Coding vs Manual Lens Selection

[d2mini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On the M9, is there any advantage to a coding an older 90mm over just manually selecting the correct lens in the menu system? Other than the obvious extra step of course.

 

Thanks!

[01af]

No.

[gwelland]

Don't underestimate the issue of forgetting that the lens is selected when using other coded lenses. Unfortunately a coded lens doesn't override the manual selection.

[digitalfx]

My 35mm Summilux is not coded, and its a royal pain. I am constantly either forgetting to set it, or forgetting to turn it off when I switch lenses. I have set up one of my profiles specifically for this lens, I just forget to change it.

 

I am sending the lens to Leica to have it coded

[d2mini]

My 35mm Summilux is not coded, and its a royal pain. I am constantly either forgetting to set it, or forgetting to turn it off when I switch lenses. I have set up one of my profiles specifically for this lens, I just forget to change it.

 

I am sending the lens to Leica to have it coded

 

Ya, I'm aware (especially with me) that this could (and probably will) be a problem.

But in the mean time I just want to make sure I wouldn't be missing something else.

 

Thanks!

[hoppyman]

Forgetting to change it afterwards when you switch back!. have some shots where the focal length is reported as both 90 AND 135 in EXIF!

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With a 90, frankly, the best approach for an uncoded lens is to just use it with the camera set to "Coded Lens." You won't get EXIF info, but a 90 does not need any corrections, so the pictures won't suffer. And you won't have to worry about switching back and forth.

 

I have both uncoded 35 and 135 lenses, and never bother to mess with the lens menu.

 

You don't mention which older 90 you have, but if it is new enough to have screw heads on the lens mount flange, blackening the screw head that falls in the same place as the 6-bit code engraving (about 120° clockwise from the locking notch as seen from the back) will "code" it as a 90 Tele-Elmarit-M, so at least your EXIF data will tell your the right focal length.

[d2mini]

You don't mention which older 90 you have, but if it is new enough to have screw heads on the lens mount flange, blackening the screw head that falls in the same place as the 6-bit code engraving (about 120° clockwise from the locking notch as seen from the back) will "code" it as a 90 Tele-Elmarit-M, so at least your EXIF data will tell your the right focal length.

 

It's the last model elmarit 2.8.

Here's a pic of the lens mount. It does have screws.

Which screw would it be?

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=30891&d=1274093345

[DFV]

Don't underestimate the issue of forgetting that the lens is selected when using other coded lenses. Unfortunately a coded lens doesn't override the manual selection.

 

Hmmm... That would be a great upgrade for the next firmware version. The M9 could at least warn you that the coded lens does not match your manual setting.

[250swb]

It's the last model elmarit 2.8.

Here's a pic of the lens mount. It does have screws.

Which screw would it be?

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=30891&d=1274093345

 

The screws on the last model Elmarit don't get in the way of coding by hand (the coding goes roughly in the five o'clock section of the mount as shown in your photo). But the M9 doesn't respond to a 'sharpie' the same way an M8 does (unless somebody can recommend a permanent pen that really works), it needs more opaque black paint to register the code. If you have a Dremel you can code it yourself.

 

 

Steve

[digitalfx]

 

I have both uncoded 35 and 135 lenses, and never bother to mess with the lens menu.

 

 

My 35 Summilux vignettes if I dont set the coding properly.

[adan]

@ d2mini - ooops - Leica seems to have moved the screws on your 90 Elmarit compared to most of my lenses. The correct screw WOULD have been at the 5:30 position in your photo.

 

And - the newest versions of Adobe products (LR, ACR) apparently can now automatically apply lens-specific corrections for things such as CA or vignetting if they can tell which lens was used from the EXIF, so the benefit of identifying any lens, even longer lenses, in EXIF has increased.

 

So - back to your original question - getting the lens coded would be a convenience factor, but otherwise not different than identifying the lens manually in the menu.

 

@ digitalfx - could be. Depends on model of Summilux or Summicron and aperture used. In my case my v.4 Summicron and pre-ASPH 35 'lux do not vignette any more than they did on film, which is fine by me. Most of the time on both the M8 and M9 I've needed to ADD edge-darkening or vignetting in processing to get the "edge-burned" look I like in my pix.

[nik_nik9]

I've got the same Elmarit-M and have it handcoded just with a sharpie. You see that the lines are very fine on my model. They are there since a couple of months already and I changed the lens dozens of times. Although it's fading away a little, it still shows the correct Exif information. When I first made the signs much thicker, it was not working - only since they are that fine. Hope this will help.

Nik

 

 

The screws on the last model Elmarit don't get in the way of coding by hand (the coding goes roughly in the five o'clock section of the mount as shown in your photo). But the M9 doesn't respond to a 'sharpie' the same way an M8 does (unless somebody can recommend a permanent pen that really works), it needs more opaque black paint to register the code. If you have a Dremel you can code it yourself.

 

 

Steve

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!

[250swb]

I just wondered if anybody had an actual make and model of sharpie that works as a general recommendation Nik. I don't need it myself, I coded my own lens with a grinder.

 

Steve

[d2mini]

I've got the same Elmarit-M and have it handcoded just with a sharpie. You see that the lines are very fine on my model. They are there since a couple of months already and I changed the lens dozens of times. Although it's fading away a little, it still shows the correct Exif information. When I first made the signs much thicker, it was not working - only since they are that fine. Hope this will help.

Nik

 

Success! Thanks!

 

If it matters any I used a MICRON 02 archival ink artist pen and erred on the side of going a hair thinner than the real leica coding bars.

[Mauribix]

I didn't take the time to read all the posts, anyway if you don't set the focal lenght (manually or not) you could miss the opportunity to use "auto iso" set to lens dependant for what that concerns the shooting speed.

 

Ciao

[Guest]

I didn't take the time to read all the posts, anyway if you don't set the focal lenght (manually or not) you could miss the opportunity to use "auto iso" set to lens dependant for what that concerns the shooting speed.

 

Ciao

 

Ciao Maurizio,

 

Find your info very interesting, because I feel free to admit that auto iso is very often in use here.

My question to everybody competent and friendly is: where do I find threads discussing "auto iso" and "lens dependent auto iso" since search (Suchen) didn't get me any further and I find the results very often unpredictable?

Further questions being: does "auto iso" differ in M8/M9?

 

With your post you give me the following idea: I'd like to have "auto iso" with my 35mm and the longest speed 1/250 or less, hence faster than the 1/125 I can select. Since this lens does not need optical correction on the M8 imo and I could accept the wrong EXIF data, my question is:

does the coding of a 90mm or of a 135mm set the max. t: to something faster than 1/125, when lens dependent auto iso is selected? If so, I would have my 35mm recoded as a tele, just for this purpose.

(btw.: auto iso does NOT work at all on the 5d2 in M mode ).

[Overgaard]

The ideal would be to have all lenses coded as that gives you whatever known or unknown Leica corrections, as well (and for me mainly) info on which lens was used for later reference.

 

If you happen to have older lenses in your collection beyond coding, you loose some of the advantage of having the Leica M9 on auto all the time - and the disadvantage of not having it on auto is that you forget to change the manual setting (and then have wrong lenses in the exif data which is very confusing for later reference).

 

An extra advantage with lens coding is that the fee for coding in fact includes a CLA of the lens, including fine tune to digital focusing (which is more critical than film was).

 

I'm not sure of this, but as far as I know, the lenses beyond official lens coding are the ones with screws in the bayonet where the code has to be. Someone more informed may confirm or correct me on this.

[Mauribix]

Ciao Maurizio,

 

Find your info very interesting, because I feel free to admit that auto iso is very often in use here.

My question to everybody competent and friendly is: where do I find threads discussing "auto iso" and "lens dependent auto iso" since search (Suchen) didn't get me any further and I find the results very often unpredictable?

Further questions being: does "auto iso" differ in M8/M9?

 

Hi, as been said by Thorsten, it would be better to have all the lenses coded as to be able to get all the auto-functions working properly. And, for me as well, most of all to get the exact information in the EXIF data without forgetting it.

 

Anyway, I can't remember now of any differences in the M8 vs M9 auto iso setting, exception done for the intermediate ISOs available with the M9,despite of the full stop scale of the M8.

 

To get the "lens dependant" setting in the auto ISO menu, you have to enter the menu setting page, choose AUTO-ISO, then open "slowest speed" and set the speed to "lens dependant".

In this case, when you opt for the AUTO-ISO function, without the need for setting it after every lens change, you'd get automaticaly the "safest" slow speed that you can use.

Actually I can't remember if it's set with a margin or not, (i.e. 1/125 for a 90mm lens, 1/90 for a 75mm lens and so on), but you can easily check that.

 

I hope this help.

 

Ciao,

Maurizio

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[kipdent]

I have followed this thread with interest and though I have tried coding some of my uncoded lenses with the various tricks mentioned, I've come to the conclusion I should send in my lenses for official coding. I'm a dentist and believe I have fairly decent skills for fine "eye-hand" motor control to place accurate black bars on the lens mounts (I even got the nice rounded corners of the bars drawn properly!), but the M9 seems to be a very sensitive beast. I also used the Micron 02 pigment pen that d2mini suggested, but found that the archival pigment ink it uses "beads" on the shiny surface of the lens mount, even after fastidious cleaning. I can't count how many layers I must have put on to get a truly black bar, but the project took more time than I'd like to admit. Then, after completion, I got a very strange result--I placed my Summicron 35mm f/2 ASPH on the M9 and it reported a 35mm f/4 had been mounted! Is that even a lens Leica ever made? I have to admit defeat for self-coding. Not only is it potentially unreliable, just the thought of having to repeat the tedious process again is enough for me to cry "uncle!" Add to this the possibility that the dried pen ink can (apparently) muck up the code sensor in the body, and I'm out.

 

Here are some questions for folks in the U.S. who have had Leica code their lenses:

 

- Does the New Jersey facility provide this service, or do the lenses have to be shipped to Solms?

 

- Is it a flat rate charge for each lens and, if so, how much does it cost?

 

- What is the turnaround time for this service?

 

Thanks for any help, and good luck to all the self-coders out there--you are made of stronger stuff than I!

 

Kip