Coding APO-Telyt 135/3.4

[holgerf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having bought a used APO-Telyt 135 mm a couple of months ago I had been reading many threads concerning coding. One of the nice ideas I learned from the forum was Jaap’s hint to override the lens to get the more suitable 90 mm frames. The next feasible idea I learned from Guy and Chris who coded their lens as the 135/2.8 which switches to the 90 mm frames AND delivers the EXIF date at least for focal length - what a wonderful forum!

 

However, I resisted in doing this kind of coding. What shall I do if I want to use the lens with my M6 and - more likely - when the FF M9 hits the market? In these cases I don’t want to get the 90 mm frames instead of the built-in 135 mm frames.

 

So I had the idea to code it myself but with a certain offset that is needed to be in the right position if the lens is locked by overriding. I tried this today with the Sharpie black and it works fine: with the "wrong positioned" coding and the overrided lens I get the 90 mm frames as well as the EXIF of 135 mm. And I can still use it with my M6.

 

The only drawback so far: to use it with the M9 I probably will have to reposition the coding

 

Cheers

Holger

 

 

[ATTACH]144346[/ATTACH]

 

 

[ATTACH]144347[/ATTACH]

[jaapv]

That is the way to do it

[Woofer]

Holger , How did you know just where to put the marks ... Regards Leslie

[wlaidlaw]

Holger,

 

Well done! I couldn't get my 135/4 Tele-Elmar to pick up coding in the 90 framelines over-rotated position consistently. It only works about 30% of the time. The stop position on my M8 feels quite soft and I am guessing the the lines are not over the LED sensors accurately enough. I have therefore given up and put my coding lines back in the normal position. After I had the new frames put in on the upgrade, the 90 framelines are now much nearer to 90 anyway, so less useful on a 135. I now just double the size of the RF patch.

 

Wilson

[chris_tribble]

Nice solution! I suppose I'm happy with my 90 framelines and 135 code without the business of over-rotating because a) I really don't see myself using film in the forseeable future (about to sell my M7 - though I'll hold on to an M6 TTL) and I'm not holding my breath for full frame M9...

 

If I were trying to plan for everything though, this is a neat solution!

[sfokevin]

I'm a bit confused?... I always thought that the coding of a lens was dependent on the 6-Bit code AND the frame lines to determine the attached lens... As it is described here it seems one 6-Bit code (001001) works with either 28/90 or 24/35 framlines to identify it as a 135mm?...

Edited June 2, 2009 by sfokevin

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In any case, 6-bit coding cannot change the framelines in the finder, because there are governed only by the (totally mechanical) frame-control lug of the bayonet.

 

Also, I fail to see the benefits of coding a 135. I have spent half a century without feeling any urge to see codes that say "135mm" on my negs or slides. The image itself tells me. And coding has no influence whatever on image quality with lenses above 35mm.

 

The obstinate old man from the Mechanical Age

[holgerf]

I'm a bit confused?... I always thought that the coding of a lens was dependent on the 6-Bit code AND the frame lines to determine the attached lens... As it is described here it seems one 6-Bit code (001001) works with either 28/90 or 24/35 mm framlines to identify it as a 135mm?...

 

You are right – the coding would not work without the 90 mm frame lines brought in. For that reason the coding that Leica offers for the 135/2.8 and that can be ordered also for any other 135 does bring in these frame lines without overriding the lens. The reason: in this case the bayonet has the same form factor as the 90 mm lenses have.

 

Best

Holger

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[holgerf]

…Also, I fail to see the benefits of coding a 135. I have spent half a century without feeling any urge to see codes that say "135mm" on my negs or slides. The image itself tells me. And coding has no influence whatever on image quality with lenses above 35mm.

 

The obstinate old man from the Mechanical Age

 

Agree with you - no influence in image quality at all :-) This is the same with all the other EXIF data. Same as you I spent a similar long period with my thousands of slides without collecting EXIF data. However as I now do have the digital stuff in a database (Aperture) I felt a certain lack not being able to search and find images by their EXIF data.

 

In addition to that there are already some and may be more features in the future for which the information about focal length may help. For now I know about three of them:

• eliminating cyan shift (not necessary for the APO-Telyt)

• Auto-ISO

• shooting with flash

 

So it’s a matter of personal practice whether or not the date of focal length may play a certain role in your work.

 

BTW: having insisted on being »…the old man of whatsoever« – how old are you really??

 

Cheers

Holger

[jaapv]

In any case, 6-bit coding cannot change the framelines in the finder, because there are governed only by the (totally mechanical) frame-control lug of the bayonet.

 

Also, I fail to see the benefits of coding a 135. I have spent half a century without feeling any urge to see codes that say "135mm" on my negs or slides. The image itself tells me. And coding has no influence whatever on image quality with lenses above 35mm.

 

The obstinate old man from the Mechanical Age

That is not what the original post claimed, Lars. The 90 framelines are brought up by rotating the lens against the stop, the shifted coding provides the identification as 135. There can be any number of reasons to wish the lens to be identified in Exif, not neccesarily just corrections. For instance easy sorting on focal length in Lightroom can be very practical.

Edited June 2, 2009 by jaapv

[lars_bergquist]

BTW: having insisted on being »…the old man of whatsoever« – how old are you really??

 

Cheers

Holger

 

Holger, I was born in the year when Oskar Barnack died.

 

The old man from the Age of Max Berek

[holgerf]

Holger, I was born in the year when Oskar Barnack died.

 

The old man from the Age of Max Berek

 

So you are the winner – I can’t beat you in terms of age :-)

 

But thanks anyway for your inspiring and always changing content of your signature!

[sfokevin]

I fail to see the benefits of coding a 135. I have spent half a century without feeling any urge to see codes that say "135mm" on my negs or slides. The image itself tells me. And coding has no influence whatever on image quality with lenses above 35mm.

 

The obstinate old man from the Mechanical Age

 

I like to see the EXIF data in my files

 

A man living in the age of computers...

[wlaidlaw]

One final thought: Having been using my M4 this week with the 135 T-E, I wonder why Leica could not have added the M4 type 135 mm framing corners (as opposed to a full frame which would be very distracting on a 35 mm lens) to the M8. When I am using a 35 mm on the M4, I hardly notice them but they are very useful on a 135. Is there some technical reason they could not have been added?

 

Wilson

[glenerrolrd]

The 135/3.4 apo is a very difficult lens to recalibrate so I would not change the mount. It took 4 tries to get my lens to focus to infinity after the mount was changed out. (by the most respected independent Leica repair service in the USA).

 

You have only a few alternatives for permanent coding. The lens mount has to be changed out to bring up the 28/90 framelines and the mount has to be milled to allow for the 6 bit coding. Leica warned me ,after the fact, that calibration was difficult after the mount is changed and requires a laser collimeter to insure accurate infinity focus.

 

This lens is also extremely difficult to focus....actually more difficult at distances beyond 10 meters . The focusing mount provides for a long throw up to about 7 meters and then it becomes very short. I could focus well enough at distances up to 7-10 meters .then my hit ratio went way down from my 90 summicron (and I used both lenses wide open). See E.Putts article about the 1.4x magnifier and this lens.

 

You need a magnifier to focus this lens consistently and often stacking magnifiers is required. I used a 1.4x and 1.25x to get the best results for testing. I will use the 1.4x in daily use .

 

Over all I find the lens superb for street shooting when a more discrete distance is required or around water where you just can t get closer. At distances I need to take a test shoot and look to see if I am close. Its workable but less reliable and of course if your subject allows for critical focus ..then you can produce results not obtainable with the 90mm.

 

Try some tests of subjects at close focus, 5m,10m,infinity and see what you get . Most independent repair services test at close focus only which works on most M lens if the camera is on.

 

Once we got the calibration I could get above 75% within the DOF at f3.4 .

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[luigi bertolotti]

One final thought: Having been using my M4 this week with the 135 T-E, I wonder why Leica could not have added the M4 type 135 mm framing corners (as opposed to a full frame which would be very distracting on a 35 mm lens) to the M8. When I am using a 35 mm on the M4, I hardly notice them but they are very useful on a 135. Is there some technical reason they could not have been added?

 

Wilson

 

I think the "technical reason" is simply "too mess into the finder" ... there are 3 settings for the frames' sets (actuated by bayonet mount) : if they would add 135, this would be the 7th focal length to be managed... to say, one of the settings would provide 3 frames... definitely too much considering that there is also the RF window: you'd have a "dirty" viewfinder.

And adding a hipotetical 4th setting (let'say... 135+40 ? ) would be really a new and complex implementation, also for, probably, the BM of "old and present" 135s wouldn't be apt for this (theroical) new setting.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M