIF shows the wrong data. That's what Leica already did.

 

For the M8 users of their prime 135mm I'd offer the same opportunity by a firmware update which introduces a manual lens detection menue for the M8 . That's what they will perhaps do, if and when they release a new firmware for the M8.

[swamiji]

I'd give the users of the Apo-Telyt with the M9 the chance to use the manual lens detection menue for the 135mm-Elmarit, for they will be able to know which lens they used, even if the EXIF shows the wrong data. That's what Leica already did.

 

For the M8 users of their prime 135mm I'd offer the same opportunity by a firmware update which introduces a manual lens detection menue for the M8 . That's what they will perhaps do, if and when they release a new firmware for the M8.

 

Thats assuming that the M8 flash memory can handle the manual lens detection option. To shoehorn it in, may eliminate/reduce some other feature. That would take a lot more memory than to add a line to an existing table.

[holgerf]

Though some of the discussed reasons not to code it may be right from Leica’s point of view, I’m not happy with the fact that leica does not even offer the option to code it.

 

As I like to have the EXIF data in my database my way out was to code it manually as an 135/2.8 and ignore the value of maximum aperture which is now shown as 2.8.

 

Best

Holger

[michali]

As I like to have the EXIF data in my database my way out was to code it manually as an 135/2.8 and ignore the value of maximum aperture which is now shown as 2.8.

 

Exactly what I've done as well.

[chris_tribble]

Though some of the discussed reasons not to code it may be right from Leica’s point of view, I’m not happy with the fact that leica does not even offer the option to code it.

 

As I like to have the EXIF data in my database my way out was to code it manually as an 135/2.8 and ignore the value of maximum aperture which is now shown as 2.8.

 

Best

Holger

 

This worked with my modified mount on the M8 (to bring up 90mm framelines). On the M9 with a coded standard mount (bringing up 135) this system doesn't work. Only option at the moment is to use manual selection. Annoying. I've now written twice to Leica asking if they could fix in firmware by issuing a code, but so far no luck. Maybe more of us should write in directly. My experience is that Leica DOES listen in the end.

[holgerf]

Exactly what I've done as well.

 

Do you use it with the M8 or M9?

 

Best

Holger

[jaapv]

btw, there are 192 code slots, as the selection lever acts as a three-position bit.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[swamiji]

btw, there are 192 code slots, as the selection lever acts as a three-position bit.

 

Thats the theoretical limit, the practical limits are far less, since only the MATE explores that territory. Especially because of the shared frame lines the implementation would be much like a jigsaw puzzle, as which lenses would fit which combination of switch and code. Except for the exotic like the MATE, Leica may never go that way. But you never know.