In-camera lens profiles

[haikos]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

In the m9 series cameras, I normally try to use lens profile that closely matches design-wise (on paper) the lens I happen to be using and this, when I actually remember to change the profile after a lens change.

None of my lenses are coded.

Example: if I am using a summicron 11310, obviously I use that profile. However, if I am using say a vm ultron 35 1.7, I use a summilux aspherical profile. With ZM c sonnar, I use a 50 lux pre aspherical profile.

In your opinions, is this best practice?

There are also lightroom profiles for all the lenses I have. Does it make sense to turn off lens setting and use those instead? I have noticed that lightroom overcorrects vignette and actually makes the ends of the photos brighter than the centers. I can of course, send the vignette slider all the way to the left negating this.

Do you use a lens setting in camera and then select a lightroom profile for the actual lens you use? (Thereby seemingly "double-profiling" a photo)

I think I am just curious as to how the rest of you do things when not using Leica lenses.

Thanks!

[Ko.Fe.]

I noticed how LR does this corners overblown with lens profile selected. I select lens profile mostly to have distortions corrected. 

Overblown (to become purple) corners are very visible with my 21/4 lens. And here is what I have found recently. If I set exposure all in A, LR doesn't have to correct exposure. No purple corners. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Ray Vonn]

Hi,

In general and in terms and in my experience, the Zeiss lenses work are best coded to their Leica ASPH counterparts with the same focal length.  I *think* I saw a chart provided by Zeiss some years ago that advised this.  That's if you want them.  The files have their own character without coding and can be adjusted to taste in PS.

I don't know what the situation is with Voigt lenses, but I can see that the number of PS profiles for those lenses is immense, more so than Zeiss or even Leica, so that is always an option.

For Canon LTM lenses, I only have the 50mm F1.2.  The Noctilux coding for the same focal length seems to do the trick here.

I do wonder what the best coding for older LTM lenses works best or if indeed it is actually needed, so perhaps other forum members can chip in here.

[haikos]

On 9/27/2021 at 4:22 PM, Ko.Fe. said:

I noticed how LR does this corners overblown with lens profile selected. I select lens profile mostly to have distortions corrected. 

Overblown (to become purple) corners are very visible with my 21/4 lens. And here is what I have found recently. If I set exposure all in A, LR doesn't have to correct exposure. No purple corners. 

I don't know why the lightroom profiles exaggerate the vignette correction. I can't think the developers who implemented the profiles never noticed it.

[haikos]

15 hours ago, Ray Vonn said:

Hi,

In general and in terms and in my experience, the Zeiss lenses work are best coded to their Leica ASPH counterparts with the same focal length.  I *think* I saw a chart provided by Zeiss some years ago that advised this.  That's if you want them.  The files have their own character without coding and can be adjusted to taste in PS.

I don't know what the situation is with Voigt lenses, but I can see that the number of PS profiles for those lenses is immense, more so than Zeiss or even Leica, so that is always an option.

For Canon LTM lenses, I only have the 50mm F1.2.  The Noctilux coding for the same focal length seems to do the trick here.

I do wonder what the best coding for older LTM lenses works best or if indeed it is actually needed, so perhaps other forum members can chip in here.

That's some good info. Until now I was using non-asph in-camera profiles for my c sonnar (pre-a lux)

[adan]

On 9/25/2021 at 10:39 AM, haikos said:

In the m9 series cameras, I normally try to use lens profile that closely matches design-wise (on paper) the lens I happen to be using and this, when I actually remember to change the profile after a lens change.

That works. I use 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH coding/profile for the very-similar 35 f/1.4 Nokton I/II, and it looks great.

One can also "zero in" on the best profile by trying ALL the menu options for a given focal length, and seeing if any one is noticably better.

It should be noted that the only profiled correction done in-camera is for corner color stains and/or some vignetting, mostly with <50mm lenses. Distortion and such are not corrected by the camera - but having the lens type listed in the EXIF data allows post-processing software (PS/LR, C1, DxO) to make additional corrections (e.g. distortion, color aberrations).

Note also that C/V lenses (and some Zeiss ZMs) can be coded semi-permanently with black pen/paint - unlike Leica's lenses, they have a recessed channel machined into the rear face of the lens mount that will prevent DIY coding from being rubbed off with use.

[Al Brown]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do the web (and this forum) search, I am very sure there is a table made for at least Zeiss lenses for proper M equivalent coding. Also decide whether you will code the lenses permanently (with acrylic paint, sharpie etc.) or just in camera, which is obviously a bigger hassle.

[adan]

Should be a list here that suggests "equivalents" for CV/ZM lenses. I can't access it at the moment due to the "Let's Encrypt" expired-certificate imbroglio, but those with newer phones or computers should be able to see it.

https://lavidaleica.com/content/leica-lens-codes#codes

[haikos]

Thank you both Al and Adan for the mention of and link to the equivalency list. I don't plan on modifying/coding my lenses at this point but might consider it in the future. 

Haig