gwelland Posted July 22, 2007 Share #1 Posted July 22, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is it worth getting an un-coded Tri Elmar coded for the M8? I'm interested in hearing about people's experience with this lens with UV/IR filters - either coded or not. Is it worth getting this done? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 Hi gwelland, Take a look here 28-35-50 Tri Elmar Coding for M8?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
gtmerideth Posted July 23, 2007 Share #2 Posted July 23, 2007 Graham, I think so. It is veritably perfect in all respects re: vingeting and cyan drift with coding and a filter. With the M8 you have to deal with each step or pay a price in post. gary merideth Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
volkerhopf Posted July 23, 2007 Share #3 Posted July 23, 2007 Hi Graham, I think it is certainly worthwhile coding the Tri Elmar. If you use a filter , which I think you have no choice if you do colour, then you get you colour shifts with the 35 and 28mm settings. I had mine done by J. Milich and only filled in the black spots and it has been working very well for me, as well as the fixed focal length lenses. Regards Volker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted July 23, 2007 Share #4 Posted July 23, 2007 Graham-- I feel the same way. I had already sent my TE away for coding before my M8 arrived, so I don't have pre-coding experience with it. Post-coding it's super. Remember also, at both 35 and 28, Leica feels coding is necessary. You could get away without it at 50; maybe also at 35; but at 28, you'll want the coding. Sometimes I'm also curious what focal length I was using for a particular shot, and for that of course, the coding is needed. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share #5 Posted July 23, 2007 Volker, Were there any issues with removing/re-fitting the ring for the Tri-Elmar? I've done this before with my Zeiss 21 but I'm a little more concerned about tolerances etc with the Tri-Elmar (I haven't received it yet - it's in the mail ...). If it's a simple case of unscrewing the flange then it's a no-brainer. I'm glad to hear that John Milich did yours as I've been very impressed with the rings and filter holders I've bought from him so far. If the results are the same then I'd rather use jlm vs sending off the lens for weeks to Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share #6 Posted July 23, 2007 Graham--I feel the same way. I had already sent my TE away for coding before my M8 arrived, so I don't have pre-coding experience with it. Post-coding it's super. Remember also, at both 35 and 28, Leica feels coding is necessary. You could get away without it at 50; maybe also at 35; but at 28, you'll want the coding. Sometimes I'm also curious what focal length I was using for a particular shot, and for that of course, the coding is needed. --HC I think you're right. I've been trying to convince myself that I could avoid it, especially after reading Erwin Puts's comments about only really needing coding for 24mm and wider. I must admit it does make life a lot simpler if everything is coded - it's a shame that my VC 12 still neeeds post-production work even when coded as a WATE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted July 23, 2007 Share #7 Posted July 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) At least with the first generation Tri-Elmar, there's a spring which needs to be attached to the ring once in place. It would be quite fiddly to do if you didn't have a suitable spring hook. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/29506-28-35-50-tri-elmar-coding-for-m8/?do=findComment&comment=311712'>More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted July 23, 2007 Share #8 Posted July 23, 2007 At least with the first generation Tri-Elmar, there's a spring which needs to be attached to the ring once in place. It would be quite fiddly to do if you didn't have a suitable spring hook. [ATTACH]46547[/ATTACH] The latest generation is the same - I sent mine off to Solms, and I'm certainly glad it was done - it's good to have the exif information, and I'm pretty sure that it's necessary with a filter at 28mm, even if you can get away with it at 35. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudioJ Posted July 23, 2007 Share #9 Posted July 23, 2007 Hi, I think it is worthwhile even without using the IR - Filter, because the M8writes the used focal length in the EXIF-Data. Kind regards cJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted July 23, 2007 Share #10 Posted July 23, 2007 All things being equal, I think the coding is worthwhile for the EXIF information and to future proof the lens to take advantage of any in-camera processing that requires that information. However, I shot quite a bit earlier in the year using an uncoded 28 'cron with a B+W filter and the shots are absolutely fine. There is no meaningful vignetting and I can't see any evidence of cyan drift in the corners. I now shoot with a coded 28 and Leica brand filter but I get absolutely no sense whatever that this set-up results in improved image quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share #11 Posted July 23, 2007 Hmmm, given the complexity of the frame selection lever & spring linkage it doesn't look like I want to mess with removing the ring myself. This looks like a candidate for NJ to handle for me as opposed to having the ring milled. I'll see what my local repair shop say about the mechanism and whether they'd handle the removal/re-fit of this (these folks are Leica repair specialists). The lens is a first version tri-elmar that I just bought after giving up waiting for my new tri-elmar that's been on order for 5 months and my Leica rep still insist's they'll get me. I'll believe it when/if I see it. I've waited this long already so sending the lens off won't feel that much worse. What's the turnaround time on coding with Leica USA at the moment. assuming that the lens doesn't get sent to Solms? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russel Posted July 23, 2007 Share #12 Posted July 23, 2007 Hi Graham, Tri-elmar can only be processed in Germany. I sent mine (2nd version) two months ago, still waiting. According to them, they don't have the ring at this moment, it will become available again next month... Russel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 23, 2007 Share #13 Posted July 23, 2007 Even Solms struggles with the first version. Mine changed framelines perfectly, but only after I had played around with it and loosened and retightened the mount etc. . After changing the mount it reverted to its old habits It had to be sent in for me to be able to sell it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtmerideth Posted July 23, 2007 Share #14 Posted July 23, 2007 Graham, I had a local camer repairman remove and replace the flange and he charged $10. A no brainer for me. JM did the milling and it's great. g. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_cummer Posted July 23, 2007 Share #15 Posted July 23, 2007 I have the second version of the Tri Elmar and had it coded at Solms - which took about 4 months. I too was concerned that removing the bayonet to code it might upset the setting of the frame lines but my concern was unfounded. The lens works just as well as before being sent off and is my favourite bright light lens, providing versatility with the three focal lengths and excellent image quality. I hope Leica reinstates it in the lens lineup. Cheers Howard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share #16 Posted July 23, 2007 Graham,I had a local camer repairman remove and replace the flange and he charged $10. A no brainer for me. JM did the milling and it's great. g. Gary, That's good to know. This would be my preferred approach if the alternative is going to be a case of sending the lens away for months. Heck, they can even service pretty much anything related to the lens with the exception of the glass so I'm sure that removal and refitting of the flange is well within their capabilities. Graham Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted July 23, 2007 Share #17 Posted July 23, 2007 Tri-elmar can only be processed in Germany. I sent mine (2nd version) two months ago, still waiting. According to them, they don't have the ring at this moment, it will become available again next month... It's a pity if the first-generation lens can only be coded in Solms, but I think if I had the choice, that's probably the one I would keep. My second-generation sample was done by New Jersey in three weeks, including shipping. It apparently arrived a day before the mounts and I was already in touch with them by phone. (The lens actually got back to me coded and perfect the same day I received the written estimate.) I love the lens, but with the warnings posted elsewhere concerning the hood mount, I wonder whether that might not be a part of the reason for its discontinuation. (I know some people were told that the reason was that a particular glass was no longer available, but when I asked Allendale, they responded that the TE was one of the most complex lenses in the stable, and that one of its parts could no longer be sourced. With a slight twist, that gibes with my speculation. ) --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mat161 Posted July 24, 2007 Share #18 Posted July 24, 2007 Howard, Just received my 28/35/50 Tri-Elmar back from coding today and much to my chagrin, the M8 does NOT recognize the lenses either with lens detection set to on or on + UV/IR( which I have. ) What am I doing wrong OR did something happen in the coding? Hoping its just operator error Any suggestions would be appreciated. BTW, my 75 lux arrived as well and works great! Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mat161 Posted July 24, 2007 Share #19 Posted July 24, 2007 OOPS!! OK, so I'm a dummy ! The camera DOES recognize the lenses, it just doesn't require you to choose like the new WATE! While that doesn't make much sense to me, it does read the different lenses on the images info. Since I already have the WATE, I assumed the old one would operate the same way when coded. Wonder why the OLD lense works automatically, and the new one doesn't? Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted July 24, 2007 Share #20 Posted July 24, 2007 Jim-- Oh, thank goodness! I was already trying to figure out what might have gone wrong! No, you're not a dummy! We're dealing with Leica, where consistency may sometimes have to be sacrificed on the altar of functionality. (Only occasionally, of course!) For the 28-35-50, all three of the frames exist in the camera, so when you change the focal length, the lens brings up the proper frameset automatically. When it does so, the setting of the lens preview lever flips one of two toggle switches to tell the camera which lens you've set. (Kinda ironic that apparently these switches are needed only for a lens now discontinued. ) In the case of the 16-18-21, the camera doesn't have the frames for any of the three focal lengths, so Leica didn't install the expensive, switchable mount. Apparently when they designed the 16-18-21, they weren't aware of the varying cyan patterns the lens would generate with IR-cut filter, and since the lens seems to require the same vignetting correction for all focal lengths, there was no reason to think the switching mount could be of any benefit. But when they found out that the lens needed different corrections for the different focal lengths, they added the kludgy extra menu for the lens, and gave it instructions to appear whenever the camera first discovers that the lens is mounted. It's a great tribute to Leica's design team that the ability to correct for this as yet undiscovered quirk was already built in. On the old forum and apparently no longer accessible, Mark Norton had a wonderful "Anatomy of the M8" thread in which he disassembled one of his cameras completely. It really showed amazing design by Leica, and wonderful detective work by Mark. The thread included a photo of the microswitches that do the work for the 28-35-50, which I've included. You can see there that the frame selector lever has toggled one of the two switches; so the system has three different electrical states: Either one or the other or neither of the switches will be in the 'on' position. (I hope it's okay with Mark that I've done that.) Wow, I'm glad it's working (and I bet you are too ). --HC 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/29506-28-35-50-tri-elmar-coding-for-m8/?do=findComment&comment=312471'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.