Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/04/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]A couple of years back, I had the mounts of two Zeiss M lenses modified for me by John Milich. His work was first rate, fast (including international transits) and reasonable. If all that you want is the mount modified, I recommend him highly. He is a machinist *par excellence.* If you do want to have a lens (especially an expensive Leica lens) actually cleaned, lubricated and adjusted and/or focus actually measured and adjusted then you need to use someone that does a good job of that. Independents such as Sherry Krauter or DAG certainly have great reputations. Three of my lenses went to Germany (one for coding) over a few years, all came back executed very well. Same for three of mine that have been to Camera Clinic in Australia. As Tina mentioned, if your lens is in need of a CLA then coding can be done at the same time for some savings I guess. Cheers Geoff http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman On 2 April 2014 13:46, Nathan Wajsman <photo at frozenlight.eu> wrote: > I had one lens done by John Milich (sp) for $125 or something like that, > and it worked perfectly. I would not dream of paying Leica prices for this > service. In any event, I have concluded that it does not matter and do not > intend to have any lens coded unless it already comes coded (like my 35mm). > > Cheers, > Nathan > > On 2 Apr 2014, at 03:45, Tina Manley <images at comporium.net> wrote: > > > I would think adding an off brand mount might affect the critical > focusing > > distance of the lenses? Mine needed cleaning, lubricating, and adjusting > > anyway. I don't regret paying Leica to do it. > > > > Tina > > > > On Tuesday, April 1, 2014, Frank Filippone <red735i at verizon.net> > > wrote: > >> It was $300 last time I checked..... > >> > >> If you buy the mount from EBay, then send the lens to DAG for > collimation, > >> it costs you less than $150..... > >> > >> Frank Filippone > >> Red735i at verizon.net > >> > >> I have sent four of my lenses to Leica to be coded. It's expensive > (it's > >> Leica!!) but I have had no problems with recognition on the M9, MM, or > > M240. > >> I plan to send the rest in, three at a time, until I have them all > coded. > >> They need to be CLA-ed, anyway! > >> > >> Tina > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:18 AM, <grduprey at mchsi.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Frank, this works for most M lenses, but there are a few that this > >>> will not work, such as the 35 Pre-Asph Summilux, which has a totally > >>> different mount which is part of the lens body. But this method is > >>> certainly the best of the after market methods. So to those wanting > >>> to do this, make sure your lens mount can be removed easily before > > jumping > >> down this path. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Gene > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Frank Filippone" <red735i at verizon.net> > >>> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 12:47:47 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central > >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Inconsistent lens detection on M 8 > >>> > >>> Ditch the Sharpie.... for $20-30 you can buy a new lens mount for your > >>> lens, with pre-scribed coding already machined. Buy a $10 set of > >>> screwdrivers, a bottle of black nail polish/paint, a few toothpicks > >>> and you are off to the races. > >>> > >>> Does the new mount properly, let it dry. Remove the 4 screws that > >>> hold the old mount in place, replace the mount, put 3 screws back > in.... > >>> > >>> Places on Ebay sell the mounts..... > >>> > >>> Frank Filippone > >>> Red735i at verizon.net > >>> > >>> > >>> Gene, I am using a Sharpie fine point marker and a kit called Coder > >>> Kit made by Match Technical. > >>> > >>> I am just getting around to coding my lenses. I am getting > >>> inconsistent results. My 28mm f2.8 and 50mm f2.8 show up fine but my > >>> 50mm f2 and Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 and 12mm f5.6 are not detected. A > >>> Voigtlander 35mm > >>> f1.7 was not detected on the first shot but detected on the second. > >>> Any ideas why the inconsistency? richard > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Leica Users Group. > >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Leica Users Group. > >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Tina Manley > >> http:// <http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com/>www.tinamanley.com > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Tina Manley > > http:// <http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com/>www.tinamanley.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > Nathan Wajsman > Alicante, Spain > http://www.frozenlight.eu > http://www.greatpix.eu > > Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0 > PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws > Image licensing: http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=wajsman > Blog: > http://www.nathansmusings.eu/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >