Guest WPalank Posted January 2, 2007 Share #1 Posted January 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) First of all, I want to thank all of you for your posts and the bevie of knowledge I have picked up as a new user over the last couple of days as I wait for the arrival of my black M8 (said while holding breath). Anyway, to my questions: I am about to box up 4 lenses that are all ASPH (21mm/2.8, 28mm/2.0, 35mm/2.0 and 50mm/2.0) and send them to NJ for coding. However, as I read this Forum, many are stating that the 21mm frame lines do not fit in the viewfinder of the M8. Yet the pdf from Leica NJ, that someone kindly forwarded me, containing the list of lenses compatable for 6-bit coding INCLUDES the 21 mm. What gives? Sounds like it would be a waste of money or is it? Finally, I bought an external viewfinder for my 21mm lens for my RD-1. It is a Voigtlander D. Will this work for the M8. Thank you in advance for your answers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 Hi Guest WPalank, Take a look here 21mm 2.8 ASPH (6-bit coding). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
cbretteville Posted January 2, 2007 Share #2 Posted January 2, 2007 William, The 6bit coding does not relate to the VF. The coding allows the camera to know which lens is attached an apply ant neccesary adjustments to handle improve vignetting and cyan shift when an IR-block filter is used. You also get info in the files as to which lens is used and it's max aperture. As for a VF for a 21mm, the regular VC25 finder should be a good fit. The 21D will be a little conservative as the RD1 has a smaller sensor than the M8. - Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WPalank Posted January 2, 2007 Share #3 Posted January 2, 2007 Thank you Carl. I've had a lot of trouble trying to get info on the 6-bit coding (Sean hasn't authorized me onto his website as of yet). Having not looked through the viewfinder, my assumption was that framelines automatically appeared for that specific lens as a result of the coding. So 4 lenses it is, off to NJ. Bon Voyage! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisaccountisdeleted Posted January 2, 2007 Share #4 Posted January 2, 2007 However, as I read this Forum, many are stating that the 21mm frame lines do not fit in the viewfinder of the M8. [...] Finally, I bought an external viewfinder for my 21mm lens for my RD-1. It is a Voigtlander D. Will this work for the M8. Thank you in advance for your answers The M8's viewfinder does not have 21mm framelines, but that is a separate issue from lens coding. The lens coding will help with vignetting correction (and eventually IR filter cyan-drift correction). The Voigtlander D viewfinder will not work. It basically shows 31.5mm framelines (21mm x 1.5). A 28mm external viewfinder should work well with 21mm on the M8. You could also use Leica's new wide-angle viewfinder for the 16-18-21 tri-elmar or the smaller 21-24-28 viewfinder. Finally.. you may be able to estimate 21mm with the M8's viewfinder. It's probably about the size of the entire view.. but I haven't tested that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted January 2, 2007 Share #5 Posted January 2, 2007 Your'e welcome. The framelines appear as a result of a mechanical cam that pushes the same gadget the lever on the front of most Ms do to one of three positions. Its been this way since the release of the M3 way back. - C Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WPalank Posted January 2, 2007 Share #6 Posted January 2, 2007 Thanks for the good info Bryan! Finally.. you may be able to estimate 21mm with the M8's viewfinder. It's probably about the size of the entire view.. but I haven't tested that. Has anybody tested Bryan's hypothesis yet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsmith Posted January 2, 2007 Share #7 Posted January 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) The M8's viewfinder does not have 21mm framelines, but that is a separate issue from lens coding. The lens coding will help with vignetting correction (and eventually IR filter cyan-drift correction). The Voigtlander D viewfinder will not work. It basically shows 31.5mm framelines (21mm x 1.5). A 28mm external viewfinder should work well with 21mm on the M8. You could also use Leica's new wide-angle viewfinder for the 16-18-21 tri-elmar or the smaller 21-24-28 viewfinder. Finally.. you may be able to estimate 21mm with the M8's viewfinder. It's probably about the size of the entire view.. but I haven't tested that. Or you could take a picture and look at the LCD screen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eoin Posted January 2, 2007 Share #8 Posted January 2, 2007 Yes, the actual field of view of the 21mm Elmarit Asph is just slightly wider than the entire view finder of the M8. The 21 brings up the 28/90 frame lines. Remember you'll need to get a 28mm external viewfinder to see the entire field of view of the 21mm on the M8 if you want to go down that road. I just use the entire viewfinder to frame my pictures. Works very well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 2, 2007 Share #9 Posted January 2, 2007 I agree that using a finder with the 21 is not always required. You generally get more in the image than are contained in the framelines anyway and with the 21, it's everything you can see in the finder plus a bit more. The snow scene images posted here showed the existing cyan correction works well for the 21mm and we're waiting to see how it works on this lens and the WATE with an IR filter attached. If you're going to have any lenses codes, the wides are ones which benefit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WPalank Posted January 3, 2007 Share #10 Posted January 3, 2007 If you're going to have any lenses codes, the wides are ones which benefit. Thank you Mark. Great to know! It is all starting to make sense due to the knowledgeable and courteous replies of you and the previous authors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cindy Flood Posted January 3, 2007 Share #11 Posted January 3, 2007 I would check out that Voigtlander 21mm D viewfinder. I have one too, and I like using it better than trying to frame in the viewfinder of the M8. I just ignore the framelines and use the whole viewfinder. It is brighter and easier for me. I wouldn't go out and buy one, but if you already have it, give it a try. You will surely want to code the lens. The cyan corners with the cut filter are not pretty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted January 3, 2007 Share #12 Posted January 3, 2007 Hi William, Sorry for the delay with the site. PP is supposed to activate immediately but sometimes if doesn't. The full view of the M8 finder is smaller than the FOV of a 21 on the M8. I use a 28 mm external finder. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 3, 2007 Share #13 Posted January 3, 2007 The full view of the M8 finder is smaller than the FOV of a 21 on the M8. I use a 28 mm external finder. Worth keeping things in perspective though. The M8 provides full coverage of a 24mm lens which has a horizontal field of view of 59 degrees. Put a 21mm lens on and the horizontal field of view is 65 degrees, so you can think of there being a band which is just 3 degrees wider on each side. Even ignoring the facts that the M8 finder provides a safety margin with the 24 (which it does) and you can see a bit more outside the 24 frame (which you can), using the M8 viewfinder with a 21mm is still reaonsable - there's just a bigger safety margin around the image. It's also good to try the 21/24/28 finder to see the range of angles of view provided by the WATE. It's not much. At 16mm on an M8, the (horizontal) angle of view is 80 degrees, at 21mm, it's 65 degrees. The whole €3500 Tre-Elmar thing amounts to no more than a 10% crop on each side. Barely worth a shout, IMHO, and I'm certainly in the camp of preferring a 16mm f2.8 for the money (even though I've bought a WATE with the 30% deal). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodyspedden Posted January 3, 2007 Share #14 Posted January 3, 2007 Worth keeping things in perspective though. The M8 provides full coverage of a 24mm lens which has a horizontal field of view of 59 degrees. Put a 21mm lens on and the horizontal field of view is 65 degrees, so you can think of there being a band which is just 3 degrees wider on each side. Even ignoring the facts that the M8 finder provides a safety margin with the 24 (which it does) and you can see a bit more outside the 24 frame (which you can), using the M8 viewfinder with a 21mm is still reaonsable - there's just a bigger safety margin around the image. It's also good to try the 21/24/28 finder to see the range of angles of view provided by the WATE. It's not much. At 16mm on an M8, the (horizontal) angle of view is 80 degrees, at 21mm, it's 65 degrees. The whole €3500 Tre-Elmar thing amounts to no more than a 10% crop on each side. Barely worth a shout, IMHO, and I'm certainly in the camp of preferring a 16mm f2.8 for the money (even though I've bought a WATE with the 30% deal). I have been using the Leica 21-24-28 finder for a number of years and have found it useful now on the M8. Using it with the new WATE the 16mm is equivalent to 20.8 on the M8 so the 21 view is very close. Similarly on the 18mm position of the WATE is equivalent to 23.4 so the 24 position on the viewer is again very close. Finally the 21 position of the WATE is 27.3 on the M8 so the 28 position of the finder is again very close. While this APO corrected viewfinder is expensive it gives great flexibility for both FF M bodies and the M8. Woody Spedden Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 3, 2007 Share #15 Posted January 3, 2007 Woody, the crop factor is 1.33, not 1.3, so the approximations are closer than you suggest and I agree the old finder is fine providing you don't want space qround the frame which is what you get with the new finder. Of course, it's all an approximation anyway, the lenses aren't exactly the stated focal lengths and the focal lengths change with subject distance, but it's good enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted January 3, 2007 Share #16 Posted January 3, 2007 Mark Although I agree that the WATE could have benefited from a little more range, when you think about it, it is the 35mm equivalent of 21-24-28 which is a most useful range. Anything any longer starts to impinge on the normal range and anything any wider is a superwide. My only real complaint is the F4 speed. But then a faster lens would have probably been impossibly large and expensive Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 3, 2007 Share #17 Posted January 3, 2007 Rex, I take your point and I'm sure the WATE will appeal; personally, I would have preferred a single focal length and an extra stop. And that distortion still worries me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted January 3, 2007 Share #18 Posted January 3, 2007 Check out the size of Zeiss' 15/2.8, it'll give you some idea: 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! It is 89mm long, weights 500g and uses 77mm filters. Thats a lot of bulk for one stop. - C Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! It is 89mm long, weights 500g and uses 77mm filters. Thats a lot of bulk for one stop. - C ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/12615-21mm-28-asph-6-bit-coding/?do=findComment&comment=132927'>More sharing options...
carstenw Posted January 3, 2007 Share #19 Posted January 3, 2007 Heck, I'd buy a Leica 15mm f/4.0. I own the Voigtländer, and it is great, but I could handle the extra bulk for the extra part-stop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macusque Posted January 3, 2007 Share #20 Posted January 3, 2007 I'd get a Leica 16/3.5 then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.