helged Posted November 25, 2011 Share #1 Â Posted November 25, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello, I have just got a super elmar-m 21/3,4 - apparently of the new design (the one with the bigger diameter just above the bayonet, as seen in the second photo here). The focus is smooth and even going from infinity to 0,7 m. However, going in the opposite direction, there is (slightly) more friction in the interval 0,7-1,2m than from 1,2m to infinity. Not a big deal, but my focussing thumb tends to get fooled with the uneven focussing friction. It would be good to hear whether some of the super elmar users on this forum have experienced the same (and note, I have the new version of the lens). Â Second issue: Although I use the latest firmware (1.174), the lens does not show up under "Lens detection" and "Manual". Does "Auto" nevertheless take care of proper lens correction for the lens? In Lightroom, the photos are marked with "Unknown lens" in the Library module, whereas "21mm" shows up in the Develop module. Confusing. Â Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Hi helged, Take a look here super elmar-m 21/3,4 focussing. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ho_co Posted November 25, 2011 Share #2 Â Posted November 25, 2011 ...Second issue: Although I use the latest firmware (1.174), the lens does not show up under "Lens detection" and "Manual". Does "Auto" nevertheless take care of proper lens correction for the lens? ... Â I think the only lenses in the manual selection list are those that were at one time offered uncoded. New designs are all coded. Â "Auto" will handle the 21/3.4 Super-Elmar-M properly, because that information is built into the camera's firmware. The corrections are made before the DNG is written. Â ... In Lightroom, the photos are marked with "Unknown lens" in the Library module, whereas "21mm" shows up in the Develop module. Confusing. As I understand it, this recognition is done by the software. It is simply a reporting function, not something that changes processing in any way. Â It's up to Adobe (I think) to get the proper lens identification string into the software. I may be wrong on that, but if so, I'm sure I'll be corrected soon! Â BTW, congratulations on the lens! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted November 26, 2011 Share #3 Â Posted November 26, 2011 That is interesting, I had never read about a design change in this particular lens, which is quite recent of course. Â If you consider that the focus is not smooth enough you might like to use it for a while to see if it improves before considering sending it for adjustment? I look forward to reading any other owners' responses there (I don't have access to one of these). Â You should leave your lens detection set to AUTO. The camera would definitely be applying vignetting and edge discolouration corrections for you there. Â As the lens was never made in a non-coded version it is not a manual selection option in the menu. That is the same for every lens that has only been made in a 6 BIT version. I think that it is unlikely there was a change in the allocated 6 BIT code when the design was tweaked, nor any missing words in the EXIF (not yet in the latest firmware). That is a guess though. Â In both Library and Develop Modules you should see the focal length etc next to the histogram. It may be a preference I set long ago, but I also always get a temporary display of exposure information and the correct full lens name and length when first pointing to a file in the Loupe view of Library plus in the Develop module. I am assuming that you have the current Adobe versions. They read where Leica includes this information in the DNG perfectly . Â If Lightroom is reporting the focal length correctly then you must be using a code either provided by the auto detection or by manual selection of one of the 3 possible (pre 6 BIT) 21mm selections. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted November 26, 2011 Share #4 Â Posted November 26, 2011 Â Second issue: Although I use the latest firmware (1.174), the lens does not show up under "Lens detection" and "Manual". Does "Auto" nevertheless take care of proper lens correction for the lens? In Lightroom, the photos are marked with "Unknown lens" in the Library module, whereas "21mm" shows up in the Develop module. Confusing. Â Look at the EXIF file, that should have all the lens information in it. Â Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted November 26, 2011 Share #5 Â Posted November 26, 2011 Geoff, the OT refers to the re-design that was the result of the debacle with the binding focusing helical that was discovered just as the lens was being released on the market. All lenses in the pipeline were recalled, and re-mounted in a re-designed mount. It is easy to see the difference: In the original version, the the rearmost ring (with the bayonet) had the same diameter as the rest of the mount, in the new current version this ring is a couple of millimeters fatter. I have the revised version. Â Helged: Geoff is right, only older lenses that were supplied un-coded are represented in the manual identification menu. So e.g. the now discontinued 21mm Elmarit ASPH is there, but not its successors, the 21mm Summilux and the ditto Super-Elmar. Â But the camera identifies the lens all right. You can see that by pressing the 'INFO' button. Under the battery and card info, the lens is identified as "Lens: 21 f3.4". Â As for your focusing 'problem', I think that you are feeling only the kind of slight unevenness that you sometimes encounter in otherwise perfectly o.k. brand new lenses. This will be all right after some use. My specimen is just fine. Â The old man from the Fix-Focus Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted November 26, 2011 Author Share #6  Posted November 26, 2011 Thanks for the input - much appreciated!  I have checked and indeed the camera (M9) recognises the lens (thanks for the tip, Lars, which I once new but have not used for quite some time).  I will use the lens for some time to see how the slight difference in focussing stiffness develops, it will likely turn out to be no problem.  For your information, the photos below shows the lens´ vignetting/colour characteristics on my M9, shoot on a white cardboard under cloudy skies (and in between some hefty rain showers) in western Norway today.  Left: Lens with "Manual" WB. Middle: Lens with "Auto" WB. Right: Lens with "Auto" WB and Sandy´s wonderful CornerFix.  The tendency for the underexposure to the left is caused by a wall, slightly reducing the incoming diffusive light on the cardboard. I will redo the test when the rain stops, whenever that may happen.  Auto is likely sufficient for most situations, and with CornerFix one can safely photograph snow-covered plains and mountains (or white sand dunes or buildings) without colour issues. Good! 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/167144-super-elmar-m-2134-focussing/?do=findComment&comment=1854243'>More sharing options...
ho_co Posted November 26, 2011 Share #7  Posted November 26, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... Left: Lens with "Manual" WB. Middle: Lens with "Auto" WB. Right: Lens with "Auto" WB and Sandy´s wonderful CornerFix. ...  I think you mean "Lens ID" rather than "WB," correct? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted November 26, 2011 Author Share #8 Â Posted November 26, 2011 Correct, it should be "Lens detection", not WB, in my previous post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted November 26, 2011 Share #9 Â Posted November 26, 2011 I'm glad that Geoff and Lars agree with the points I made in post #2 above. Â Olaf has posted a relevant comment in the second part of http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-post-processing-forum/211133-smaller-dngs.html#post1897553. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.