Owners of a brand-new Apo-Telyt-M 135 mm lens

[Guest nafpie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This infomation was accurate last year but is outdated by now.

 

[...]

 

As usual, the people at Leica Customer Service have no idea what they are talking about. Most likely they aren't even aware that a new firmware version for the M9 came out earlier this week.

 

All the people at Leica Customer Service (and we, of course!) should be more than happy to have YOU as the REAL EXPERT.

 

I got an answer from Leica technical Support Service on my question whether the new firmware enables the Apo-Telyt-M 135mm to be coded.

 

I am told:

 

The Apo-Telyt-M 1:3,4/135mm is not designated for the 6-bit code. This still holds after the new firmware. You should enter the menu for manual lens detection of the M9 and select the lens from the menu. It was in the menu before the new firmware.

 

Which is exactly what I wrote in my posting #2. But now we know it for sure.

 

 

Ok, more 'r less,

[Advertisement]

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

[ho_co]

Interestingly, from what Carl Bretteville says, the 135 Apo code doesn't appear in the latest M8 firmware (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/188759-question-users-135-apo-telyt-m.html#post1750925).

 

I wonder about its 50/2 counterpart.

[EricC]

Interestingly, from what Carl Bretteville says, the 135 Apo code doesn't appear in the latest M8 firmware (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/188759-question-users-135-apo-telyt-m.html#post1750925).

 

I would think that this is due to neither the M8 or the M8.2 having the 135mm frame lines.

[Lindolfi]

Thanks Robert_M for the images of the 135/4. With the 135/3.4 there is a subtle but systematic difference between coded and uncoded images. Nothing dramatic, but it is there.

[Robert_M]

Thanks Robert_M for the images of the 135/4. With the 135/3.4 there is a subtle but systematic difference between coded and uncoded images. Nothing dramatic, but it is there.

 

Well, I'm sure puzzled as to why I don't see the same subtle difference in the 135/4 shots using the same coding. The effect on the images shouldn't depend on the lens. I wonder if I'm doing something in the presentation of the data which hides the difference?

 

Are you able to post some examples with the 135/3.4 coded and uncoded which show the effect of coding on the image? Thanks.

 

RM

[BillCB]

Well, I'm sure puzzled as to why I don't see the same subtle difference in the 135/4 shots using the same coding. The effect on the images shouldn't depend on the lens. I wonder if I'm doing something in the presentation of the data which hides the difference?

 

Are you able to post some examples with the 135/3.4 coded and uncoded which show the effect of coding on the image? Thanks.

 

RM

 

I bought a used 135/3.4 AT least year. The previous owner had installed a mount with the coding depressions and had it coded - but the Info and Exif showed it as a 35 mm lens!

 

So I recoded it like a 135/4, which of course didn't work because of the frame-line issue. Now, thanks to this Forum I have once again recoded and voila, both Info and Exif show 135 mm.

 

Nevertheless, I can't see any difference between the pictures shot with or without the coding. I've only shot a few pix so I'll shoot a few more to see if I can find any change.

 

I'm surprised Leica made no mention of this with the firmware update.

 

Bill

[Robert_M]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

I'm surprised Leica made no mention of this with the firmware update.

 

Bill

 

 

Well, not really so surprising. If you search around for lens coding information you will see that virtually all of the available information is from users via reverse engineering. About the only thing I found from Leica is a list of lenses they will code (but certainly no list of codes). They seem to have viewed all extra exif info as proprietary (or at least that is how I would interpret the situation) and there appears to be no info from Leica about that. Lens codes, temperature of the camera at exposure, number of shutter actuations, etc is all available in the exif information. But all of the availability of this information seems to came from independent (user) sources. So, no, I'm not surprised that Leica hasn't mentioned in their announcement that there is new lens coding in the firmware update.

 

RM

[Lindolfi]

Well, I'm sure puzzled as to why I don't see the same subtle difference in the 135/4 shots using the same coding. The effect on the images shouldn't depend on the lens. I wonder if I'm doing something in the presentation of the data which hides the difference?

 

Are you able to post some examples with the 135/3.4 coded and uncoded which show the effect of coding on the image? Thanks.

 

RM

 

Robert, as I said the difference is very small, but it is there. Here are two difference images of which the contrast has been greatly enhanced. All three images used were loaded in LightRoom 3.4.1 using the same settings of exposure and colour temperature. The images were done with a white piece of non-shiny plastic mounted in a filter ring in front of the camera, that was uniformly lit by light from the clouded sky.

 

first the difference between coded and not coded:

 

second the difference between hand coded and auto coded:

 

As you can see, the second image is essentially uniform noise, the first image has localized colour and brightness differences due to the firmware handling the sensor data based on the lens type.

[UliWer]

Sorry, I only see one example for each case, or am I wrong?

[Lindolfi]

The first image is hand coded minus uncoded, the second image is hand coded minus auto coded. So there are three images needed to make those two difference images.

[Robert_M]

Lindolfi,

 

Thanks, that is interesting. Yes, the difference is there but not much above the noise. Interesting how the pattern is non-symmetric about the cent of the image. I'll have to play some more to see if I can duplicate this with other 135/4 lens codes and another lens. I image that in my previous pic, I have just buried the difference curve in the general, higher background level.

 

RM

[Delfi_r]

Excuse my off-topic. I've read all along and I've found in this thread that the code for the Tele-Elmar is 39-0

 

Anyone has used it to code the lens, and read the Exif data to see Lens data? The Lightroom and Aperture problem can be solved by firmware, but it's easiest if you have the correct information on the EXIF data.

 

I would be interested in the results on the M9 and the M8 different firmwares.

[01af]

... the code for the Tele-Elmar is 39-0.

That's right.

 

 

Anyone has used it to code the lens ...?

You cannot use it to code the lens. Lens codes that contain a zero frameline code can only be applied through the M9's lens selection menu but not through a 6-bit code pattern on the lens mount. So you're out of luck.

 

But you can always use an EXIF data editor (like Phil Harvey's ExifTool, for example) to enter the missing lens metadata into your image files after the fact.

 

Regarding the original topic—I have yet to find a person at Leica Camera AG, Solms, who has the slightest idea as to why the Apo-Telyt-M's code was changed from 9-0 (not 6-bit-codable) to 53-2 (which is codable, as the frameline code now is non-zero) and why they still refuse to code the lens. So far, no-one was able (or willing) to tell me ... and I did ask several people, including a service technician

[Delfi_r]

As you explain, with 32 bitcodes and 4 framelines (null, 35/135 or 35/24, 28/90 and 50/75) you can code 244 lenses. There is space for even the screw-mount lenses!

 

I don't understand why Leica doesn't apply codes for all of the M mount lenses that can use it (exclude those unable to mount on a digital M) in the firmware of the M8, M9 and so on.

 

But the table has no value for the recorded 39 (35/135 frmeline) so perhaps there is an obscure firmware feature to record 'Tele Elmar 135 mm f:4' in the corresponding field.

 

I know that I can put the correct values with an script or with EXIFTOOL, but would be nicier if we could override the manual internvention.

[algrove]

I just received mine from B&H the 14th of June 2011. It is NOT 6-bit encoded and I cannot get my M9 to recognize the correct lens by using the encoder Kit. The S/N is 4111xxx.

 

My camera thinks it is a Summarit 35mm f2.5! And my encoder kit shows that's what code 110101 is to be for the 35mm Summarit. HELP!

 

I know i am getting into this discussion a little late. I also got my 135 from B&H around the time you got yours. It was not coded but with the new 6 bit code I have it manually coded and it does recognize it as a 135 while on auto detect.

[01af]

As you explain, with 32 bitcodes and 4 framelines (null, 35/135 or 35/24, 28/90 and 50/75) you can code 244 lenses. There is space for even the screw-mount lenses!

Basically you're right ... albeit the numbers are 63 lens codes × 3 frameline codes = 189 code points plus one code point for "uncoded lens". The null codes cannot be combined with other codes. Anyway—plenty of code space indeed ... but limited nonetheless. Future lenses are going to need their own code points so Leica must not waste too many of them on obscure lenses from the past. Moreover, Leica is not making the most efficient use of the code space ... even when considering the idiosyncrasies of the mechanics and the electronics of the frameline selector (this is pretty complex stuff actually).

 

 

I don't understand why Leica doesn't apply codes for all of the M mount lenses that can use it (exclude those unable to mount on a digital M) in the firmware of the M8, M9, and so on.

Well ... for some M lenses, applying 6-bit codes to them doesn't make too much sense. In particular the Noctilux 50 mm 1:1.2 and the Summilux-M 35 mm 1:1.4 Aspherical come to mind—these are rare so assigning some of the precious code points to them would be a waste ... and who would adulterate these collectible items by adding black and white patches to them in the first place?

 

However, not adding 6-bit codes to the 135 mm lenses, in particular to the Tele-Elmar 135 mm 1:4 and the Apo-Telyt-M 135 mm 1:3.4, does not make any sense indeed. At least you can add the 6-bit code yourself to the latter using a coder kit, now after the code has changed from 9-0 to 53-2. For the Tele-Elmar, you still have to resort to picking the lens from the menu.

 

 

But the table has no value for the recorded 39 (35/135 frameline) ...

That's right. The lens type 39-2 is not assigned to any existing lens (however the lens type 39-1 is assigned to a lens—to the Macro-Elmar-M 90 mm 1:4).

 

 

... so perhaps there is an obscure firmware feature to record 'Tele-Elmar 135 mm 1:4' in the corresponding field.

That firmware feature is not obscure but it has a user interface—it's called the lens selection menu.

[Delfi_r]

Well ... for some M lenses ... are rare so assigning some of the precious code points to them would be a waste ... and who would adulterate these collectible items by adding black and white patches to them in the first place?

 

Agree with the rare items, but there are plenty of some older lenses that it's a pity the contrary.

 

However, not adding 6-bit codes to the 135 mm lenses, in particular to the Tele-Elmar 135 mm 1:4 and the Apo-Telyt-M 135 mm 1:3.4, does not make any sense indeed. At least you can add the 6-bit code yourself to the latter using a coder kit, now after the code has changed from 9-0 to 53-2. For the Tele-Elmar, you still have to resort to picking the lens from the menu.

 

This it's impossible on the M8 and now it's the entry level of the M system, so there some older lenses will be commonplace too.

 

 

 

That's right. The lens type 39-2 is not assigned to any existing lens (however the lens type 39-1 is assigned to a lens—to the Macro-Elmar-M 90 mm 1:4).

 

A lovely lens that I use a lot. But there would be no problem to assign 39-2 to the Tele-Elmar, one of the most available lenses, in production between 1963 and 1997.

 

That firmware feature is not obscure but it has a user interface—it's called the lens selection menu.

 

Some advise to go to the manual selecction in all cases and others advise to the lens coding. Perhaps we should have the two options fully available.

[hoppyman]

Robert I follow that you are just trying to share something interesting that you have discovered and of course there is no harm done. However you got there with an artificial process.

If you apply coding, temporary or permanent to a lens that Leica has never provided coded nor will modify with that coding for you and then miss-set the frameline selection you can see a non-functional firmware setting that will give you the wrong result for what you started out to try to do!

 

This has come up previously but for your interest the M9 is different in that respect to the M8 (frameline agreement is not required in EVERY instance). But due to that you identified an anomaly that you would not be able to duplicate with the M8. A collateral change I guess, due to the introduction of the much asked for menu lens identification for non-coded lenses.

 

I don't think that you can reliably conclude anything about future products and firmware functions from your experiment though.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wlaidlaw]

Another confirmation that the 001010 code for the 135/3.4 (or 135/4), which works just fine on my M9, does not appear to work on the M8, so I guess it is not in the firmware coding. Would be nice if it was, as I quite often use my 135 T-E on the M8.

 

At least as and when I get my "M", I will not have to fiddle about with the menu when mounting a 135 and the focus peaking, should make it even easier to use

 

Wilson

[01af]

But there would be no problem to assign 39-2 to the Tele-Elmar [135 mm], one of the most available lenses, in production between 1963 and 1997.

There wouldn't be, indeed. Still, for some reason Leica has decided to assign the lens type 39-0 to the Tele-Elmar 135 mm, not 39-2.

 

 

Some advise to go to the manual selection in all cases and others advise to the lens coding.

That's because in some cases, manual selection isn't possible; in other cases, lens coding isn't possible (such as for the Tele-Elmar 135 mm ... except when you are happy mis-identifying it as either Elmarit-M 135 mm or Apo-Telyt-M 135 mm).

 

 

Perhaps we should have the two options fully available.

Yeah, but we haven't.

 

 

Another confirmation that the 001010 code for the 135/3.4 (or 135/4), which works just fine on my M9, does not appear to work on the M8 ...

This 6-bit code doesn't work on any camera because 001010 isn't assigned to any lens in the first place. So how can you say it worked on your M9? It definitely does not.