rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Forgive me if this has been discussed before. I searched and couldn't find my question here at RFF.
I have 7 coded lenses, an M9 and an M240. I'm very frustrated with the M240.
All my coded lenses are detected as expected by the M9, but only 2 of my 7 lenses are detected by the M240.
I remember reading somewhere that the M240 is picky, but really this is bad. What do people do to help their M240 detect a lens? Could it be the reflectivity of the black paint? Need a special black paint? I cleaned the window area on the lens mount already.
I have 7 coded lenses, an M9 and an M240. I'm very frustrated with the M240.
All my coded lenses are detected as expected by the M9, but only 2 of my 7 lenses are detected by the M240.
I remember reading somewhere that the M240 is picky, but really this is bad. What do people do to help their M240 detect a lens? Could it be the reflectivity of the black paint? Need a special black paint? I cleaned the window area on the lens mount already.
raid
Dad Photographer
Can't you code each lens manually for the M240? It may take a few trials to find the best settings this way. Users post about their chosen coding.
You'll want to make sure the code sensor spots on the 240's lens mount are clean, as lint/dirt there can be a problem.
pyeh
Member of good standing
Rfaspen, for me, the fussy code reader on the M240 was yet another reason for me to sell the camera. I found that only factory coded lenses were readable, while Sharpie coded Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses that worked on my M9s would not, nor even Sharpie coloured milled coding pits on an LTM-to-M adapter. It's possible, even probable, that matt black and white enamel paint would have made those lenses readable but I didn't go so far as to try that idea. I dd though get as far as buying tiny tins of flat enamel and a sable brush.
Raid, from memory the Not-M10 does not have codes for M lenses that were produced after the introduction of the M8, so you can't manually code in a new M lens. That's assuming that some of Rfaspen's unsatisfactory lenses are uncoded versions of post-2007 Leica M lenses.
Raid, from memory the Not-M10 does not have codes for M lenses that were produced after the introduction of the M8, so you can't manually code in a new M lens. That's assuming that some of Rfaspen's unsatisfactory lenses are uncoded versions of post-2007 Leica M lenses.
raid
Dad Photographer
Peter: I have mostly old lenses, so I try out some coding and then I use what I like the most.
pyeh
Member of good standing
Raid, that's exactly what people should do, but what I'm saying is that on the M240 and maybe on the M9 you can't select a lens issued post 2007 because it's not listed in the menu.
raid
Dad Photographer
There could exist other settings that come close to the performance of the new lens code. I would email Leica AG about the lenses that you want the coding for with the M 240.
Huss
Veteran
Yeah my M240 also does not read non Leica branded lenses, even if they have been coded. I was also surprised to find out that many Leica lenses are not available in the manual lens coding menu.
Another disappointment.
Another disappointment.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Thanks for the replies folks.
A little more about this problem. Of the 2 lenses that get detected, one is Leica factory, the other is a DIY replacement flange. Of the remaining lenses that are not detected, 1 is a factory Leica, 1 is unknown provenance, 1 coded by DAG, and the last 2 are DIY flanges.
I can choose the lens (or close to the lens) from the menu, but the camera should be able to detect lenses if the M8 and M9 can detect them.
I'm wondering if this is a widespread problem with M240? I'm wondering if there's any known solutions for it? Or, do I have a faulty camera that needs to be serviced? This one has a warranty...
What's curious is that the lenses that do work are extreme opposites of the coded lens spectrum: factory vs. ebay replacement flange.
My current hypothesis is the paint. I think Leica didn't like the idea of people coding their own lenses so made the M240 reader fussy about the reflectivity of the paint in the wells. Of course, I can't see a difference in the reflectivity when I look at the "good" and "bad" lenses I have here. But, the reader uses IR, right?
A little more about this problem. Of the 2 lenses that get detected, one is Leica factory, the other is a DIY replacement flange. Of the remaining lenses that are not detected, 1 is a factory Leica, 1 is unknown provenance, 1 coded by DAG, and the last 2 are DIY flanges.
I can choose the lens (or close to the lens) from the menu, but the camera should be able to detect lenses if the M8 and M9 can detect them.
I'm wondering if this is a widespread problem with M240? I'm wondering if there's any known solutions for it? Or, do I have a faulty camera that needs to be serviced? This one has a warranty...
What's curious is that the lenses that do work are extreme opposites of the coded lens spectrum: factory vs. ebay replacement flange.
My current hypothesis is the paint. I think Leica didn't like the idea of people coding their own lenses so made the M240 reader fussy about the reflectivity of the paint in the wells. Of course, I can't see a difference in the reflectivity when I look at the "good" and "bad" lenses I have here. But, the reader uses IR, right?
rscheffler
Well-known
Occasionally my M240 won't read the coding of my lenses. My current rotation consists of Leica factory coded lens mounts, except one. The other is the new Voigtlander 35/1.7 which I've Sharpie coded, and the camera usually reads it fine.
Back when I was shooting the M9 I had frequent problems with it reading hand-coded (with Sharpie) Zeiss ZM lenses. I eventually determined most of the read failures occurred in bright light conditions and especially if direct sunlight was shining onto the lens mount interface where the reader is located. Blocking this area with my fingers while shooting would usually resolve the problem. While researching this I learned that others combatted this problem by using things such as hair scrunchies around the base of the lens.
Therefore I'm wondering if you've tried something like this already? If it resolves the problem, it would imply there are problems with light leaking into the lens mount, disrupting the reader.
Back when I was shooting the M9 I had frequent problems with it reading hand-coded (with Sharpie) Zeiss ZM lenses. I eventually determined most of the read failures occurred in bright light conditions and especially if direct sunlight was shining onto the lens mount interface where the reader is located. Blocking this area with my fingers while shooting would usually resolve the problem. While researching this I learned that others combatted this problem by using things such as hair scrunchies around the base of the lens.
Therefore I'm wondering if you've tried something like this already? If it resolves the problem, it would imply there are problems with light leaking into the lens mount, disrupting the reader.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
That shouldn't happen. Make sure your reader is clean and that the lenses (that is, if they are coded properly), are clean and bright as well.
Having said that, the M240 is less tolerant of misplaced hand-coding than previous models.
Having said that, the M240 is less tolerant of misplaced hand-coding than previous models.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
That depends. It will read them if coded properly. However, if the mechanical focal length readout does not match the coding, the lens will not be detected.
The lenses you cannot find in the manual lens menu are all lenses that have been coded from the factory anyway, so there is no need to list them.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Of course not. It is coded.
Having said that, coding on the M240 does very little. It adds the lens in EXIF and may do some vignetting correction on wideangle lenses, which is just as well done in postprocessing. There is absolutely no need to experiment with different settings.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
If you look carefully you'll see that the M240 reader strip is formed more precisely than the previous models. That means that sloppily milled or hand-coded lenses will not be read. Properly coded lenses will be read without problem. Of course one should use flat paint in precisely milled pits. It is a precision instrument. All post-2007 lenses are factory-coded and will be recognized.
I totally fail to see the rationale of selling the camera for that reason. On what camera do you use the lenses now? If another brand, does it recognize the lenses? Did you ever see a difference between a lens being recognized and not being recognized?
It is even more strange not bothering to do the job properly and blaming the tool...
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
OK, update.
First I want to say I understand and appreciate everyone's opinion regarding the M240 and lens coding. The camera is great, I just thought that a $6500 camera ought to read its lenses (remember, one of my non-detected lenses is a Leica coded lens).
I've been unconcerned about lenses 50mm and longer. The 35's and shorter can all be manually coded from the menus. I can say that if I forget to code the 21 Elmarit, the images have pretty decent vignetting.
Now the update. For one or two of my undetected lenses, I decided to experiment and see if I could improve the situation. I have used a few different paints now, and the 2 experimental lenses are detected. I used 2 different kinds of Testor's model paint, and I also used some spray paint that I sprayed onto a dish and then picked up with a toothpick to apply to the wells.
I don't know if it was the white paint, or the black paint, or which brand of paint, or if it requires all three paints. That's the next experiment. But until then, I have a day job...
Thank you everyone.
First I want to say I understand and appreciate everyone's opinion regarding the M240 and lens coding. The camera is great, I just thought that a $6500 camera ought to read its lenses (remember, one of my non-detected lenses is a Leica coded lens).
I've been unconcerned about lenses 50mm and longer. The 35's and shorter can all be manually coded from the menus. I can say that if I forget to code the 21 Elmarit, the images have pretty decent vignetting.
Now the update. For one or two of my undetected lenses, I decided to experiment and see if I could improve the situation. I have used a few different paints now, and the 2 experimental lenses are detected. I used 2 different kinds of Testor's model paint, and I also used some spray paint that I sprayed onto a dish and then picked up with a toothpick to apply to the wells.
I don't know if it was the white paint, or the black paint, or which brand of paint, or if it requires all three paints. That's the next experiment. But until then, I have a day job...
Thank you everyone.
Huss
Veteran
Some current lenses which are now coded are also available uncoded. Like the latest non apo Summicron 50, latest Elmarit 50 2.8 etc.
I was looking for a current coding Lux for my ZM 35 1.4. Ultimately it's not a huge deal, but it would be nice if Leica had it's inventory that could be set manually. Shooting in RAW i can select whatever lens coding I want in LR.
pyeh
Member of good standing
Jaapv, thanks for your kind concern, and your continued propensity to state the obvious. Huss has my point covered in that if you have a non-coded current production lens then you cannot enter a code for it.
I sold the M Typ 240 for a number of reasons, the code reading issue being only one of them. I continue to use my lenses on my M9s and Monochrom v1, which have no problem reading my home coded lenses.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
OK, another update for those out there who might be interested:
I did a couple of "experiments" to see what I could learn. It was educational and perhaps others will find it useful.
I decided to start with an LTM lens that has an adapter (LTM -> M) with coding pits milled in it. I believe I got this adapter from ebay (Chinese?) but its been a few years now, so don't remember the exact source.
The lens/adapter was not detected by my M240 at the beginning of my experiments.
BTW, the lens is a Canon 50/1.4 and I coded it as a summilux (100000). No need to explain to me that there's a difference in the performance of these lenses
I used Testor's brand model paint. The white is labeled just "White", and Black is "Flat Black". I put paint in the coding pits and waited for them to dry (goes quick right now with 90-100F heat and low humidity). Tried out the adapter/lens on the M240 and ----- no go.
So, I decided to really fill in the pits. I placed paint in each pit so that it "mounded" with surface tension. When the mounds dry, the paint collapses down into the pit. I waited for my first set of mounds to dry, then mounded again with more fresh paint. After the second mound dried, the pits were clearly "filled" with paint, not just colored. They still dried to be a bit sunken and not even with the surface of the flange.
Tried this lens/adapter on the M240 and ..... 1.4/50. Detected! Hmmm.
I am coming to the conclusion that the M240 is picky in both the precision of the milled pits (location, size and shape), and the quality of the paint filling them. I believe the white paint needs to be very reflective, in particular in the near infra-red range. The black paint needs to be the opposite. Flat Black is considered much more absorptive than Gloss Black (I think that's common knowledge). In fact, I think black Sharpie ink is somewhat reflective. I think this because of an experience I had coding for my M9 and M8. Back then, I remember trying to code a lens with a no-name black marker I found in the drawer. It didn't work no matter how much I tried to apply the ink. Then I found a Sharpie and applied that to the lens, and it worked. Interesting. However, over the years I've found that not all Sharpies will work for coding either. The thin-point black Sharpies would never work, no matter how much I applied ink. A brand new Sharpie I bought at the office supply store would not work, but my old Sharpie that I bought years ago would work fine for coding. I think this variation in coding success is related to variation in the reflectivity of inks.
To reinforce some of what I've learned, I did one last experiment with another LTM -> M adapter. Again, I attempted to code it for Summilux. That code has 5 white pits and one black pit. This time, I only applied mounds of black paint in the black pit and left the remaining pits "blank" (which would be a silver color). That did not get detected by the M240. OK, that's interesting. Then I put thin coats white paint in the blank pits and tried again. No detection. OK again. So now I mounded the white paint just like I did in the previous experiment described above......and it was detected (however, I did need to "jiggle" the lens to get it to detect. I think that's because of the precision of the frameline lug. I didn't get the 50 frameline without the jiggling either).
My conclusions: It seems quite possible to code lenses for M240. Its just harder than before with the M9 and M8. Parameters include: precision of the milled pits and frameline lug, paint type/characteristics, and paint quantity.
Now I'll leave with yet another consideration for folks interested in coding their own lenses. Replacement flanges vary in thickness, as do factory Leica flanges. If you want to retain focus accuracy, you will want to address this. I did so by measuring the thickness of my original flange and matching it to the thickness of the replacement flange (I have a micrometer, you'll need one too). This means ordering a few or several of the replacement flanges. If there's no match among the replacement flanges, I will use a thinner flange and shim it. However, this is not easy because the shim often needs to be quite thin. For example, a piece of typing paper was much too thick for my last lens coding attempt. Scotch tape is a little thinner and I eventually found a combination of replacement flange and Scotch tape that would work. Effort intensive, eh? I think I learned about Scotch tape from Brian S. who is quite a lens hacking genius.
I hope I've helped someone.
I did a couple of "experiments" to see what I could learn. It was educational and perhaps others will find it useful.
I decided to start with an LTM lens that has an adapter (LTM -> M) with coding pits milled in it. I believe I got this adapter from ebay (Chinese?) but its been a few years now, so don't remember the exact source.
The lens/adapter was not detected by my M240 at the beginning of my experiments.
BTW, the lens is a Canon 50/1.4 and I coded it as a summilux (100000). No need to explain to me that there's a difference in the performance of these lenses
I used Testor's brand model paint. The white is labeled just "White", and Black is "Flat Black". I put paint in the coding pits and waited for them to dry (goes quick right now with 90-100F heat and low humidity). Tried out the adapter/lens on the M240 and ----- no go.
So, I decided to really fill in the pits. I placed paint in each pit so that it "mounded" with surface tension. When the mounds dry, the paint collapses down into the pit. I waited for my first set of mounds to dry, then mounded again with more fresh paint. After the second mound dried, the pits were clearly "filled" with paint, not just colored. They still dried to be a bit sunken and not even with the surface of the flange.
Tried this lens/adapter on the M240 and ..... 1.4/50. Detected!
Hmmm. I am coming to the conclusion that the M240 is picky in both the precision of the milled pits (location, size and shape), and the quality of the paint filling them. I believe the white paint needs to be very reflective, in particular in the near infra-red range. The black paint needs to be the opposite. Flat Black is considered much more absorptive than Gloss Black (I think that's common knowledge). In fact, I think black Sharpie ink is somewhat reflective. I think this because of an experience I had coding for my M9 and M8. Back then, I remember trying to code a lens with a no-name black marker I found in the drawer. It didn't work no matter how much I tried to apply the ink. Then I found a Sharpie and applied that to the lens, and it worked. Interesting. However, over the years I've found that not all Sharpies will work for coding either. The thin-point black Sharpies would never work, no matter how much I applied ink. A brand new Sharpie I bought at the office supply store would not work, but my old Sharpie that I bought years ago would work fine for coding.
I think this variation in coding success is related to variation in the reflectivity of inks.To reinforce some of what I've learned, I did one last experiment with another LTM -> M adapter. Again, I attempted to code it for Summilux. That code has 5 white pits and one black pit. This time, I only applied mounds of black paint in the black pit and left the remaining pits "blank" (which would be a silver color). That did not get detected by the M240. OK, that's interesting. Then I put thin coats white paint in the blank pits and tried again. No detection. OK again. So now I mounded the white paint just like I did in the previous experiment described above......and it was detected (however, I did need to "jiggle" the lens to get it to detect. I think that's because of the precision of the frameline lug. I didn't get the 50 frameline without the jiggling either).
My conclusions: It seems quite possible to code lenses for M240.
Its just harder than before with the M9 and M8. Parameters include: precision of the milled pits and frameline lug, paint type/characteristics, and paint quantity. Now I'll leave with yet another consideration for folks interested in coding their own lenses. Replacement flanges vary in thickness, as do factory Leica flanges. If you want to retain focus accuracy, you will want to address this. I did so by measuring the thickness of my original flange and matching it to the thickness of the replacement flange (I have a micrometer, you'll need one too). This means ordering a few or several of the replacement flanges. If there's no match among the replacement flanges, I will use a thinner flange and shim it. However, this is not easy because the shim often needs to be quite thin. For example, a piece of typing paper was much too thick for my last lens coding attempt. Scotch tape is a little thinner and I eventually found a combination of replacement flange and Scotch tape that would work. Effort intensive, eh? I think I learned about Scotch tape from Brian S. who is quite a lens hacking genius.
I hope I've helped someone.
rscheffler
Well-known
That's interesting. You must have a picky M240 or the LTM flanges are slightly off.
The biggest coding related problem I have is using uncoded lenses in live view. Most of the time when I mount them, the camera will complain it can't detect a lens and won't activate live view. If I turn the camera off and on again, it works. If I remove that lens and replace it with a coded lens, then come back to it again, I have to repeat the cycle to get it to work...
The biggest coding related problem I have is using uncoded lenses in live view. Most of the time when I mount them, the camera will complain it can't detect a lens and won't activate live view. If I turn the camera off and on again, it works. If I remove that lens and replace it with a coded lens, then come back to it again, I have to repeat the cycle to get it to work...
Huss
Veteran
Can't you just turn off the coded reading feature in the menu?