colorflow Posted March 27, 2007 Share #1 Â Posted March 27, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Does anyone know why this lens, 11870, is not on Leica;s list of old lenses that can be coded? Has anyone tried hand coding it as a different 35? I like it's compactness and would like to keep it, but am worried about cyan cast, IR filter, vignetting... Guess I should have tested it myself before my M8 went to Solms... Â Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 27, 2007 Posted March 27, 2007 Hi colorflow, Take a look here Why can't the Lux 35 pre-ASPH be coded?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
gravastar Posted March 28, 2007 Share #2 Â Posted March 28, 2007 This is a long shot guess .... on my lens there are no screws at the back of the lens mount so that's not the obvious problem, but it is probably the problem . The mount is different from the more modern ones which have retaining screws countersunk into the mating surfaces, instead it's retained by three small grub screws on the outer circumference. My guess would be Leica doesn't have replacement mounts or the tooling to make them. However I don't think there would be anything to stop them from machining the existing mount on a lens. Â Do note that some of us have had problems with the 35/1.4 pre asph not focusing to infinity when mounted on the M8. Some will and some won't. On mine the protective shroud at the back of the lens hits the inside of the camera. Two other lenses my dealer has don't do this, their shrouds don't extend so far. Leica UK was unaware of this problem. Â Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted March 28, 2007 Share #3 Â Posted March 28, 2007 Alan, Â I don't have a pre-asph 35 'lux so I can't tell, but it may be that a retaining screw on this lens falls in the coding area, which might prevent the lens from being coded, or if it was able to be physically coded cause misreading of the code by the camera. Just a theory. Â Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted March 28, 2007 Share #4 Â Posted March 28, 2007 Pete is correct. The screws are in a position where they would interfere with the coding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted March 28, 2007 Share #5 Â Posted March 28, 2007 Pete is correct. The screws are in a position where they would interfere with the coding. Â Interesting my 35 pre-ASPH Summilux has no screws in the mount other than 3 very small retaining grub screws around the barrel which would not interfere with coding. The lens # is 305152x Canadian. Â Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colorflow Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share #6  Posted March 28, 2007 Interesting my 35 pre-ASPH Summilux has no screws in the mount other than 3 very small retaining grub screws around the barrel which would not interfere with coding. The lens # is 305152x Canadian. Bob.  Same with my lens - no screws in the mount, just grubs on the side. Did anyone try hand coding it with Sharpie as some other 35?  Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzav Posted March 28, 2007 Share #7  Posted March 28, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Interesting my 35 pre-ASPH Summilux has no screws in the mount other than 3 very small retaining grub screws around the barrel which would not interfere with coding. The lens # is 305152x Canadian. Bob.  That is interesting... I have a German 35 'lux #352xxxx that does not hit anything inside the camera and also has no screws facing the camera mount. Beautiful lens with distinctive image qualities not found on later ASPH 35 'lux lenses. I also tried in vain to have it coded, but was told the same; "it is not compatible with 6-bit coding."  Upon closer examination, the reason became clear; the lens mount is part of the actual helical focusing mount and has the focus threads cut into it. Leica would have to replace the entire focusing module, not just the mount as with other lenses.  Since I do not have a Canadian version to look at, maybe there is a difference that causes the binding, but I don't imagine it is a great difference. I sent it in with the Gen1 body because it had a slight binding at infinity, and it was given a clean bill of health after a thorough checkup by Leica. The new body does not bind at all with the lens.  Such a shame, such a great lens... Maybe I will end up selling it to a B&W shooter (these guys drool over the older 35's) rather than deal with profiling; then again, it might be worth the hassle.  Anyway, take a look at your Canadian 'lux set on infinity and see if you can just see the beginning of a helix cut into the mount, you have to look close. I would like to know as I'm sure others would also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irakly Shanidze Posted March 28, 2007 Share #8 Â Posted March 28, 2007 guys, do not sweat. i shot all day yesterday with an IR-cut filter, and there is no cyan offset. what else would you need coding for? i am sure, youn tell from the look of the picture with what lens and at what aperture it was taken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colorflow Posted March 29, 2007 Author Share #9 Â Posted March 29, 2007 guys, do not sweat. i shot all day yesterday with an IR-cut filter, and there is no cyan offset. what else would you need coding for? i am sure, youn tell from the look of the picture with what lens and at what aperture it was taken. That is great news. I was afraid of the cyan effect with the IR filter. Were you using the latest firmware? By the way, mine is the Canadian version with no screw. Â Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted March 29, 2007 Share #10 Â Posted March 29, 2007 .............Anyway, take a look at your Canadian 'lux set on infinity and see if you can just see the beginning of a helix cut into the mount, you have to look close. I would like to know as I'm sure others would also. You're correct! Mystery solved. You can indeed see the start of the helical cut into the mount. It's easiest to see where there is a cut out for the cam follower wheel. Â I would suspect removing the 3 grub screws for any reason (other than maybe focus adjustment?) is a no no since rotating the mount on the lens barrel would probably upset the focus. Â Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 29, 2007 Share #11  Posted March 29, 2007 That is great news. I was afraid of the cyan effect with the IR filter. Were you using the latest firmware? By the way, mine is the Canadian version with no screw.  Alan   There is some on the 35 lux Asph new but it is pretty minimal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colorflow Posted March 29, 2007 Author Share #12 Â Posted March 29, 2007 You're correct! Mystery solved. You can indeed see the start of the helical cut into the mount. It's easiest to see where there is a cut out for the cam follower wheel. Â I would suspect removing the 3 grub screws for any reason (other than maybe focus adjustment?) is a no no since rotating the mount on the lens barrel would probably upset the focus. Â Bob. Â However it looks like the mounting ring is a separate piece from the inner body with the helical cut. Seems like it is just a ring that can be removed from the rest of the lens. Â Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzav Posted March 29, 2007 Share #13  Posted March 29, 2007 However it looks like the mounting ring is a separate piece from the inner body with the helical cut. Seems like it is just a ring that can be removed from the rest of the lens. Alan  Perhaps that is a difference in the Canadian version? I can only speak for the German 35 'lux that I have and it definitely has the mount machined with a helical thread that engages the moving lens assembly. I checked it again with a loupe and although a thin machined groove close to the mount lugs may be mistaken for a separation to the unaided eye, under magnification it is clear there is no separation between lens mount and focusing assembly.  As I originally mentioned, this is most likely the reason for the incompatibility with coding. The cost of replacing half the lens would be staggering even if the parts were available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted March 29, 2007 Share #14 Â Posted March 29, 2007 On my Canadian lens you can see where the machining has stripped off some of the chrome on the mount at the start of the helix. Â Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.