menos I M6 Posted July 28, 2012 Share #41 Posted July 28, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jaap, you're taking things out of context - I was referring to misaligned lenses being fine on film bodies, but difficult to handle on digital Ms, but yes, that dog's behind is sharp. @ Chris, I have to add, that not just the choice of shooting a lens with tripod brings you all the detail, but generally a good handholding technique. There are people, being able, to handheld long lenses at surprisingly slow shutter speeds. Once you train it, you often really can go without a tripod (I never use one). This is not with the 135 APO, as I decided in favor of the Canon 100/2 LTM at this years Le Mans, but it is a shot of many, done at slow shutter speeds: 100mm lens, f2 or 2.8, 1/30sec: Le Mans 24h 2012 - no.43 Extreme Limite Aric - Norma MP2000 - Judd by teknopunk.com, on Flickr 100mm lens, f2 or 2.8, 1/15sec: Le Mans 24h 2012 - no.43 Extreme Limite Aric - Norma MP2000 - Judd by teknopunk.com, on Flickr Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 Hi menos I M6, Take a look here 135mm f/3.4 APO-Telyt-M user feedback & recommendation?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted July 28, 2012 Share #42 Posted July 28, 2012 I see. Mistook your meaning - I thought you were supporting Leica's " impossible" position. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted July 28, 2012 Share #43 Posted July 28, 2012 I see. Mistook your meaning - I thought you were supporting Leica's " impossible" position. I am one of the users, having been flabbergasted, when hearing about the manufacturers claims about the un-usability of one of their finest products and their still-to-date refusal (inability ?), to bring the 135 APO-Telyt into the 21 century by making 6-bit coding a reality. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted July 28, 2012 Share #44 Posted July 28, 2012 Am I missing something, I don't have APO 135mm but my M9 firmware version 1.162 has coding for it #11889. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 28, 2012 Share #45 Posted July 28, 2012 You are missing that Leica refuses to 6-bit code the mount. That might change by the end of the year, however. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yst Posted July 29, 2012 Author Share #46 Posted July 29, 2012 You are missing that Leica refuses to 6-bit code the mount. That might change by the end of the year, however. Any idea as to why would "Leica refuses to 6-bit code the mount" of this 135 f2.4 APO lens? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 29, 2012 Share #47 Posted July 29, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Because theoretical considerations ( actually comparative calculations against an R4 focussing screen) indicate that a rangefinder would be less accurate to focus this lens wide open. In daily practice it turns out that -once again- reality outdoes theory and that the lens focusses perfectly on the M9 and even on the M8. However, a strong rumor indicates that Leica has reconsidered its position and will code the lens from the end of the year onwards. In the meantime any camera workshop can code the lens for you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted July 29, 2012 Share #48 Posted July 29, 2012 The coding doesn't really do anything substantive other than ID it in EXIF, does it ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yst Posted July 29, 2012 Author Share #49 Posted July 29, 2012 Because theoretical considerations ( actually comparative calculations against an R4 focussing screen) indicate that a rangefinder would be less accurate to focus this lens wide open. In daily practice it turns out that -once again- reality outdoes theory and that the lens focusses perfectly on the M9 and even on the M8. However, a strong rumor indicates that Leica has reconsidered its position and will code the lens from the end of the year onwards. In the meantime any camera workshop can code the lens for you. What does that mean? Does it mean originally Leica "did not even consider or recommend" the 135 focal length to be used on a M9/M8? Otherwise it should have no negative effect by having the 6-bit on the 135 f3.4, or does it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted July 29, 2012 Share #50 Posted July 29, 2012 The coding doesn't really do anything substantive other than ID it in EXIF, does it? Sure it does. For some unknown reason, it has become 'common wisdom' that only wide-angle lenses really need in-camera correction via lens profile, and from there, I guess by extension, that profiles for telephoto lenses don't even exist. Both notions are wrong. The M9 has a profile for any M lens, and having the lens coded (or selecting the lens manually from the menu) will activate the profile and apply the corrections. Unfortunately, the corrections for the Apo-Telyt-M 135 mm are really bad. Without profile, there is a little vignetting wide open. With profile, the vignetting is over-corrected and the colour becomes uneven. So actually it's better not to code this lens—or at least it was this way until firmware v1.162. Maybe it's better with one of the later firmwares ... I'll check it out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 29, 2012 Share #51 Posted July 29, 2012 What does that mean? Does it mean originally Leica "did not even consider or recommend" the 135 focal length to be used on a M9/M8? Otherwise it should have no negative effect by having the 6-bit on the 135 f3.4, or does it? Yes. When I sent mine in for calibration it was returned with a handwritten note warning me that it was "unsuitable for use on an M8 or M9." Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yst Posted July 29, 2012 Author Share #52 Posted July 29, 2012 Yes. When I sent mine in for calibration it was returned with a handwritten note warning me that it was "unsuitable for use on an M8 or M9." Why would it be differ from using it on the M film cameras...? Only because of the finders are too small on the M8/M9, or more other factors preventing it to be suitable on a digital M? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 29, 2012 Share #53 Posted July 29, 2012 Indeed they are not optimal. I find a slight improvement using the lens with an 486 filter.At least for the uneven color. Not scientifically measured though. Sure it does. For some unknown reason, it has become 'common wisdom' that only wide-angle lenses really need in-camera correction via lens profile, and from there, I guess by extension, that profiles for telephoto lenses don't even exist. Both notions are wrong. The M9 has a profile for any M lens, and having the lens coded (or selecting the lens manually from the menu) will activate the profile and apply the corrections. Unfortunately, the corrections for the Apo-Telyt-M 135 mm are really bad. Without profile, there is a little vignetting wide open. With profile, the vignetting is over-corrected and the colour becomes uneven. So actually it's better not to code this lens—or at least it was this way until firmware v1.162. Maybe it's better with one of the later firmwares ... I'll check it out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted July 29, 2012 Share #54 Posted July 29, 2012 Unfortunately, the corrections for the Apo-Telyt-M 135 mm are really bad. Without profile, there is a little vignetting wide open. With profile, the vignetting is over-corrected and the colour becomes uneven. So actually it's better not to code this lens—or at least it was this way until firmware v1.162. Maybe it's better with one of the later firmwares ... I'll check it out. Now I checked it with firmware v1.196—and I like the Apo-Telyt's in-camera lens profile much better now. Not absolutely sure if my recent test shots with v1.162 were just screwed up or if the profile actually has been updated in v1.196 ... but now the vignetting is corrected beautifully (no over-correction), and the colour across the field is very even (albeit not perfectly even but then, without profile it isn't either). By the way, while I was at it I also checked the Elmar-M 24 mm Asph's profile, too, because with v1.162 I didn't like how it severely under-corrected the strong vignetting. Unfortunately, v1.196 still does the same. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 29, 2012 Share #55 Posted July 29, 2012 Finally a reason to update Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted July 29, 2012 Share #56 Posted July 29, 2012 For some unknown reason, it has become 'common wisdom' that only wide-angle lenses really need in-camera correction via lens profile.... Unfortunately, the corrections for the Apo-Telyt-M 135 mm are really bad. Without profile, there is a little vignetting wide open. I'm all for the coding correcting issues the result of M8/M9 design limitations (cyan corners from IR filters, and red-edge, respectively) but I would prefer it didn't try to go a step further and correct for the vignetting that existed with film. I had no idea there were any corrections applied to the standard and tele lenses, so thanks for the info. But inasmuch as cyan corners (M8) and red-edge (M9) are apparent only with wider lenses, I never coded anything longer than 35mm. I was happy with the way my longer lenses performed on the M8 and now do on the M9. I can live without the EXIF annotation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_M Posted July 30, 2012 Share #57 Posted July 30, 2012 You are missing that Leica refuses to 6-bit code the mount. That might change by the end of the year, however. I theorize that there is another reason for this stance by Leica. The new lens code (since last year) for the 135 APO is 53-2 (6 bit code 53 and frame 135/35). The lens code for the new APO 50/2 lens is 53-3 (code 53 and frame for 50/70). This is the only case I am aware of in which the same code is used for 2 different lenses and that the frame lever position can determine the code. There are some other "same code number" lenses but in each case, one of those lenses uses frame "0" which doesn't exist (these codes are entered by the menu on the M9). So, if Leica agreed to code your 135 APO lens last year to code 53 and you decided to move the lever to the position for frame 50/70 then VOILA, you would find that there is a new 50mm f/2 lens. I pointed this out a year ago on this forum when firmware 1.176 came out. I believe that Leica wanted to hide, as much as it could, the coming 50mm f/2 APO lens. Even though this code was reported on this forum, they prefered to ignore the information in the hope that it will be limited distribution of knowledge. Leica even notes in the release of firmware 1.196 that the 50mm f/2 APO coding was added. But this is not true. It was already there a year ago! Now this is all past history. I imagine they will suddenly find it is OK to code the 135 APO lens. Call me a cynic. But I'm just reporting what I observe. RM 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 30, 2012 Share #58 Posted July 30, 2012 But wouldn't they have simply chosen another code for the Apo-Summicron if that were the case? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted July 30, 2012 Share #59 Posted July 30, 2012 Same experience here with the 1.25x one - The loss is more than the gain. For my eyes. Have you tried one with an eye cup? It really does increase contrast. I use the e-clypse 1.25. I think $100 used. 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! Quote 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/184038-135mm-f34-apo-telyt-m-user-feedback-recommendation/?do=findComment&comment=2075409'>More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted August 7, 2012 Share #60 Posted August 7, 2012 As a coda to this thread, I've just noticed that LR4.1 shows the exif information for this lens + there's a corrected profile for it. Good news for those of us who have bothered to get it coded by 3rd party providers (Malcolm Taylor in my case). 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! Quote 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/184038-135mm-f34-apo-telyt-m-user-feedback-recommendation/?do=findComment&comment=2081254'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.