super wide lenses on the leica m-e

[Out to Lunch]

With the use of the Voigtlander super wide heliar 4.5/15 and the Zeiss distagon 4/18 on the Leica M-E, do you engage the auto lens selection function or do you select a Leica lens from the menu closest to these two, i.e. the Leica 21mm?

 

[Out to Lunch]

It's a simple question or are there no more Leica M users on this site?

 

[Mackinaw]

For any lens that is not 6-bit coded, I manually select the lens I’m using from the menu (on my M-240).

Jim b.

 

[Gregm61]

The main reason I like selecting a lens profile is, having the proper focal length listed in the EXIF data. There is no such setting for lenses like the 15 or 18mm superwide primes. Besides coding the lens in the EXIF data it auto corrects to an extent the corner shading for that particular Leica lens, but not always entirely. The 21mm f2.8 non-ASPH profile works fairly well with the Voigtlander 21mm f1.8.

The beauty of digital is, you can see at once what the coding is doing with your lenses, so try it with the 21mm setting and also as "uncoded". I'm betting you don't see enough of a difference to make a difference, so save yourself the step of having to make sure a lens is coded every time you change lenses. I forget to change the code about have the time anyway. There are images in my M9 folders that say 50mm when it's pretty darn obviously it was the 21mm f2.8 ASPH I used, etc, etc.

 

[Nick R.]

I coded my 4.5/15 Voigtlander as a Tri-Elmar and choose 16mm from the menu.

 

[Huss]

I use the Leica Super Elmar 18mm Asph. It's 6 bit coded but doesnt the menu have that option to set it manually? Sorry, my digital M is not with me at the moment to check.

 

[ajramirez]

I manually select the 21mm ASPH from the menu when using my 18mm Distagon. It's nearly unusable (at least for color) otherwise.

 

[Huss]

Just checked my M240. There is no 18 selection. But there is a 16-18-21 as others have mentioned, so I would pick that and choose whichever focal length is appropriate.

 

[jaapv]

Lenses that only exist in a six-bit version are not in the manual selection list -obviously. For third-party lenses select the lens that gives the best correction. That does not have to be - often is not- a lens with the same focal length. In many cases the Elmarit 21 pre-asph works best, but you need to experiment.

 

[rscheffler]

If it's the latest version of the 15/4.5, then IMO, you're better off not applying any 'nearest Leica code' to it. At least on the M240 it works pretty much perfectly uncoded. There is no noticeable colour shift, which is very much opposite the behaviour of the previous version. It may work slightly differently on the M9/M-E, so would be something to test before doing any serious work with it.

 

[Rob-F]

I coded my 4.5/15 Voigtlander as a Tri-Elmar and choose 16mm from the menu.

That's what I do on my M8.2

Edit: To be clear, I can't "select" anything on the M8.2. I code the lens for the Tri-Elmar, using a sharpie with the coding kit. I might add that my M8.2 seems to have a mind of its own. From among the three options, it "selects" the 18mm one for me. So be it; it is probably close enough.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I coded my 4.5/15 Voigtlander as a Tri-Elmar and choose 16mm from the menu.

That's what I do on my M8.2

+1 for this approach with an M9 -- but I select the setting from the camera's drop down menu rather than code the lens. The Tri-Elmar 16mm setting works pretty well with a C/V 15mm lens for me. You will still get some fall-off at the corners, but I can live with it.

 

[jaapv]

Actually the corrections for the WATE are identical for all three focal lengths.

 

[Nick R.]

+1 for this approach with an M9 -- but I select the setting from the camera's drop down menu rather than code the lens. The Tri-Elmar 16mm setting works pretty well with a C/V 15mm lens for me. You will still get some fall-off at the corners, but I can live with it.

The 'Light Falloff' slider in Capture One works well for this problem.

 

[Gregm61]

Yes, a similar slider tool in the lens correction window of Adobe Camera raw can similarly cure raw files captured with uncoded lenses.

Unless one is shooting JPEG, as far as I can see, the primary benefit of coding is having the focal length listed in the EXIF data, and that's a good enough reason for me. I do not have a photographic memory as to what lens I have used for every shot. Some are obvious just looking at the file, others, not so much...

 

[Nick R.]

Yes, a similar slider tool in the lens correction window of Adobe Camera raw can similarly cure raw files captured with uncoded lenses.

Unless one is shooting JPEG, as far as I can see, the primary benefit of coding is having the focal length listed in the EXIF data, and that's a good enough reason for me. I do not have a photographic memory as to what lens I have used for every shot. Some are obvious just looking at the file, others, not so much...

My lens is coded and I still use the slider on my raw files. I've never used or recorded a jpeg to know how they'd look.