Frase Posted May 25, 2017 Share #21 Posted May 25, 2017 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) I did find that one of the mounts I tried on my 35mm v4 stopped the lens reaching infinity. But they are so cheap its worth a try! Edited May 25, 2017 by Frase Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 25, 2017 Posted May 25, 2017 Hi Frase, Take a look here How to get a lens coded....well. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted May 25, 2017 Share #22 Posted May 25, 2017 Jinfinance flanges work fine on my Summilux 50/1.4 v3 and Summicron 90/2 v3 but not with the following ones: Summilux 35/1.4 # 11870 Summicron 35/2.0 # 11310Summaron 35/2.8 # 11106Summicron 40/2.0 # 11542Summilux 50/1.4 asph # 11891Summicron 50/2.0 # 11819Elmar 50/2.8 # 11612Summicron 90/2.0 # 11135Elmarit 90/2.8 # 11129Tele-Elmarit "Thin" 90/2.8 # 11800Elmar 90/4.0 # 11631Elmarit 135/2.8 # 11829Elmar 135/4.0 # 11850 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark II Posted May 25, 2017 Share #23 Posted May 25, 2017 None of my ZM lenses have a recessed groove for coding, including the 1,4/35. However, I usually leave the lens detection off simply because I much prefer that the camera does not apply *any* changes to the RAW files. I really wish that there was an option to simply record the lens meta data and not modify the RAW data. Micro 4/3 gets this correct, by recording the lens correction parameters in the RAW file but not baking them in to the pixel data itself. If I wanted cooked files I would shoot JPEG... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_OOF Posted May 25, 2017 Share #24 Posted May 25, 2017 I made three lenses with Jinfinance flanges for my M9 (Elmarit 90 2.8, Summicron 50 11817 and Summilux 35 asph) and all worked well. I made another lens for the 240 of a friend (Summicron 35 asph) and it worked. All the three lenses I made for the 9 now work perfectly on my new M10. Maybe it's more a matter of painting than of camera model. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 25, 2017 Share #25 Posted May 25, 2017 None of my ZM lenses have a recessed groove for coding, including the 1,4/35. [...] Curious indeed. It is not really a groove, just the exterior part of the flange which is slightly recessed actually. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted May 25, 2017 Share #26 Posted May 25, 2017 (edited) If you don't mind sending it off, DAG's coding is perfect. I sent Don my pre-6bit Summicron 35 ASPH for coding and it came back looking like it was done at the factory. Edited May 25, 2017 by Joshua Lowe 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 25, 2017 Share #27 Posted May 25, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) DAG and other serious workshops install coded flanges made by Leica i guess. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted May 25, 2017 Share #28 Posted May 25, 2017 DAG and other serious workshops install coded flanges made by Leica i guess. Agreed He did one for one of my 50 2.8 elmar m and now it looks like my factory coded one. The JF one I put did not match exactly. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Posted May 26, 2017 Share #29 Posted May 26, 2017 (edited) Thanks for all the replies! Would you have early ZM lenses? I have no experience with ZM 21/2.8 but both my ZM 35/2.8 and 50/1.5 have a coding groove on the flange. I've hand coded them with a mere sharpie several months ago and coding still works fine on my M240. I bought both of my ZM lenses used, so I have no precise way of determining their age (or at least I am not aware of it if there exists such a way). However, I am quite sure that my 35mm is less than 18 months old, since I got it a year ago from the first owner shortly after he buys it (he discovered he could not live without a focusing tab...). Without proper tools and skills I would tell you just send the lens to DAG or Leica. Just bolting on a JF may or may not work. I wish I could send to Leica, but my understanding is that they will work only on Leica lenses (which makes sens really). As I am in EU, DAG is not practical either (I am fine with sending, but not with discussing with customs over matters that should not require me to). None of my ZM lenses have a recessed groove for coding, including the 1,4/35. However, I usually leave the lens detection off simply because I much prefer that the camera does not apply *any* changes to the RAW files. I really wish that there was an option to simply record the lens meta data and not modify the RAW data. Micro 4/3 gets this correct, by recording the lens correction parameters in the RAW file but not baking them in to the pixel data itself. If I wanted cooked files I would shoot JPEG... I hear you! I am feeling the same actually. But the problem is that, without EXIF, there is no way for me to do it systematically and / or reliably. And for this, I need coding. On my last trip, I tried to identify lenses each time I change them (basically by taking a dummy picture of a sign indicating which lens I was mounting at each lens change...) but that is both boring and unreliable (I tend to forget; anyway, it is not part of the "just think about the picture you take" philosophy...). If you don't mind sending it off, DAG's coding is perfect. I sent Don my pre-6bit Summicron 35 ASPH for coding and it came back looking like it was done at the factory. Yes, sorry I was not more specific: sending to the US while I am in the EU means more trouble than I want (explaining it twice to the customs that it is not an import). Edited May 26, 2017 by Xavier Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 26, 2017 Share #30 Posted May 26, 2017 (edited) DAG and other serious workshops install coded flanges made by Leica i guess.Not DAG...by hand. His black Leica dots also look professionally done, and I can assure you Leica doesn't paint them that way! DAG is a pro. Jeff Edited May 26, 2017 by Jeff S Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 26, 2017 Share #31 Posted May 26, 2017 Not DAG...by hand. His black Leica dots also look professionally done, and I can assure you Leica doesn't paint them that way! DAG is a pro. [...] Do you mean the paintings? Coded flanges are new Leica parts i guess. At least this was the case with the Leica workshops i've been dealing with in EU so far. I asked for the return of the original flanges and i got them each time. Those were codable lenses though. I suspect some drilling is needed for lenses Leica does not encode in Wetzlar (pre-asph 35/1.4, 35/2 v1 to v3, 50/1.4 v1 & v2, etc.). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 26, 2017 Share #32 Posted May 26, 2017 Yes, I only meant the painting. Jeff 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted May 27, 2017 Share #33 Posted May 27, 2017 DAG may have purchased a prepainted flange for my 50 2.8. That flange had a special recess on the back to allow infinity focus. Hard to do the recess without a lathe. Anyway the paint matched the factory sample. It is not hard to paint by hand either. 0 size brush in paint and fill the pit slowly. Allow to dry in stages. A bit of thinner will take surplus off the flange if it happens. Thin the paint first. I am sure Leica has some type of dropper that lets out premeasured amounts and they do it in one go. Paint shrinks as it dries and you go from a surface tension bubble to a recess. . GM arctic white and gloss black work. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.