tom0511 Posted March 1, 2007 Share #1 Posted March 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thats what they told me when I sent my 35 Summicron (from the 70s) to Leica. just as an information for people looking for used lenses. Regards, Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted March 1, 2007 Share #2 Posted March 1, 2007 Was this the model with the EYES for use on a M3? None of the lenses with EYES can be coded. Otherwise if it is a model without the eyes then try hand coding it. I tried this on my Elmarit 135 f/2.8 but couldn't get it to work. Thats what they told me when I sent my 35 Summicron (from the 70s) to Leica.just as an information for people looking for used lenses. Regards, Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steich Posted March 1, 2007 Share #3 Posted March 1, 2007 I hand coded an old 2/35- works fine! Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted March 1, 2007 Author Share #4 Posted March 1, 2007 Was this the model with the EYES for use on a M3?None of the lenses with EYES can be coded. Otherwise if it is a model without the eyes then try hand coding it. I tried this on my Elmarit 135 f/2.8 but couldn't get it to work. No, no eyes. They say the tubus and bajonet is made of one piece and that would be the problem. I plan to mainly use my 35/1.4asph which they also have for coding but thought to give my old 35cron a try since it seems to focus very precise on my M8 and because its a nice, tiny size. I might try to hand code it or maybe just use it without coding. cheers, tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveP Posted March 1, 2007 Share #5 Posted March 1, 2007 Thats what they told me when I sent my 35 Summicron (from the 70s) to Leica.just as an information for people looking for used lenses. Regards, Tom They couldn't have told you that first? Have they published serial no. ranges that can't be coded? Or perhaps they could show photos explaining the problem so we can all check. Seems an embarrassing oversight (not to mention a complete waste of everyone's time). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
de dirk Posted March 1, 2007 Share #6 Posted March 1, 2007 they are replacing the whole bayonetring and discard the uncoded one. if it is one piece there is no handwork done to that particular lens... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveP Posted March 1, 2007 Share #7 Posted March 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) they are replacing the whole bayonetring and discard the uncoded one. if it is one piece there is no handwork done to that particular lens... I think I get your point, but since every lens version could have a different mount (and certainly every focal length does) the lens in question simply has a more-complex mount that Leica has decided is outside its ability/desire to replace. And if they are discarding the old mounts, could I collect them free? I won't charge a penny. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted March 1, 2007 Share #8 Posted March 1, 2007 They couldn't have told you that first? Have they published serial no. ranges that can't be coded? Or perhaps they could show photos explaining the problem so we can all check. Seems an embarrassing oversight (not to mention a complete waste of everyone's time). You can't blame Leica for this ...there was a PDF file published by Leica long before the M8 was introduced ..... it says 35 summicrons (non-asph) from 1979 - 1996 can be coded .... ....so this implies ..... not those from before 1979 .......... You can donload that document here if interested: Leica Camera AG - M lenses with 6-bit coding Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steich Posted March 1, 2007 Share #9 Posted March 1, 2007 @tom This is my hand coded 35- Leica told me just AFTER sending it to Solms they couldn´t code it. On the phone, somebody had given me wrong information...their list seems to be a little less than perfect. Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveP Posted March 1, 2007 Share #10 Posted March 1, 2007 You can't blame Leica for this ...there was a PDF file published by Leica long before the M8 was introduced ..... it says 35 summicrons (non-asph) from 1979 - 1996 can be coded .... ....so this implies ..... not those from before 1979 .......... You can donload that document here if interested: Leica Camera AG - M lenses with 6-bit coding Well, they could have made it a bit more obvious. Not many users can look at a lens and say "Ah yes, a '79. Lovely bOOkeh with just a hint of strawberry flare" :-) OTOH, even I can read a serial number or look at a picture. Finally, all this only became relevant (at least to me) with the M8 intro, so it could have been more prominently included with the info on coding older lenses. I mean, whose interests does it serve for Leica to receive an "uncodable" lens from an owner just to return it? FedEx investors? BTW - why is it that the 135/2.8 CAN be converted but the new 135/3.4A cannot? It says the 135/3.4 is not suitable due to the crop factor, but that would apply to any 135mm. And a 2.8 would have less DoF. Finally - anyone notice the referring web page says "The lenses are compatible with the planned digital M camera". Planned? Time for an update! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted March 1, 2007 Share #11 Posted March 1, 2007 BTW - why is it that the 135/2.8 CAN be converted but the new 135/3.4A cannot? It says the 135/3.4 is not suitable due to the crop factor, but that would apply to any 135mm. And a 2.8 would have less DoF. Has been explained more than once here. Reason is because the 135/2.8 has EYES, brings up the 90mm frame, which is converted by the EYES to the field of view of the 135mm lens. Since the M8 has the 90mm frame, but not the 135mm frame, the 135/2.8 can be converted, but not the 135/3.4 (as there would not be any usable frame in the latter case). Cheers, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted March 1, 2007 Author Share #12 Posted March 1, 2007 Has been explained more than once here. Reason is because the 135/2.8 has EYES, brings up the 90mm frame, which is converted by the EYES to the field of view of the 135mm lens. Since the M8 has the 90mm frame, but not the 135mm frame, the 135/2.8 can be converted, but not the 135/3.4 (as there would not be any usable frame in the latter case). Cheers, Andy IMO they could offer the coding anyways (for the 135/3.4) But hen: does it help much for such a long lens Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 1, 2007 Share #13 Posted March 1, 2007 Leica does not distinguish between different models of a lens based on serial number. Serial numbers are preassigned in blocks for future production based on the overall characteristics of the lens (e.g. the next 1000 35 f/2 Summicrons will get numbers 2561000 to 2561999). If the design of the lens is revamped after, say, 672 lenses have been made, the 673rd lens will still get a serial number from the same block, even though it may be a significantly different mechanical or optical design. I had a very early version of the "compact" 90mm f/2 officially introduced in 1980. The serial number was one assigned in 1977. Which just means it took Leica 3+ years to make enough 90 f/2s to use up the preassigned block. My lens was made in 1980-81, but still got an unused number from the 1977 block. Going by the serial number/year, that lens would not have qualified for coding. Based on the actual design of the lens (and Leica's .pdf list by model/years of production), it could be coded. So serial numbers would be a useless way to distinguish upgradable from non-upgradable lenses. Current lenses, and the immediate predecessors dating to about 1980 (or perhaps earlier for SOME lenses - my 90 Tele-Elmarit-M dates from 1979, and the design from 1973. The bayonet is attached with screws just like current lenses, and thus can have a coded mount attached), have visible screws that attached the chromed bayonet to the lens body. Pop off 5-6 screws and the bayonet alone can be replaced (I've taken them off myself a couple of times). Lenses like the 35 Stefan shows (c. 1970) have no visible screw heads on the bayonet surface - the flange is attached through some other means (internal screws, one-piece machining, whatever) that is not compatible with Leica's mount-replacement method for upgrading to coding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.