Jump to content

M lens codes


andybarton

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not to beat a dead horse, but...

 

1. The picture of the lens at the top of the code page needs to be rotated 180 degrees. This will align it (figuratively and literally) with the text explanation.

 

2. Codes that work for the M8 may not be best for the M9 because of the M9's larger sensor. The Zeiss table (generated by Zeiss) illustrates this. What we need are separate tables for the M8, the M9/M-E, and (possibly, when it comes out) the M.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to beat a dead horse, but...

 

1. The picture of the lens at the top of the code page needs to be rotated 180 degrees. This will align it (figuratively and literally) with the text explanation.

 

2. Codes that work for the M8 may not be best for the M9 because of the M9's larger sensor. The Zeiss table (generated by Zeiss) illustrates this. What we need are separate tables for the M8, the M9/M-E, and (possibly, when it comes out) the M.

 

The implementation of the correction is bound already to be different in each of the bodies. You don't need a different lens code for each body, just a different implementation in firmware for each lens. Once the camera knows what lens is fitted, the body will provide the appropriate correction for that lens. For example, I have my 15/4.5 CV Super Heliar coded as a pre-ASPH 21/2.8 Elmarit. This works much better than the suggested WATE coding in the Wiki, as the WATE is quite telecentric and does not vignette anything like as much as the Elmarit/Heliar. The Elmarit correction seems to work equally well in my M8 and 9 and in a few months we will see how well it works on my M.

 

When various forum members were beta testing M9 FW earlier in its life, we went though various implementations trying to improve the red edges on the WATE. This was pretty much eliminated. During this period, the M8 FW was not changed at all, as it did not need it.

 

Wilson

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No but you can use the code for the 135/3.4 APO Telyt 110101 (not as I posted above, where I got my 1's and 0's the wrong way round. The correction will make no difference but at least 135mm will show up on EXIF's.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

But in the menu of lens detection, 135/3.4 is different from 135/4. Is there only to mark lens information using manual setting?

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As far as I know, there is not a six bit code for the 135/4, so although you can set it manually, you cannot code a lens for it. My personal view is that in due course, Leica will have to add another two bits/photocells in the lens detection array to cope with more and new lenses. At the moment they have only 64 options (000001 to 111111). As far as setting up parameters in the camera, I doubt that there is a whit of difference between the settings for 135/4, 135/3.4 and no correction at all. The only reason I have hand coded my 135 T-E, is so that a later date I can tell from the EXIF, what lens I had mounted.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

The code for the Tele-Elmar 135 mm 1:4 (11851) and the Tele-Elmar-M 135 mm 1:4 (11861) both is 39-0. This means the 6-bit lens code is 39; the 2-bit frameline code is 0. Codes with a zero frameline code cannot be 6-bit-coded on the bayonet flange.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The code for the Tele-Elmar 135 mm 1:4 (11851) and the Tele-Elmar-M 135 mm 1:4 (11861) both is 39-0. This means the 6-bit lens code is 39; the 2-bit frameline code is 0. Codes with a zero frameline code cannot be 6-bit-coded on the bayonet flange.

 

......other than as a 135/3.4 Apo Telyt, which if you hand code it on a T-E 135 bayonet will work. I posted a photograph of the code coming up on my M9 earlier in this thread to prove it works.

 

Wilson

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi everybody, Just new in this website. I own a used M8 bought few weeks ago, only 1200 activations, well kept no signs.I bought it with 35mm f2 summicron Canada, noted that if I activate the lens recon option in the menu, even if this lens is not coded, the pict info screen reports. The correct lens format 35mm.

Does this just normal? Have anyone experienced it before?

 

Another issue is the lens frame mechanism, which seems far less precise than the one in my M7.

 

Thanks!

 

bbriv

Edited by bbriv
Link to post
Share on other sites

bbriv,

 

Welcome to the forum and congratulations on your 'new' M8!

 

On some lenses one of the bayonet mounting screws is located opposite the diodes that read the 6-bit code and fool the M8 it into thinking a particular lens is mounted. My 90/2.8 Elmarit used to fool my M8 into thinking that a 90mm lens was mounted even though my Elmarit wasn't coded. If you're lucky the 6-bit reader will be fooled into thinking the correct lens is mounted but if not ... :o

 

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The code for the Tele-Elmar 135 mm 1:4 (11851) and the Tele-Elmar-M 135 mm 1:4 (11861) both is 39-0. This means the 6-bit lens code is 39; the 2-bit frameline code is 0. Codes with a zero frameline code cannot be 6-bit-coded on the bayonet flange.

 

The lens using 6bit code as 39 is Macro Elmar M 90/4. When I set as Tele-Elmar 135/4 manually, I noticed that Adobe LightRoom read the lens information on EXIF as above. So recently summarized, manually selection is best way to set a Tele-Elmar 135/4 (11851).

 

Thanks for informations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I make a suggestion for those using the VC 15mm Super Wide Heliar f/4.5 and Cornerfix.

 

Code the lens as Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8 11134 in my experience this returns the best results - 15mm Voigtlander Super Wide Heliar f/4.5 Asph Mk-1

 

Agreed - much better. I also think this code works better for vignetting correction of the 28 APSH Summicron on an M9, if you are shooting it wide open, than the standard correction applied by setting lens detection to auto.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

The lens using 6bit code as 39 is Macro Elmar M 90/4. When I set as Tele-Elmar 135/4 manually, I noticed that Adobe LightRoom read the lens information on EXIF as above. So recently summarized, manually selection is best way to set a Tele-Elmar 135/4 (11851).

 

Thanks for informations.

 

So why not code a 135/4 as a 135/3.4, which does then appear as a 135 on ACR/C1/LR/Aperture EXIF's? For this length of lens, the camera is very unlikely to be applying any corrections at all. In the unlikely event that it does, I bet the corrections are identical for the 135/4 and 135/3.4. The only benefit of coding therefore, is that you get the lens information in the EXIF's, for future interest. As most people would only have either a 135/4 or a 135/3.4 not both, you will know once you see 135 on the EXIF, which lens you used. I can see no downside.

 

Pic of a PS CS6 EXIF with a 135/4 hand coded as a 135/3.4

 

Wilson

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!

Edited by wlaidlaw
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For this [focal] length of lens, the camera is very unlikely to be applying any corrections at all.

And yet, it does.

 

 

In the unlikely event that it does, I bet the corrections are identical for the 135/4 and 135/3.4.

Most likely, the vignetting patterns of the Tele-Elmar 135/4 and the Apo-Telyt 135/3.4 are not identical but very similar, so the Apo-Telyt's correction applied to the Tele-Elmar should be close enough. If you want to be sure, simply try both manual settings, then compare.

Edited by 01af
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the test shots at all 4 permutations. Very little if any difference to be seen in vignetting. All taken with a 135/4 Tele-Elmar at f4

 

Given that these are in camera JPEG's and all taken within seconds of each other in a north facing room, then all processed identically in CS6 with no alterations made at all, other than re-size, the slight variations in white balance are slightly surprising. Maybe the Maestro processor in the new M-240 will be more consistent.

 

Wilson

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

Question showing my ignorance: Should I use white, black, or both for coding? I have one of the chrome type M39 -> M adapters with groves for coding.

As silver chrome is the same as white in this context, you only need to paint the black patches (which, by the way, stand for the ones in the binary code).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...