Zeiss on a 240

[lpeeples]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is really a rookie question as I'm new to Leica...

 

I just bought a M240. I have a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon T* ZF.2 Series Lens for Nikon F Mount. Can it be used on the 240 and would it be worth trying?

[giordano]

It can be used with the aid of a suitable Nikon-to-Leica adapter. Given the small depth of focus of this lens at full aperture it needs to be a high quality adapter: Novoflex make good ones. With a very wide angle lens on a digital camera it wasn't designed for, the only way to find out how well it works is to try, but IMHO the prospects are fairly good.

 

Once fitted, the lens will work normally using the M240's live view or EVF. Or you can obtain a 21mm accessory viewfinder. But there is no way to couple a F-mount lens to the M's optical rangefinder.

[Jaybob]

You may find the balance and general size of the adapted F mount Zeiss (and all SLR lenses for that matter) to be a bit front heavy and a bit hard to deal with, especially if you're depending on live view with an open aperture.

 

While it can be used, your best bet is M mount glass using the rangefinder.

[rirakuma]

I have the 21 ZF2 and have used it on an M240. The results are great as expected but its an extremely awkward combo in terms of size. I would only use this combo for very specific use.

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!

[lpeeples]

Thanks for the comments everyone.

[arthury]

If you want to optimize Zeiss lenses on the M240, try the Zeiss ZM series. They were designed with a Leica M-mount and many of them are more than good; some (like the 21mm/2.8 Biogon) may even rival their corresponding Leica counterparts.

[leica lux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you want to optimize Zeiss lenses on the M240, try the Zeiss ZM series. They were designed with a Leica M-mount and many of them are more than good; some (like the 21mm/2.8 Biogon) may even rival their corresponding Leica counterparts.

 

Disregarding from the red corner issue the Zeiss ZM21/2.8 Biogon is a very nice option for the M.

[wlaidlaw]

Disregarding from the red corner issue the Zeiss ZM21/2.8 Biogon is a very nice option for the M.

 

If the Zeiss were coded as a 21/2.8 ASPH, would it still produce red corners and are they any worse than the nearest equivalent Leica Lens? The red corners can only be due to the angle of incidence of the light rays upon the corner sensor micro lenses. If you look at my mash up below of the element diagrams of the Leica and Zeiss lenses, you will see the element spacing, back element protrusion and diaphragm location is similar. My guess is that the exit pupils will be quite similar distances from the sensor. In that case, the red edges should be pretty much identical. Now it may be that the Leica lens is still producing red edges, which cross fingers, will be improved in the next firmware update as and when Leica finally deign to release one.

 

The only lens I am getting bad red edges at present, is my CV 15/f4.5 and as a result I don’t really use it on the M240. I get no significant red edges on my ZM Biogon 25/2.8. I have not taken any photos in snow on the most recent FW on the M240, as we did not have any this year. Snow shots are usually the final arbiter on whether red edges are there or not but on other shots, there is no problem.

 

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!

[250swb]

Disregarding from the red corner issue the Zeiss ZM21/2.8 Biogon is a very nice option for the M.

 

What red corner issue? The ZM 21mm f/4.5 Biogon does produce red edge syndrome whatever it is coded at, but the ZM 21mm f/2.8 is as clean as any Leica lens. Mine is coded as a 21mm Elmarit M.

 

Steve

[JakeStone]

Zeiss recommends to code the ZM 21/2,8 as 28/2,8 (11809) (!).

 

Regards

Jacob

[toanna]

How do you code Zeiss Biogon 21mm 2.8? I tried to code it with marker pen and it worked with M9 but not with M240.

[250swb]

Try using matt black paint instead of a black marker.

 

Steve

[wlaidlaw]

Marker pen coding just does not work very well on the M240. I had been using marker pen coding since I first got my M8 in Jan 2007. The M9 seemed very easy and was far less fussy than the M8 but the M240 is a nightmare. I have given up on hand coding and recently sent all five of my non-coded Leica and Zeiss lenses to Malcolm Taylor to have the mounts milled and coded.

 

I would be surprised if Zeiss “officially” recommend a coding, as that could be deemed to contravene the patented coding method, belonging to Leica. There is a grey area of supplying lenses with coding pits but without a code painted in, as it can be argued that it is the codes that are patented not the coding pits. However Novoflex has now capitulated and negotiated a licensing agreement on coding with Leica, I would guess after receiving a snotty letter from Leica. The lens Wiki on this site recommends coding as a 21 ASPH Elmarit-M, which seems to make much more sense to me, given the similarity in exit pupil distances, as per my diagrams above. Coding the 21 Biogon as a 21 ASPH Elmarit certainly worked fine on my M8 (I sold it before I got my M9 as I acquired a WATE).

 

Wilson

 

PS If you have an older 21/2.8 Biogon, you will have to change the bayonet, as they come with a 24/35 mount, which will not gel with coding either as a 28 or 21mm Leica lens.

[JakeStone]

I would be surprised if Zeiss “officially” recommend a coding, as that could be deemed to contravene the patented coding method, belonging to Leica. There is a grey area of supplying lenses with coding pits but without a code painted in, as it can be argued that it is the codes that are patented not the coding pits. However Novoflex has now capitulated and negotiated a licensing agreement on coding with Leica, I would guess after receiving a snotty letter from Leica. The lens Wiki on this site recommends coding as a 21 ASPH Elmarit-M, which seems to make much more sense to me, given the similarity in exit pupil distances, as per my diagrams above. Coding the 21 Biogon as a 21 ASPH Elmarit certainly worked fine on my M8 (I sold it before I got my M9 as I acquired a WATE).

 

Zeiss recommends in letters to cutomers based on their experience only. Look at the chart here ("sehr gut"= very good; "gut"= good):

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/248700-zeiss-zm-21mm-2-8-m9.html#post2136020

 

There you will find the recommendation to code ZM 21/2,8 as 28/2,8 (11809).

 

Regards

Jacob

[250swb]

There is a grey area of supplying lenses with coding pits but without a code painted in, as it can be argued that it is the codes that are patented not the coding pits.

 

.

 

The more recently manufactured ZM lenses, and the newer CV lenses have a rebate machined in the rear face of the flange which if hit by an accidental splodge of black paint could purely by chance manifest itself as a lens code. If a person like's to decorate the flange with further markings by way of tribal custom or personalised fetishistic practices they can use a home made divining tool like this

 

BoPhoto.com: M8 coder - simple manual handcoding of M lenses

 

 

Steve

[wlaidlaw]

Ken Rockwell was a bit of a latecomer to coding recommendations for the 21 Biogon. There were lots of us using the 21 Biogon lens in late 2006/early 2007 on M8’s and posting coding recommendations on this site. Of course at that time, correction of cyan corners with UV/IR filters was much more of a concern than red edges. As I recall coding as a 21/2.8 was better for that particular problem than 28/2.8 for the Biogon, particularly if you were using it with B+W 486 filters, which were a little stronger than the equivalent Leica filters.

 

Coding seems more of an art than a science. For example, on the 1.1 Firmware on the M240, using my 28 ASPH Summicron, you had to manually select 21/2.8 ASPH to reduce (but not eliminate) the red corners. Since the 2.0.x.x firmware came out, that has not been necessary, which is a relief, as every time you switched the camera off, it reverted to automatic lens coding detection when switching back on. Normally this is an excellent feature but irritating if you are deliberately “cross coding”.

 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

Zeiss recommends in letters to cutomers based on their experience only. Look at the chart here ("sehr gut"= very good; "gut"= good):

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/248700-zeiss-zm-21mm-2-8-m9.html#post2136020

 

There you will find the recommendation to code ZM 21/2,8 as 28/2,8 (11809).

 

Regards

Jacob

 

If I were Leica, I would be getting my lawyers to write to Zeiss with a bill for use of a Leica patent and recommending the use of that patented system on Zeiss Lenses. It could well be argued that Zeiss has benefitted and Leica lost out by sales of their ZM lenses to Leica camera owners, who might otherwise have bought Leica lenses, were there not an official coding recommendation by Zeiss. After all Zeiss no longer make a camera that can take their ZM lenses, since the Ikon went out of production and in any case, it did not use coding.

 

As Leica is a very good customer for Zeiss (a lot of their lens blanks come from Schott Glass, part of the Zeiss Foundation Group), it would seem far more sensible if both companies negotiated a licensing agreement along the lines of Novoflex, then everyone is happy. Zeiss could charge say €50 extra for a coded lens.

 

Wilson

[JakeStone]

If I were Leica, I would be getting my lawyers to write to Zeiss with a bill for use of a Leica patent and recommending the use of that patented system on Zeiss Lenses. It could well be argued that Zeiss has benefitted and Leica lost out by sales of their ZM lenses to Leica camera owners, who might otherwise have bought Leica lenses, were there not an official coding recommendation by Zeiss. After all Zeiss no longer make a camera that can take their ZM lenses, since the Ikon went out of production and in any case, it did not use coding.

 

As Leica is a very good customer for Zeiss (a lot of their lens blanks come from Schott Glass, part of the Zeiss Foundation Group), it would seem far more sensible if both companies negotiated a licensing agreement along the lines of Novoflex, then everyone is happy. Zeiss could charge say €50 extra for a coded lens.

 

Wilson

 

Wilson, I simply wanted to make information available here and cannot understand your problem.

BTW: Zeiss recommends not explicitly any coding, but communicates in personal letters to customers individually their experience. If people code their lenses or use the manual selection of a lens is up to the users. So, I would be sure, that Zeiss is doing everything correctly here.

 

Maybe you could explain what problem you have with that, if you consider this as useful. Thanks.

 

Regards

Jacob

[Phil U]

It could well be argued that Zeiss has benefitted and Leica lost out by sales of their ZM lenses to Leica camera owners, who might otherwise have bought Leica lenses, were there not an official coding recommendation by Zeiss.

 

This is Zeiss's private email to a single customer who has already bought a lens, stating zeiss's findings on the use of the manual coding menu, zeiss say it should give this customer a 'rough idea' which manual selection is best. In any case it is not an official publication or marketing material or Zeiss recommending that their lenses be hand coded.

 

So I can't imagine Leica doing very well out of that particular litigation. Leica, and more to the point, their customers, would be better served if time and effort was put into some firmware support for their cameras.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wlaidlaw]

Wilson, I simply wanted to make information available here and cannot understand your problem.

BTW: Zeiss recommends not explicitly any coding, but communicates in personal letters to customers individually their experience. If people code their lenses or use the manual selection of a lens is up to the users. So, I would be sure, that Zeiss is doing everything correctly here.

 

Maybe you could explain what problem you have with that, if you consider this as useful. Thanks.

 

Regards

Jacob

 

I don’t have any problem with it but I cannot imagine Leica would be too happy. I have coded my own Zeiss ZM lenses.

 

It does not matter one whit if this was a private letter or not. Zeiss has provided data for one of their customers to use a patented Leica product on a Zeiss lens. This is a blatant contravention of patent laws, as it could be deemed to encourage the person to whom the letter was written, to purchase the cheaper Zeiss lenses rather than officially coded Leica ones. That is why I was astonished Zeiss put this in writing. Normally this sort of information is leaked out via sly postings on a forum.

 

To give you some case law, Apple has successfully sued a number of companies, who provided methods to enable Apple operating system software to run on cheaper non-Apple Intel processor computers.

 

Wilson