Codes for 50/1.4 Nikkor, 50/1.2 Canon?

Dante_Stella

Dante_Stella

Rex canum cattorumque
Local time
8:48 AM
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
1,862
I take it the Nikkor should be coded as a 50/1.4 Summilux - but is the Canon better as a Summilux (100000) or a Noctilux (011111)?
 
Do we know what all the different bits do yet? Are they lens specific (has leica duplicated any) or are they specific to a set of properties?

B2 (;->
 
They are specific to certain models of lenses and translate into decimal codes 1-64. Zero is no code. Those codes trigger corrections by the firmware.
 
I understand binary very well, I coded assembler on Mainframe and CICS for several years.

I am wondering if Leica has assigned codes to specific lens "Looks" or if they are codes for a lens. We might be able to tell this by checking the current lenses to see if any have the same codes. Are there codes for older lenses and then if we look at what lenses Leica codes as what we might be able to figure out what each of the 1 or 0s mean. All zeros means not coded, so what is the difference between 00000001 and 00000010 and 00000011 other than 1, 2 or 3?

B2 (;->
 
The codes just point to a table containing the specific lenses.
You can find all codes on Carsten Whimster's webpage:

http://www.digital-leica.com/lens_codes/index.html

I would code both lenses as a Summilux 50, not as a Noctilux. That lens has far more vignetting than the two mentioned, leading to overcorrection.
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
I would code both lenses as a Summilux 50, not as a Noctilux. That lens has far more vignetting than the two mentioned, leading to overcorrection.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to be pedantic, but I want to clarify your statement: you mean that the Noctilux has far more vignetting, right? Since I have no direct experience with the Noctilux, but have only seen photos taken with it wide open, I just want to confirm that.

Now, there are two different codings for the "Summilux": pre-asph E46, and the ASPH. I'm not quite sure which one of those two exhibit more light fall-off wide open, since the shots I've seen taken with both show similar fall-off (aka "vignetting").

Anybody out there with a before/after comparison of shots wide-open taken with a 50mm Summilux (either) coded?
 
A related technical question:

The Nikkor has strong vignetting wide open at longer distances
(say, 3m and up). This disappears when closing down half a stop or so.

How does the Noctilux behave depending on the distance ?

Thanks,

Roland.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
I don't mean to be pedantic, but I want to clarify your statement: you mean that the Noctilux has far more vignetting, right? Since I have no direct experience with the Noctilux, but have only seen photos taken with it wide open, I just want to confirm that.

Now, there are two different codings for the "Summilux": pre-asph E46, and the ASPH. I'm not quite sure which one of those two exhibit more light fall-off wide open, since the shots I've seen taken with both show similar fall-off (aka "vignetting").

Anybody out there with a before/after comparison of shots wide-open taken with a 50mm Summilux (either) coded?
Click to expand...

I would choose the pre-asph, but one must realize that the corrections are specific for Leica lenses. It will pay to experiment. Try a lens, remove the paint, try another coding, etc.... The only limitation is that one must stay within the parameter of the frameline selection by the mount (although there is a little trick that can bring up 28/90 on any lens, irrespective of mount)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom