Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently inquired about having my 21mm f2.8 ASPH coded and it was $300 just for the coding.

 

I'm not sure how they code an un-coded lens, whether they remove and engrave the original mount, or simply swap the un-coded mount for one that is coded, In either case, it would seem logical there would need to be some level of calibration just to ensure the lens left their hands as usable.

 

I have a version II 135mm f4 Tele Elmar I purchased with 6 bit coding, but it reflects the 135mm f3.4 APO when utilizing the coding. The only way I can show the actual lens used is to manually dial in the right profile for the 135mm f4.

Edited by Gregm61
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently inquired about having my 21mm f2.8 ASPH coded and it was $300 just for the coding.

 

I'm not sure how they code an un-coded lens, whether they remove and engrave the original mount, or simply swap the un-coded mount for one that is coded, In either case, it would seem logical there would need to be some level of calibration just to ensure the lens left their hands as usable.

 

I have a version II 135mm f4 Tele Elmar I purchased with 6 bit coding, but it reflects the 135mm f3.4 APO when utilizing the coding. The only way I can show the actual lens used is to manually dial in the right profile for the 135mm f4.

 

Leica simply swaps the mount for one already coded. Some third-party service providers will remove, machine, paint and reinstall existing mounts.

 

Leica's support of lens coding is limited to lenses with the current mount style (thin chrome ring, with 5/6 screws on the back to attach it) - e.g. mostly post-1978 lenses, and even then, not the 35 f/1.4 non-ASPH nor the 135 TE. Basically, they see no point in (re)manufacturing the older, thicker mount-rings that they have not made for 30+ years.

 

The exact process is: Leica checks the lens overall for condition and calibration "as received." Then they remove the mount, install the new coded mount, and recheck the calibration. If you have some other major problem with the lens (i.e. scratched element, haze) - that is going to be an additional repair charge, not included in the upgrade price. (usually - Leica may throw in a simple "good-will" repair if it is minor They do "random acts of kindness" - with the emphasis on "random").

 

135's have had - grudging - support as regards 6-bit coding. Mostly because the coding was introduced with the M8, which had no 135 framelines (a not-so-subtle hint from Leica that trying to use a 135 on the M8 was a bad idea). The 135 f/2.8 was supported, because it uses the 90mm framelines (which the M8 had) and magnified the focusing images, and had the correct mount style. The 135 APO was unsupported for 5-6 years, at least, before Leica finally began including 6-bit coding in the factory. The additional fact is that the long lens-to-sensor distance of 135mm lenses means the only real function of the coding is for EXIF data - there is no sensor vignetting or corner color shift to correct, as there is with wide-angle lenses.

 

So there is no pattern of coding dots that the Leica digitals will recognize as a "135mm Tele-Elmar (II or I) f/4" - it just isn't in the database. There's a numerical "bit" value for that lens, which allows you to identify it manually. The 6-bit pattern for the 135 APO is the closest there is (I have it "Sharpied" onto the ring of my 135 TE, and it works great), and at least it records the correct focal length.

 

But I went for years just understanding that any picture taken with an "unknown f/1.0" lens, was made with my 135.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent explanation. My 21 will go in after I return from a trip in Mid-May. I have both versions of the 135 Tele Elmar. The older, original focuses perfectly, while the newer, coded version needs a recalibration. It won't focus sharply with any of my film or digital M bodies, even using the 1.4x diopter. For now I'll do the same thing, leave the "automatic" coding on with the M262 for the other lenses, making it pretty easy to know which files were taken with the 135.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I also have 2 lenses that are not coded (summicron 35mm asph and summicron 50mm) and I am wondering if I should send them in to Leica to have it properly done (more expensive) or if I should opt for the ebay solution; buy the mounts here (http://www.ebay.com/itm/3pc-6-bit-flange-adapter-4-Leica-lens-28-90mm-35mm-50mm-/140743043065?hash=item20c4f067f9:m:mDeajY2U63qkZM_9QZTKOGA) and do it myself. 

 

Has anyone had experience with third party flanges from ebay? My concerns are of course if the mount fits perfectly or not, if the material is good enough not to damage the mount on the cameras and if the lenses work well after the replacement or if they go out of adjustement easily, requiring then a trip do Leica for readjustment. 

 

The last solution is the mach technical one but I think just paintind dots on the lens with no engraving will be of very short duration, it will get off very easily I believe. 

 

Any experiences on these solutions that you want to share? I've been trying to find this info here in the forum (it probably has been discussed before) but haven't been able to find any relevant info to help me decide what to do. 

 

Thanks! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have 2 lenses that are not coded (summicron 35mm asph and summicron 50mm) and I am wondering if I should send them in to Leica to have it properly done (more expensive) or if I should opt for the ebay solution; buy the mounts here (http://www.ebay.com/itm/3pc-6-bit-flange-adapter-4-Leica-lens-28-90mm-35mm-50mm-/140743043065?hash=item20c4f067f9:m:mDeajY2U63qkZM_9QZTKOGA) and do it myself.

 

Has anyone had experience with third party flanges from ebay? My concerns are of course if the mount fits perfectly or not, if the material is good enough not to damage the mount on the cameras and if the lenses work well after the replacement or if they go out of adjustement easily, requiring then a trip do Leica for readjustment.

 

The last solution is the mach technical one but I think just paintind dots on the lens with no engraving will be of very short duration, it will get off very easily I believe.

 

Any experiences on these solutions that you want to share? I've been trying to find this info here in the forum (it probably has been discussed before) but haven't been able to find any relevant info to help me decide what to do.

 

Thanks!

I have used them on a 35/2, 50/2 and 90/2.8. Make sure to get the correct screw hole spacing for your lens. You should mic the flange thickness and compare with the original - if too far off you will have focus issues. Use a good gloss white and black paint - I tried several and settled on Humbrol model paint. Works well on M9 and M240. Good luck!!
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have 2 lenses that are not coded (summicron 35mm asph and summicron 50mm) and I am wondering if I should send them in to Leica to have it properly done (more expensive) or if I should opt for the ebay solution; buy the mounts here (http://www.ebay.com/itm/3pc-6-bit-flange-adapter-4-Leica-lens-28-90mm-35mm-50mm-/140743043065?hash=item20c4f067f9:m:mDeajY2U63qkZM_9QZTKOGA) and do it myself. ....[edited]

 

 

It depends.  If you are in my age group (the sixty-plus), life is too short--send them to Leica for coding and enjoy these two important focal lengths.  If you are younger, please feel free to experiment with cheaper routes.  But be ready that they may come back not to your satisfaction, in which case, you will then send them to Leica for coding so that you can enjoy these two important focal lengths.  In either cases, I would send them sequentially to ensure that I have a lens to use.

 

It is perhaps important to mention two observations.  The first is that I know many users who are much more disciplned in their use of lenses than me who do not need coding at all.  They systematically manually code the lenses--and change the code whenever a different lens is used.  If you are similarly disciplined, then this is an option to consider.  The second is that I would not personally buy a lens that is coded by third parties.  Therefore, maybe, again maybe, the third party route can affect the resale value.  

 

The important thing is "enjoy in good health".  Regards.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...