Lens coding necessary? I think not.

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lens coding necessary? I think not.

What advantage do our members find with lens coding? My view is that coding might help the post-processing initiate with wide-angle lenses, but not longer lenses. Any lens of 35mm  or longer do not need coding. Shorter lenses' coding offer promises but no significant advantage.

I'm an old Photoshop user by habit and practice and have employed its lens correction facility (which has regularly available updates in the application)  to no significant advantage.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Exodies]

Does it affect the camera’s generation of the raw file?

[Jeff S]

A few reasons noted here..

Jeff

[TomB_tx]

It certainly helps to code wide lenses. I use a VC 21 f4 that produces significant colored edge effects when not coded on the M9, but coding corrects most of the color shifts and such in the raw file, eliminating my need to do such corrections in post. The corrections from coding are most effective when set to base ISO.

I haven’t tried the lens without coding on my M10, since it works so well with coding.

[adan]

1. The M10 (and perhaps the 240, but I wouldn't know) does better than the previous digital Ms with wide lenses - a 28 on the M10 produces less cyan corners than a 35 on an M9. Taller, more egg-shaped microlens shapes, and a new refractive index does the trick.

http://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-future-of-sensor-technology-at-leica.html

2. The substantially modified "new" C/V 10mm, 12mm v.3 and 15mm v.3 lenses - effectively, SLR retrofocus super-wides scaled down a bit, rather than classic Leica-style wideangles - don't require coding for corner tints. May be true also for the 21 f/1.8 (much bigger/longer then the ultra-compact 21 f/4).

3. So no blanket statement is going to be accurate - it will depend a lot on the specific make and era of lens used - AND which M we are talking about.

Pico, old son, put a 1980 21 Elmarit without coding on an M9 (or on an M8, for that matter, with the add-on IR filter), try to correct the pictures on deadline - and THEN come back and tell us lens coding isn't necessary.

4. As to distortion (barrel/pincushion) - that won't be corrected in the camera anyway. Can be corrected in Photoshop, and done so automatically with the right version of PS and the lens ID'd in EXIF. I don't do it myself - I figure distortion is part of the "character" of a given lens, and if it worked OK on film, I don't need to be stretching the pixels now.

5. Beyond the optical stuff - I don't find coding necessary. I do find it - nice - to have the EXIF info there for use years (or even just hours) later, especially if comparing very close focal lengths (e.g. a 75 with a 90, a 28 with a 35). At this point I have - a factory-upgrade-coded 1983 21mm (upgraded free in the M8 era), a "fresh from the factory coded" 35 Summarit, a Sharpie-coded C/V 75 f/1.8, a "convenient-dirty-screwhead-in-the-right-place"-coded 90 Tele-Elmarit-M, and my M10 defaults to IDing my 135 TE as a 135 TE. So I'm sitting pretty.

[willeica]

2 hours ago, adan said:

Pico, old son, put a 1980 21 Elmarit without coding on an M9 (or on an M8, for that matter, with the add-on IR filter), try to correct the pictures on deadline - and THEN come back and tell us lens coding isn't necessary.

 

It depends on the deadline. It takes about a second or two to eliminate red edge in Lightroom using the vignetting slider and if you want you can include it in a profile and then you have saved that second or two. I have a CV 21 f4 which gives red edge with my M10 even if it is described as a 21mm using the menu. It is not an issue for the type of photography that I do as I can fix it very quickly and, I might add, only shows up when there is a lot of sky on the right hand side of the photo. As I am also a collector, I have never added coding to any lens. 'Italian Flag' is no longer an issue with the post processing tools we have nowadays. I used a clunky thing called Corner Fix about 10 years ago, but it is no longer necessary as Lightroom will do everything that I need in this regard today.

William

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me the main advantage of having a coded lens is so that I don't forget to change the manually selected lens in the menu and end up with the wrong corrections applied to the lens I'm using. Coding works best with wides and least with teles, but applying 21mm corrections to a 135 really isn't so good.

[willeica]

19 minutes ago, pgk said:

For me the main advantage of having a coded lens is so that I don't forget to change the manually selected lens in the menu and end up with the wrong corrections applied to the lens I'm using. Coding works best with wides and least with teles, but applying 21mm corrections to a 135 really isn't so good.

We'll have to agree to differ on this one, Paul. The results are the same whether the correction is pre or post. I sometimes forget to change the menu, but with the M10 it will remember the last uncoded lens used. With the M240 I still got red flag with a coded 24mm Elmar. That is why I taught myself how to correct in Lightroom. As I said above, it takes just a few seconds to do this and Lightroom does not even have to 'know' what lens you used.

William

Edited December 13, 2018 by willeica

[pgk]

The problem is when I set one lens on the M9 and then use another - the wrong corrections applied can be corrected but this takes time and even so is sometimes not perfect. That said the only lenses I have which are 6-bit, I have bought as 6-bit lenses - I would like to get some of my current lenses converted to 6-bit, but only the ones that make up my 'working' outfit' - essentially a set of E46 lenses which are used. The older, more 'classical' lenses I will leave uncoded and deal with in PP.

[bocaburger]

I've been with Leica digitals since the M8, and the only lenses I have ever coded are 35mm and wider.   On the M8 it was mandatory to get rid of the cyan corners caused by the forced use of IR filters.  On the M9 and M240 coding seems to correct optical vignetting in most cases.  The 21 Elmarit PRE-ASPH (which I happen to own) coding seems to have color cast vignetting correction, which also works well on a number of 3rd-party ultrawide lenses.   I've never given a thought to coding my 50-135 lenses.  I don't give a hoot for EXIF data, never had it all the years I shot film, don't need it now.

[ontick]

I have written to Leica and they replied that they’d pass it along. I don’t know how important they see this for the M10 line, but I think it would be a fine idea if they would allow for the selection of my non-coded lenses to be added to a custom lens list in the lens selection settings. With this we could quickly and easily select from our own lenses without fishing through the complete list. Or, as an alternative, add a tick next to our own lenses in their complete list. 

[pico]

39 minutes ago, ontick said:

[...] I think it would be a fine idea if they would allow for the selection of my non-coded lenses to be added to a custom lens list in the lens selection settings.

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that we create our own custom corrections for non-coded lenses, or that we make a list of our own lenses that point to equivalents in Leica's list?

 

 

[ontick]

What I meant was all of my lenses are non-coded, so to select one of mine from the list in the camera, I need to scroll through their complete list, and some focal lengths have several lens numbers to choose from. I would prefer to pre-select mine from that list, and add them to my custom list. Thereafter I'd only return to my custom short list of say, four lenses. Or, with a tick mark next to my lenses in their complete list, my lenses would stand out from the rest. 

[pico]

That's a good idea, ontick!

 

[astrostl]

When bouncing between the CV 21/4 and ZEISS 35/2.8 on an M10, I would regularly screw myself with purple edges on the 21 when I forgot to change coding.

I like EXIF data, but I'm mostly in it for the corrections.

[rnl]

I occasionally shoot "A" on the M10; the camera picks a shutter speed appropriate for the lens.  For example, if I use a non coded 90mm APO I have noticed that if I select that lens on the menu the camera will not select a shutter speed less than 1/90

[HeinB]

Is the consensus that coding indeed affects the DNG output from the camera? Also on M8?

if so, which code is best to reduce cyan corners from IR filters? 

[willeica]

2 minutes ago, HeinB said:

Is the consensus that coding indeed affects the DNG output from the camera? Also on M8?

if so, which code is best to reduce cyan corners from IR filters? 

See my comments above about quick fixes available in Lightroom.

William

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaeger]

On 12/10/2018 at 3:12 PM, pico said:

Lens coding necessary? I think not.

What advantage do our members find with lens coding? My view is that coding might help the post-processing initiate with wide-angle lenses, but not longer lenses. Any lens of 35mm  or longer do not need coding. Shorter lenses' coding offer promises but no significant advantage.

I'm an old Photoshop user by habit and practice and have employed its lens correction facility (which has regularly available updates in the application)  to no significant advantage.

My experience of having the 6bit coding advantage is shutter/ISO coordination.  If not coded and shooting indoor or low light, having shutter and ISO speed on auto, while the minimal shutter speed is 1/focal length then BAM! 

Edited December 18, 2018 by jaeger

[newnew]

I also thought that when you send an older lens to Leica for coding they readjust it such that it works more precisely with the digital bodies. I recently got my Lux 75 coded and I am very happy with it.