SL and Zeiss ZM lenses

[Ivar B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own a Zeiss Distagon ZM 1.4/35mm (an absolutely stunning performer) which I handcoded as Summilux 1.4/35mm ASPH FLE. The M (240) recognizes the lens as such with no problems, but the SL (with the M adapter) does not.

 

Anyone knows if there is any reason for this? Not a major worry if I need to select lens manually either.

 

 

[solal]

I own one too with my SL. He is not coded. So I'm not able to answer to your question.

But until now, I didn't select manually any lens, leaving the information empty.

Do you think that it's really useful ? The correction applied for the Summilux cannot be not adapted to the Zeiss?

[edwardkaraa]

I tested my 4 ZM lenses with and without profiles and decided that they all look better without, even the 25/2.8. On the M only the 25 required a profile to correct the red borders.

[ramarren]

I own a Zeiss Distagon ZM 1.4/35mm (an absolutely stunning performer) which I handcoded as Summilux 1.4/35mm ASPH FLE. The M (240) recognizes the lens as such with no problems, but the SL (with the M adapter) does not.

 

Anyone knows if there is any reason for this? Not a major worry if I need to select lens manually either.

 

 

From various reports I've read, it seems that the sensitivity of the code reader on the SL is a bit different from its sensitivity on the M typ 240 cameras and that was different again from its sensitivity on the M9 and earlier as well. All the factory coded (and third party coded) lenses read correctly on all of them, but hand-coded lenses (usually with a sharpie or other such marking instrument) produce somewhat variable results. 

 

I would set the code manually or have a install a six-bit code on the lens for you. DAG coded my 1972 Summilux 35 v2 for me and it works perfectly on both my SL and M-P. 

 

Whether the profile does what you want you should determine before you do that because once a lens is coded on the SL, you do not have the option to manually code it like you do with the M9 and other M cameras (unless there are multiple possible codes for a single lens, like there are for the Tri-Elmar-M and the pre-ASPH Summilux 35). 

[Ivar B]

From various reports I've read, it seems that the sensitivity of the code reader on the SL is a bit different from its sensitivity on the M typ 240 cameras and that was different again from its sensitivity on the M9 and earlier as well. All the factory coded (and third party coded) lenses read correctly on all of them, but hand-coded lenses (usually with a sharpie or other such marking instrument) produce somewhat variable results. 

 

I would set the code manually or have a install a six-bit code on the lens for you. DAG coded my 1972 Summilux 35 v2 for me and it works perfectly on both my SL and M-P. 

 

Whether the profile does what you want you should determine before you do that because once a lens is coded on the SL, you do not have the option to manually code it like you do with the M9 and other M cameras (unless there are multiple possible codes for a single lens, like there are for the Tri-Elmar-M and the pre-ASPH Summilux 35). 

 

Many thanks - this is useful. I will make an attempt to add some precision with the sharpie and if it does not work I will just enter it manually.

[thighslapper]

yes ..... the code recognition is rather finicky ...... despite being as precise as I could with a custom template printed onto overhead transparency sheet and coding with an indelible pen before I cut the pits and painted them I have self coded lenses that are recognised on most of my cameras but not on all......

 

just checked my Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZM and it recognises it perfectly as a Summilux 35/1.4  ... so for once I got it right .... 

 

and yes .... you are right ... it is a stunning lens, and for once I am not tempted by the MUCH more expensive Leica equivalent ...

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The code reader seems to be as finicky as the M8 used to be. It is reading my 50/2 Planar just fine but I had Malcolm Taylor mill the pits and paint in the code with black and white paint (Summicron 50, V.11825 -100001). Similarly my Voigtlander 15 coded as a Summicron 28mm was recognised as well but that also had milled and painted coding pits. It is not reading my 90/2.8 Elmarit-M, coded with marker pen. 

 

Wilson

[lanetomlane]

My SL reads the hand coded (Dremel & Paint) Summicron 35 without problems. However the M240 never did. Earlier my M8 and M9 read the coding.

 

Tom

[scott kirkpatrick]

My SL reads the hand coded (Dremel & Paint) Summicron 35 without problems. However the M240 never did. Earlier my M8 and M9 read the coding.

 

Tom

 

I had the same experience -- coding that worked on the M8, and M9 works on the SL but did not work on the 240.  I blame the paint I was using (black and white nail polish).

 

scott

[Big John]

Bringing this three back from the dead to ask if any of the owners above of the SL and Zeiss distagon 35/1.4 have found any compatibility issues?  Asking as am close to buying same lens for SL.  Thanks.

[thighslapper]

no. works perfectly.

[anickpick]

I can confirm: The Zeiss zm 1.4 35 works perfectly on the SL.

It has more micro contrast than any Summilux lens wide open across the frame.

[Big John]

Many thanks guys!