New Light Lens Lab 35 1.4 Summilux AA!

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 23 Stunden schrieb Winedemonium:

... have visited this Red Dot Forum comparison of the 35AA and 35FLE more times than I would care to admit, and frankly I prefer the 35AA rendering, especially in the first comparison.

That's funny because it compares apples to oranges. Having one lens' profile selected in the camera's menu and the other's not doesn't make any sense. In particular, Josh Lehrer obviously doesn't understand what the digital in-camera lens correction does: It restores the lens own character, i. e. the way it would render on film, by removing the corruptions introduced by the sensor—namely, colour distortions ('Italian flag') and additional vignetting beyond the lens' own. So if you want 'the lens' true character be shown' (as Josh keeps saying) then on a digital M camera you have to select the lens' profile in the camera's menu, to enable the lens corrections. Otherwise you'll see the result of the collaboration of the lens and the sensor which is different from what you'd see from the same lens on film.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Gregm61]

A 35mm f1.4 FLE user here who opted, instead, to purchase a used, much more economical and mint/boxed 35mm f1.2 CV Nokton version III from Kevin Gandy at Cameraquest, LOL…

Edited July 24, 2023 by Gregm61

[Bronco McBeast]

Kevin Gandy?

Regarding the 35 lux asph (pre-fle), from the sheer look of the photos it produces, one can never say its “clinical”. It definitely has a “pre-asph” look to it, or for a better word: Vintage. 

The problem here is the Leica folklore being parroted from geberation to generation. People seem to forget that the ASPH stems directly form the AA, and its performance is extremely close, almost identical. That is its DNA.

As for the LLL copy, I could own it on a “it’s just a lens” basis, but never to replace Leica glass. There is no way in my life that I’ll end up with images shot with a chinese copy lens over my Leica glass  just because it’s cheaper, or a copy. I’m not selling out that easily, come on!

[pippy]

1 hour ago, Bronco McBeast said:

...There is no way in my life that I’ll end up with images shot with a chinese copy lens over my Leica glass  just because it’s cheaper, or a copy. I’m not selling out that easily...

This makes no sense. To what/whom would you be "selling out" were you to buy the LLL recreation of the 35mm f1.4 AA instead of buying a second-hand Leitz 35mm f1.4 AA?

Philip.

[Huss]

6 hours ago, pippy said:

This makes no sense. To what/whom would you be "selling out" were you to buy the LLL recreation of the 35mm f1.4 AA instead of buying a second-hand Leitz 35mm f1.4 AA?

Philip.

Shhh!  He's on a roll!

[Gregm61]

9 hours ago, Bronco McBeast said:

Kevin Gandy?

Yeah, my bad….Stephen…😬

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 7/24/2023 at 5:17 AM, 01af said:

That's funny because it compares apples to oranges. Having one lens' profile selected in the camera's menu and the other's not doesn't make any sense. In particular, Josh Lehrer obviously doesn't understand what the digital in-camera lens correction does: It restores the lens own character, i. e. the way it would render on film, by removing the corruptions introduced by the sensor—namely, colour distortions ('Italian flag') and additional vignetting beyond the lens' own. So if you want 'the lens' true character be shown' (as Josh keeps saying) then on a digital M camera you have to select the lens' profile in the camera's menu, to enable the lens corrections. Otherwise you'll see the result of the collaboration of the lens and the sensor which is different from what you'd see from the same lens on film.

The dedicated lens profiles don’t add distortion correction for some of the wide-angle lenses?

[Kwesi]

Ya Know, I was suspicious of the whole LLL outfit and their intentions when they first announced they were working on replicating the 35/8e. I figured they must be out for a quick buck and exploiting expired copyright protections to do so.

Since then, I have to say that their motives really do seem on the up and up. They are putting out lenses that most of us never got a chance to try out. And doing so at very reasonable prices.

Ive not bought one myself but hey more power to them for making optical copies of vintage lenses that photographers who prefer a particular look can afford to explore and use.

[Huss]

1 hour ago, Kwesi said:

Ya Know, I was suspicious of the whole LLL outfit and their intentions when they first announced they were working on replicating the 35/8e. I figured they must be out for a quick buck and exploiting expired copyright protections to do so.

Since then, I have to say that their motives really do seem on the up and up. They are putting out lenses that most of us never got a chance to try out. And doing so at very reasonable prices.

Ive not bought one myself but hey more power to them for making optical copies of vintage lenses that photographers who prefer a particular look can afford to explore and use.

Also what they are doing is making sure the internal dimensions are slightly different, so you cannot swap out bits from an LLL lens with the 'real thing'.  Basically preventing counterfeiting.

[01af]

Am 25.7.2023 um 17:13 schrieb Apochromat:

The dedicated lens profiles don’t add distortion correction for some of the wide-angle lenses?

No, they don't.

All they do is removing—or at least, mitigating—the faults introduced by the sensor when using lenses meant for use on film. That is, colour shifts ('Italian flag' syndrome) and additional vignetting (beyond the vignetting caused by the lens ifself). Ideally, an M lens used on a digital M camera with the lens profile corrections enabled will yield the same image (including all its intrinsic aberrations) as it would on film—no more, no less.

Lens profiles that come with raw converters (such as Adobe Camera Raw, Lightroom, Capture One, PhotoLab, etc.) may include distortion corrections. The Leica M in-camera lens profiles don't.

[mediumformula]

1 hour ago, Kwesi said:

 I figured they must be out for a quick buck and exploiting expired copyright protections to do so.

FWIW this is not a copyright issue.  There was probably a patent involved with the lens design that expired decades ago.  And they seem to be careful to avoid any trademark problems by not using any of Leica's trademarked names like "summilux." 

[Simone_DF]

On 7/24/2023 at 6:36 PM, pippy said:

This makes no sense. To what/whom would you be "selling out" were you to buy the LLL recreation of the 35mm f1.4 AA instead of buying a second-hand Leitz 35mm f1.4 AA?

Don't you know? Every time you buy a Chinese lens Andreas Kaufmann cries.

[pippy]

3 hours ago, mediumformula said:

FWIW this is not a copyright issue.  There was probably a patent involved with the lens design that expired decades ago.  And they seem to be careful to avoid any trademark problems by not using any of Leica's trademarked names like "summilux." 

LightLensLab are actively doing considerably more than the minimum required on the legal side of things

In case anyone is unaware...

When LLL reverse-engineered the 8 Element Summicron design they ensured that there were small - but important - differences in some of their lens' optics dimensions (usually diametrical sizes) as compared to the originals which means that no unscrupulous 'people' could interchange any of LLL's brand-new lens elements (and the like) into the body of a far more valuable five-decade-old original whose optics might well be suffering from fungus or haze.

Anyway; all of this 'circus' around LLL's 35mm '8-Element'; the 50mm ELCAN and the forthcoming 35mm AA Summilux merely fans the flames of the Leica Mystique even further - as if that were neccessary. Granted; at first glance it would seem that Herr Kaufmann et. cie. might not profit directly from these recreations but anything which raises the Legend of Leica has to be a good thing.

Philip.

Edited July 26, 2023 by pippy

[Simone_DF]

It’s funny how Leica can happily rebadge Sigma and Panasonic lenses and sell them at 3x the original price with the only addition of a red dot on the barrel, but if a customer decide to buy a Chinese lens, then the customer is a “sell out”, whatever that means. 

[rtai]

I was first to criticise LLL for unoriginality when the 8E copy was announced and now I own the Cooke reproduction. It’s a really good lens. The quality is top notch. I don’t have any of the others because I have plenty of 35mm or 50mm lenses but the Cooke is something unique.

[Huss]

6 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

It’s funny how Leica can happily rebadge Sigma and Panasonic lenses and sell them at 3x the original price with the only addition of a red dot on the barrel, but if a customer decide to buy a Chinese lens, then the customer is a “sell out”, whatever that means. 

The Leica Sofort was NOT a Fuji Instax at three times the price.  The Leica AF-C1 that I sold for $400 was NOT the exact same camera the Minolta Freedom Tele that you can buy for $20.

[Huss]

6 hours ago, rtai said:

I was first to criticise LLL for unoriginality when the 8E copy was announced and now I own the Cooke reproduction. It’s a really good lens. The quality is top notch. I don’t have any of the others because I have plenty of 35mm or 50mm lenses but the Cooke is something unique.

No issues w the central bluish flare patch from f8 and smaller that others have reported on?  LLL says it is due to internal reflections.

[rtai]

2 hours ago, Huss said:

No issues w the central bluish flare patch from f8 and smaller that others have reported on?  LLL says it is due to internal reflections.

I didn’t buy it to shoot at f8. There are better lenses for that. It’s a portrait lens meant to be shot at or near max aperture. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[frame-it]

On 7/27/2023 at 5:06 AM, Simone_DF said:

every time you buy a Chinese lens Andreas Kaufmann cries.

🤣 How do you know he hasn't licensed out the designs to LLL for a tonne of money? 🤣

Edited July 28, 2023 by frame-it

[Simone_DF]

5 hours ago, Huss said:

The Leica Sofort was NOT a Fuji Instax at three times the price. 

Do you mean that time when Fuji released a camera that looked like an expensive Leica and Leica released a camera that looked like a cheap Fuji?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!