Coding non-Leica Lenses

[d2mini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So I got the Zeiss Planar 50mm f/2 today and the Match Technical Coder Kit V2 (which is incredibly awesome and well designed, btw). So I coded the lens to the Summicron 50mm. Then realized later that there is probably more than one cron 50 so i checked the coder and there are two. I coded for vers. III but there is also a vers. IV.V. So does it matter? What exactly would be different between the two, or other codes for that matter? What is the best code for the Zeiss?

 

And what is the purpose of the coder kit having two slots for sd cards?

 

Thanks!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

You could try the different codes and find out. I think with a 50mm the coding is only likely to be useful in the EXIF data, its the wider lenses that need more correction.

 

As for the card slots, its a gimmick or added value, whichever you like, but as you need to take the coder everywhere with you it doubles up as a card holder as well.

 

Steve

[d2mini]

You could try the different codes and find out. I think with a 50mm the coding is only likely to be useful in the EXIF data, its the wider lenses that need more correction.

Gotcha.

So I won't see changes to overall color or anything like that?

What about max aperture? Do you need to match an f/2 lens to an f/2 code?

 

As for the card slots, its a gimmick or added value, whichever you like, but as you need to take the coder everywhere with you it doubles up as a card holder as well.

I figured as much. Thanks!

[khiromu]

You can code your non-coded lens for whatever lens you want. But you have to match the frame lines.

 

For example, a 50mm lens brings up 50/75 frame lines. So you can code your uncoded 50mm lens as one of any 50mm lenses or 75mm lenses, and your body should recognize. But you cannot code as 35mm lens as 35mm lenses should bring up 35/24 frame line, where the coding information and frame line set do not match.

 

In any case, for the lenses longer than 35mm, you may/may not see any practical difference in your actual images (unless you shoot test chart or something). The only plus is, as steve says, in exif information where you can sort your images with the lens used.

 

Thank you.

hiromu

[250swb]

Maybe code it as the latest 50mm Leica Summicron for a Planar, possibly an early Summicron for a Sonnar type lens.

 

Steve

[d2mini]

You can code your non-coded lens for whatever lens you want. But you have to match the frame lines.

 

For example, a 50mm lens brings up 50/75 frame lines. So you can code your uncoded 50mm lens as one of any 50mm lenses or 75mm lenses, and your body should recognize. But you cannot code as 35mm lens as 35mm lenses should bring up 35/24 frame line, where the coding information and frame line set do not match.

 

I thought that it was the mounting ring on the lens that was responsible for mechanically changing the frame lines? So an uncoded lens will bring up the correct framelines, it just won't have the exif info.

[Sailronin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That is correct, the framelines are mechanical. I haven't coded any of my lenses...all seem to work OK

[lars_bergquist]

Yes, the length of the lug on the bayonet ring keys in the appropriate frame(s) just as they have done since time immemorial (the M4-P of 1980 was the first to display the complete present set of 28+90, 35+135 and 50+75mm frames). This is also taken account of when the camera evaluates the code info about the lens identity. The optical code does normally take precedence, but there seems to be instances where this is not the case.

 

I would like to point out that if you find it difficult to decide which 50mm lens you want to code for, there is no immediate need to apply the code. Go to the main menu. Set Lens detection to Manual. You will now see a long list of past Leica lenses, all from the time before all lenses were 6-bit coded. You will find the following, inter alia:

 

• 50 f/1 11821/11822 (that's the 1975--2008 Noctilux)

• 50 f/1.2 11820 (the legendary first Noctilux,1966--1975!)

• 50 f/1.4 11868/11856/11114 (the pre-Aspherical Summilux, 1962--2004)

• 50 f/1.4 ASPH. 11891/11892 (current Summilux ASPH)

• 50 f/2 11817 (v. 3 Summicron)

• 50 f/2 11819/11825/11826/11816 (current v.4 Summicron)

• 50 f/2.8 11831/11823/11824 (1994--2008 collapsible Elmar-M)

 

You can then set any of these lenses, and try the setting in practice. As you change back to a coded lens, don't forget to set Lens detection back to Auto. The current Summarit lenses are not in the list, because they have never existed un-coded.

 

But if you don't mind having slightly inaccurate Exif data, you can pretty well set the camera to any damn 50mm lens and it won't make much of a difference. There is in fact not much of a point (apart from the Exif) to coding any 50mm lens at all, except possibly the Noctis. But once I used a 1:0.95 Noctilux with Lens detection inadvertently set manually to a v.4 pre-aspherical 35mm Summicron, without any dire consequences at all! So, keep your shirt on, experiment a bit, including with Lens detection on Auto with an un-coded lens, and make your decision. You may well decide not to code at all.

 

I might add that, if you keep Lens detection set to Auto and use an uncoded lens, the camera applies only minimum corrections, and with lenses from 50mm and up (some would say, from 35mm and up) everything works like a charm. I do this routinely with my 90 and 75mm lenses. The 135mm Apo-Telyt does not even have a code, but is OK to use.

 

The old man from the Age of the Enigma Codes

[d2mini]

Thanks, Lars!

 

I've been using my 90 elmarit uncoded but it always bugs me that the exif info is missing so that's the main reason i want to code. I don't do well with remembering to change the menu settings.

 

I was also wondering... i know leica can professionally code leica lenses and there are third party outfits that can code non-leica lenses if you send them the lens mount. But I was noticing that it only takes a small black mark to get the code to work, which means it doesn't have to be a perfect match to Leica's marks. So I was wondering if anyone has tried slightly milling out the code themselves using a dremel tool? I would think that you could make just slight indents in the metal, even do all six if you want, then fill in the hole with the black marker. And it wouldn't have to be perfect, just make sure they are in the right spot which is pretty easy using the coder kit. Being slightly indented should help the marks last quite a while. And if you milled out all six you could still change codes if you wanted to my removing the mark with a little denatured alcohol. Of course I'm sure this would void any warranty on the lens. Thoughts?

[Per P.]

d2mini: A quick search of the M8 / M9 forums will give you insight in some amazing DIY work carried out by more entrepeneurial members. Personally I wouldn't have the nerve

[d2mini]

So i was noticing that my exif is off with the older 50mm 'cron code i used.

f/2 on my lens is showing f/2.4 in exif. f/2.4 is showing f/2.8. And so on.

Weird, eh?

[d2mini]

So today i used the code for the newer summicron 50 f/2 which is 100001 and it is STILL not giving me the correct aperture reading in exif. I shot at f/2 and it shows up in lightroom as 50mm and f/2.8. What gives?

[Nicoleica]

So today i used the code for the newer summicron 50 f/2 which is 100001 and it is STILL not giving me the correct aperture reading in exif. I shot at f/2 and it shows up in lightroom as 50mm and f/2.8. What gives?

 

Don't forget that the aperture in the exif is a 'guestimation' based upon readings from the external sensor and the TTL values. It's quite often a bit out. As the 'M' cameras don't have any mechanical or electronic means of knowing what aperture is actually set, it's considered to be better than nothing.

[bocaburger]

I was wondering if anyone has tried slightly milling out the code themselves using a dremel tool? I would think that you could make just slight indents in the metal, even do all six if you want, then fill in the hole with the black marker.

 

I coded all my 35mm-and-under lenses that way, except I filled the recesses with black automobile touchup paint (BMW, just to keep things German ). I used that type because it's made to adhere better to bare metal without a primer coat. On my 21 Elmarit I also had to fill one lens mount screw with white paint because it confused the code reader.

 

I wouldn't suggest milling freehand unless you have a very steady hand, and I'd consider practicing on something expendable first. Maybe it's a matter of what you're used to, but for me a Dreml is way too "fat" for me to control freehand. I'm much more confident with an electric handpiece made for dental or jeweler use which is about the thickness of a cigar. That way you can hold it in thumb and 2 fingers, with the last 2 fingers against the lens (and lens and both forearms on the bench), which makes for a much steadier hand. And unless you remove the flange to mill it, I'd advise putting some lens tissue over the rear element and then masking it off with tape so the shavings don't get onto the glass or down into the focusing helicoid.

[d2mini]

Oh really? So even my Leica lenses could be showing slightly skewed exif info? I never noticed. Interesting.

[wlaidlaw]

I chose the 10001 code for my 50 Planar, as mine is an older one with the screw pit in exactly the wrong place and since you have to fill it with Tippex or similar, it is better if you can then put a black line over the Tippex. It seems to make very little difference on 50mm and above lenses if they are coded or not but it is nice to have the EXIF on my M8. Strangely, the M9 seems to be far fussier on getting the coding lines in exactly the correct position than my M8 is. Luckily of course, you can manually select lenses on the M9. I keep hoping that there will be a firmware update for the M8, offering the same facility.

 

Changing bayonets on Zeiss lenses is a 15 minute job but you need acetone to loosen the locking compound on the screws or you will risk chewing them up or at worst, shearing them off.

 

Wilson