clicker
Well-known
I am considering buying an M8 or 8.2 and using my Zeiss 35 2.0 and 50mm 2.0 uncoded on the body.Any thoughts on these combinations and is coding worth the extra expense.
Thanks
Thanks
jky
Well-known
...not a 35 or 50, but my old 28 Biogon had no issues...
meven
Well-known
I have the Planar 50, Sonnar 50 and used to have the Biogon 21/2.8 and never had any problems with them on the M8. I hand coded them myself with the coder kit.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Maxime: how are you liking the Sonnar? That is a recent acquisition, isn't it?
Cilcker: ZM lenses on the M8 are fabulous for color and it is so easy to have John Milich mill the flange, you should just do it for the 35 (not necessary for the 50).
clicker, I have used the ZM 18, 25, 2/35, and 2/50 uncoded on my M8; these lenses are excellent and the results were impressive... optically at least, no so sure about the artistic merits! The widest three are off at DAG Camera Repair being coded and focus-checked. I also have the 4.5/21mm, which upon ordering it I had the store ship directly to John Milich for coding. Great lens; small, sharp with character, but on the slow side.
The coding is useful in adding focal length info to the EXIF data in the photo, plus of course in assisting the camera computer in making corrections to corner light fall-off, and to the cyan corner fringing caused by use of the IR cut filter. These issues can alternatively be taken care of in post processing using CornerFix software.
You can also use the lenses without the coding or cut filter. This is what I did at first. But there were too many instances where the IR sensitivity was a problem for color results. Some are of the opinion the IR content actually improves the look of B&W conversions. But information suggests that sharpness suffers without the IR cut filter because with non-apochromatic lenses the infrared is focused at a different plane than visible light, slightly fuzzing the image. Worth trying, though, both color and B&W, to see for yourself.
I have tried the hand-coding too, and this is a fine temporary way to see what coding does, even trying different codes, but with lens-changing the marker ink rubs off.
The coding is useful in adding focal length info to the EXIF data in the photo, plus of course in assisting the camera computer in making corrections to corner light fall-off, and to the cyan corner fringing caused by use of the IR cut filter. These issues can alternatively be taken care of in post processing using CornerFix software.
You can also use the lenses without the coding or cut filter. This is what I did at first. But there were too many instances where the IR sensitivity was a problem for color results. Some are of the opinion the IR content actually improves the look of B&W conversions. But information suggests that sharpness suffers without the IR cut filter because with non-apochromatic lenses the infrared is focused at a different plane than visible light, slightly fuzzing the image. Worth trying, though, both color and B&W, to see for yourself.
I have tried the hand-coding too, and this is a fine temporary way to see what coding does, even trying different codes, but with lens-changing the marker ink rubs off.
meven
Well-known
The sonnar is great, amazing bokeh and colour rendition but the focussing issue at f1.5 is very annoying!!!! I still can't decide which one I prefer between the Sonnar and the Planar, they are both amazing. I used the Planar during my trip to Taipei over CNY and it was excellent, even in low light situation.
Last edited:
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Send the lens back to Cosina in Tokyo (or Zeiss in Oberkochen) and have them adjust it for f/1.5 . I've been very happy with mine since the adjustment.
This may not help, Maxime, but you know both can coexist in the same bag
I, too, liked the Planar and now miss its charcoal sketch-like smoothness and contrast, but it had to go to make funds for a 75/2. Still have one in C/Y mount.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Exactly what I've done with my 50mm f2 Planar. It works a treat on the M8 as a portrait lens, even a general lens if you don't mind standing back a bit!
I've hand coded my v4 35mm Summicron, the Planar and my 28mm Ultron, all of which I have to redo from time to time but it works and its very cheap, I also don't have to go without my lenses for weeks or months.
Photon42
burn the box
I use the 35 Biogon coded as Summicron 35. Works very well. Coding may not be strictly necessary. Use a UVIR filter in any case. And then there's still Cornerfix. It de-vignettes and get rids of the color cast by using a profile image (can be created yourself).
Cheers
Ivo
Cheers
Ivo
Tom Niblick
Well-known
I didn't code either of my 35s. I just have not seen cyan corners on this focal length. Of course, I have not shot a perfectly even white wall to test. I did have my ZM 21 Biogon coded and adjusted by DAG.
Tom
Tom