Robert_M Posted June 25, 2011 Share #21 Posted June 25, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I didn't try coding the APO yet, as I would have to have the mount milled. Anybody with already milled mount and sharpies can confirm this info from Leica? Coding does not work right from the lens mount on the 135 APO-Telyt? The new 135/3.4 coding is also discussed in the long thread about new firmware in the M9 forum. It has already been confirmed there. However, it is always nice to see for myself. I did just use my 135/4 tele-elmar lens with a sharpie to check the new coding. Using the new code 53-2 (110101 with frame line 135) makes the M9 auto detect the lens with that coding. There is no reason that I can see that coding a 135/3.4 lens mount will not work. The answer from Leica would indicate that there are other reasons they do not want to do this. It certainly CAN be done, they just WILL not do it currently. BTW, the manual coding also now writes code 53-2 to the exif information. This is different than the former firmware which wrote code 9-0. So what little software actually recognized this correctly (exif tool, M9info) will now have to contend with 2 codes for this lens. Lightroom does not recognize the code - no surprise since it would need a software update to know this info. The 135/4 tele-elmar still records the exif information as 39-0. But now for the REALLY INTERESTING INFORMATION: Since I had already coded the lens as code 53, I tried the other frame lines. Guess what, code 53-3 (110101 with frame 50/75) brings up a new lens called 50/2. The current 50 summicron (VI and V) and previous version (III) already have codes 33 and 23. So, is this new 53-3 code for an upcoming, new 50 summicron which has been speculated about? And, does this explain why Leica does not want to code the 135/3.4 lens mount (and make the user do it manually from software). Have they already reserved the 53 lens code mount coding for a new 50 f/2 lens? Just logical speculation...... RM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Hi Robert_M, Take a look here Owners of a brand-new Apo-Telyt-M 135 mm lens. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
doubice Posted June 26, 2011 Share #22 Posted June 26, 2011 How do you explain Bright-line view and range finder / 133 in the M9 Instructions_en.pdf?K-H. Correction to the above post:The M9 DOES have the 135mm frame (at the 35/135 frame position)....... RM Umm... My M9 has a 135 mm frame.... Actually the 135mm frame lines of the M9 where one of the points, which sold me on this camera in the end........ Sorry guys, mea culpa.... Meant to say that the M8 and the M8.2 do not have the 135mm frame. The M9 of course does...... Cheers, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted June 26, 2011 Share #23 Posted June 26, 2011 ... But now for the REALLY INTERESTING INFORMATION: Since I had already coded the lens as code 53, I tried the other frame lines. Guess what, code 53-3 (110101 with frame 50/75) brings up a new lens called 50/2. The current 50 summicron (VI and V) and previous version (III) already have codes 33 and 23. So, is this new 53-3 code for an upcoming, new 50 summicron which has been speculated about? And, does this explain why Leica does not want to code the 135/3.4 lens mount (and make the user do it manually from software). Have they already reserved the 53 lens code mount coding for a new 50 f/2 lens? Just logical speculation...... RM Well, I don't quite understand your final conclusion: If the code 53-3 with 50/75 frames already indicates a new 1:2/50mm-lens, there should be no reason to reserve a 53-code with 35/135 frames for this lens. If there is any clandestine meaning of the code for the 135mm which Leica says can not be used for coding the 1:3,4/135mm Apo-Telyt, it could only stand for a 35mm. A new version of the 2/35 asph. does not seem to stand on top of the rumor lists, but looking at the age of the design and some recently reported "flaws" (flare and CA) it does not seem completely improbable that we'd see a new one sooner or later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted June 26, 2011 Share #24 Posted June 26, 2011 Dear all - a reality check. 1/ Leica have issued a 6 bit code for the 135 AT 2/ With the new firmware on the M9, the lens is recognised. 3/ LR as yet only reports 135 in exif - I assume that eventually this will be corrected The code you need (reading from left to right) is 00101 i.e. black, black, white, black, black. I have no idea why Leica won't code these. In the UK Malcolm Taylor machined my original mount and it is recognised un-problematically. Evidence below. Once again, a lot of dealers know a lot less than some of the good people on this forum. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/154514-owners-of-a-brand-new-apo-telyt-m-135-mm-lens/?do=findComment&comment=1715165'>More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 26, 2011 Share #25 Posted June 26, 2011 Chrs Can you clarify the code, please? Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted June 26, 2011 Share #26 Posted June 26, 2011 Chris, thanks very much for the update - could you please upload a picture from your lens mount? This could clear up all questions regarding the code for good (see Jaap's comment above ;-) ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted June 26, 2011 Share #27 Posted June 26, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The code you need (reading from left to right) is 00101 i.e. black, black, white, black, black. Chris has skipped a bit, so it is 001010 i.e. black, black, white, black, white, black. For the correct code, see here and here So it should look like this: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_M Posted June 26, 2011 Share #28 Posted June 26, 2011 chris_tribble: Since you appear to have the 135/3.4 lens coded, try moving the frame selector to the 50/75 position when the lens is mounted. You will see that the M9 info screen now identifies the lens as a 50 f/2. This is a new 50mm lens that has not had the 53 code before. If not a new lens, then it is a firmware error. It would be helpful to verify this by another user and not just my sharpie coding. To clarify what I posted earlier (in response to a question): It appears that two lenses will have the "53" code, unless there is a firmware id bug. The 135/3.4 has code 53-2 (frameline 135), and 53-3 (frameline 50) is a 50/2 lens. If one codes the mount of the 135 with code "53", it is possible to use the frame selector to fool the camera into thinking that the lens is either of 2 lenses. Just changing the frame selector to 50/75 position will both change the M9 info screen and will change the exif info if one takes a picture. To the best of my knowledge, Leica has not allowed this situation to occur in the coding of any of the other lenses. If there is a indeed a new 50/2 lens coming with code "53", it will be mount coded. In that case, the lens mount will bring up the 50/75 position (middle position on the frame selector switch). In that case, the frame selector switch can be moved to change the frame in the viewfinder if put on the 135 position, however it will NOT activate the microswitches that tell the M9 electronics that the frame selector is on position 135. So the camera can not be fooled into thinking it is another lens in this case. It seems that the microswitches use the mount lug to trip the switches and that increases in length from 135/35-to-50/75-to-90/28 on the frame selector positions. So when the mount is a 50/75 mount, it can only be used to activate the 50/75 or 90/28 frame selector electronics. Thus, I conclude that Leica does not want to lens mount code the 135/3.4 since it can potentially allow the user to fool the camera as to what lens is mounted (by the user manually selecting a different frameline). And, using that code on a 50/2 lens (with lens mount coding) will not cause that potential conflict. In addition, it preserves the idea of only marketing one unique code per lens mount sold. Although I infer that this is the logic involved (I have no other evidence to support this), I don't necessarily agree with it as a user. I'd much rather have all the lenses coded for exif information and allow multiple frame positions even if the user mis-used it. RM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted June 26, 2011 Share #29 Posted June 26, 2011 chris_tribble: Since you appear to have the 135/3.4 lens coded, try moving the frame selector to the 50/75 position when the lens is mounted. You will see that the M9 info screen now identifies the lens as a 50 f/2. This is a new 50mm lens that has not had the 53 code before. If not a new lens, then it is a firmware error. It would be helpful to verify this by another user and not just my sharpie coding. Verified it with my own 135/3.4 lens with depression-and-paint coding. Comparing pictures taken with automatic coding and manual coding of the 135/3.4 there is no difference in vignetting, nor is there in the exif data. Obviously the firmware correctly processes the coding on the lens and so Leica has intended it this way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted June 26, 2011 Share #30 Posted June 26, 2011 ... I'd much rather have all the lenses coded for exif information and allow multiple frame positions even if the user mis-used it. Good analysis, Robert. The problem Leica probably sees with coding the Apo-Telyt at the moment is probably exactly what you've already discovered: If they code the 135/3.4, a purchaser could inadvertently discover the presence of a new 50mm in the firmware. Once (or when or if) that normal lens is introduced, Leica might start coding the 135. We're back with the facts that they've changed the coding of the 135 for some reason; and per CS, they currently have no intention of using the new code. What that means is that there's something Leica knows that we don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted June 26, 2011 Share #31 Posted June 26, 2011 1/ sorry for the early confused information! Lindolfi - thanks for sorting that out! 2/ My M9 also registers the 50/2 when the frame selector is vertical. It registers Uncoded Lens if pushed all the way across. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted June 26, 2011 Share #32 Posted June 26, 2011 Curious-- I'm sure the M8 behaves the same way? Has anybody checked? That might be another reason for Leica not to code the lens, since the M8 hasn't got the 135 framelines but would likely recognize the Apo-Telyt-M 135. A sort of "can't be used, but I know what it is" conundrum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted June 26, 2011 Share #33 Posted June 26, 2011 Howard, IIRC, there are some nice images with a 135mm lens on an M8 in this forum, e.g. here http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1731375-post326.html. I don't understand this "A sort of "can't be used, but I know what it is" conundrum." Maybe Leica is ruining the "prejudice" that Germans are supposed to be very systematic in what they do. Leica certainly doesn't appear to be systematic enough in this case. They should get out of the way! Best, K-H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted June 26, 2011 Share #34 Posted June 26, 2011 Sorry for the confusion, K-H. You're right, since the arrival of the M8, people have used it to good advantage with various different 135's. My guess is that the M8's firmware is similar enough to the M9's that a coded Apo-Telyt will be properly identified on the M8 as well as the M9. What I wanted to say is that one argument against letting the M8 firmware recognize the 135mm lenses (other than the Elmarits) is the lack of finder frames for the lenses. IOW, here would be the camera recognizing the 135 Apo-Telyt and identifying it in the EXIF data, while the absence of framelines would be saying, in effect, that it can't be used. "I know what it is, but can't help you use it." I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning behind giving the 135/3.4 a new six-bit code and announcing that there's no intention of actually using that code. And for the record, I see nothing wrong with using the same 6-bit code on two or even three different lenses, and letting the position of the frame preview lever decide exactly which lens is involved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted June 26, 2011 Share #35 Posted June 26, 2011 Howard, I agree. Thanks, K-H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_M Posted June 26, 2011 Share #36 Posted June 26, 2011 Lindolfi and Chris_t: Thanks for the confirmation. That is exactly what I was observing in the info display and the exif data recorded with the pictures with that coding. RM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_M Posted June 26, 2011 Share #37 Posted June 26, 2011 Howard, Maybe Leica is ruining the "prejudice" that Germans are supposed to be very systematic in what they do. Leica certainly doesn't appear to be systematic enough in this case. They should get out of the way! Best, K-H. K-H, Since you bring up (jokingly) cultural traits, there is another cultural trait which may help explain the situation. In Anglo-Saxon cultures, the attitude is that "everything is allow which is not forbidden". In Germany, the norm is "everything is forbidden that is not allowed". Having worked and lived in Germany for many years, I can confirm that this is much more than a subtle distinction. "Alles verbot dass nicht erlaubt ist." sticks in my mind as a standard sentence I've heard more than once. Granted, my experience was decades ago. But I doubt it has changed that much. I can well imaging that Leica has a list of lens coding tasks it will do. If management has not put the 135/3.4 lens on the list then by definition it is not allowed. Regards, RM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_M Posted June 27, 2011 Share #38 Posted June 27, 2011 I did some further tests of the in-camera corrections that result from the coding. I used my 135/4 tele-elmar lens for the tests. I shot against a blank, out of focus wall for the measurements. 1) When coded as a 135/3.4 lens, there appears to be no correction applied. It is the same output when I shoot with the lens uncoded. This only confirms what has already been said about the 135 lens corrections. 2) When I code it as a 53-3 code (new 50mm f/2 code by coding 53 and holding the frame position to the middle), I see that there is some correction applied to the lens. In particular, vignetting is corrected. 3) I manually code the lens to the current 50mm f/2 lens: The correction is similar to test (2) above. So, I guess there is already a correction to the lens profile associated with this mysterious 50mm f/2 new 53-3 code. My guess is that this is a real item under development and will be announced/released in fall. Regards, RM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted June 27, 2011 Share #39 Posted June 27, 2011 1) When coded as a 135/3.4 lens, there appears to be no correction applied. It is the same output when I shoot with the lens uncoded. This only confirms what has already been said about the 135 lens corrections. Not confirmed for the Apo Telyt 135/3.4: there is a less vignetting when the lens is coded and shot at f/3.4 when coding is used compared to the uncoded condition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_M Posted June 27, 2011 Share #40 Posted June 27, 2011 Not confirmed for the Apo Telyt 135/3.4: there is a less vignetting when the lens is coded and shot at f/3.4 when coding is used compared to the uncoded condition. I had not realized that users saw a difference with this lens when coded and uncoded. Thanks for the information. I do not have access to that lens to try it for myself. Curiously, I sure can NOT see any difference between 135/3.4 coding and uncoded when I apply those corrections to my 135/4 tele-elmar at f/4. Below are shots of the lens coded as a 135/3.4 and then uncoded. The third image is the difference between the first two. Seems uniform to me. I can not explain why there is not difference for this lens if there is for the 135/3.4 lens. Am I missing something? RM 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/154514-owners-of-a-brand-new-apo-telyt-m-135-mm-lens/?do=findComment&comment=1716785'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.