M mount lens explosion!

[kivis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We all enjoy our Leica brand lenses. Like many others I have owned (and still do) Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses. Their quality is exceptional. But what's with all the other mostly Chinese made M mount lenses? Not tried any of these. Should I?

[Advertisement]

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

[pcgarner]

Reviews for several of the brands compare them favorably to originals. And the cost runs 80-90% less. 

[Warton]

I have some LLL lenses. Their quality is miles better than ttartisan or 7artisan, of course with the cost of price about 1/3 of leica’s counterparts, while others are a fraction of the cost 

[pippy]

1 hour ago, kivis said:

...Like many others I have owned...Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses. Their quality is exceptional. But what's with all the other mostly Chinese made M mount lenses? Not tried any of these. Should I?

The answer to that depends on a great many factors.

For a start it has to be stated that there is a large gulf between the cheaper Chinese lenses and those at the other end of the scale.

Products from the likes of 7Artisan tend to be cheap-and-cheerful and their fast lenses can render in a style sort-of similar to Leitz products of a similar spec but which will cost a tiny fraction - as in about 1/25th - of 'The Real Thing'. As an example a 7Artisan 50mm f1.1 can be had for approx. £280 / $350 whereas the cheapest similar fast Leica lens - the 50mm f1.2 recreation - costs c. £6,700 / $8,400. Similarly the 7Artisans 75mm f1.25 costs £380 / $480 whereas the Leica 75mm f1.25 Noctilux costs c. £11,000 / $13,800.

One problem (advantage if you look at it from a different viewpoint!) with 7Artisans lenses is that they might not work perfectly out of the box and could need to be calibrated to one's camera body. A small screwdriver; a test-chart and instructions for use are included in the box. Most buyers (from what has been reported here) do NOT need to adjust their lenses themselves.

A far more awkward issue, however (and I speak from personal experience), is that there can be problems with QC meaning that no matter how the lens is calibrated 'at-home' it might never be able to function perfectly at all apertures and at all focus-distances. From what I've read (here and elsewhere) these issues tend to crop-up more frequently in the early batches and those manufactured after the model has become - if you like - a 'mature product' seem to have had these issues resolved.

One (or more) step above 7Artisan is the simlarily-named TTArtisan. These are manufactured to a higher standard and there have been surprisingly few bad reports - relatively speaking - with their products. Some of their lenses are actually superb performers.

Going towards the top end of the scale are the lenses from Light Lens Lab. There are many threads here regarding their products and, again, almost all are favourable. LLL tend to issue 'Reverse-Engineered' recreations of famous lenses from the past and their optical design is as close to the originals as it is likely to achieve with modern glass types. So far they have released replicas of the original '8 Element' 35mm Summicron; the 50mm f2.0 ELCAN; the 50mm f2.0 'Cooke Speed Panchro 2' and the original 50mm f1.2 Noctilux. They have even released a version of the Speed Panchro 2 in a body which is a replica of the original 50mm f2.0 Summicron 'Rigid' (and I really would LOVE to have one of these!).

LLL lenses could hardly be called 'cheap' - they are all priced towards (or over) the $1,000 mark - but they are certainly cheap in comparison with the originals!

How good are these manufacturers IMX?

Considering the affordability of the lenses from 7Artisan you could hardly go wrong as long as there is a returns policy. A few years ago I bought one of their 50mm f1.1 in Black-Chrome and loved the way it rendered so much that I bought a second example in Silver-Chrome. OTOH I had one of their 75mm f1.25 lenses and it was sent back as being unusable. To be fair to 7A this example was from the very start of production; many users of the same lens here had no issues whatsoever.

As far as TTArtisans are concerned I have one of their 28mm f5.6 (Leica 28mm f5.6 Summaron Lookalikes) and rate it on a par with my 28mm Elmarit ASPH; it really is that good.

If you have a bit more spare cash floating around I would heartily recommend LLL's products. My own choice was their 35mm f2.0 'Summicron' 8 Element and it is absolutely wonderful in every possible way. It really is flawless. If you are interested in the LLL range here is a link to their lenses and accessories (no affiliation);

https://lightlenslab.ca/collections/all

Philip.

EDIT : This Thread is Useless Without Camera Porn!......😸......

LLL '8 Element' in Black Paint with the similarly finished IROOA replica hood - also from LLL - on the M-D Typ-262;

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!

EDIT Part Two : If you are interested to see how my other lenses (mentioned above) render then let me know; either here in the thread or by PM.

Edited April 11, 2024 by pippy

[84bravo]

The Chinese lenses such as 7A and TTArtisans are very good starting points to try some lenses one might not otherwise afford. The 7A 28mm f1.4 is outstanding and nearly as good as the Leica Summilux. I liked the 7A 28 so much that I ended up buying a 28 f1.4 Summilux. Same is true with the TT 50mm f1.4. It keeps up with the Summilux at a fraction of the cost.

To be fair, the Leica lenses are better. This can really be seen in build quality, but for the money they're built every bit as good as most Japanese lenses on the market. The two lenses I mentioned are stellar performers. The same cannot be said about all of the TT and 7A lenses. I found the 50mm f1.1 to be a novelty lens and not up to par, even stopped down. The TT 35mm f1.4 I found to be not sharp wide open. Maybe I got a bad sample, but it was unusable as far as I'm concerned.

[Mr.Prime]

When will one of these companies clone the M4 ?

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

48 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

When will one of these companies clone the M4 ?

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Red_Flag_20

[pippy]

26 minutes ago, TomB_tx said:

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Red_Flag_20

There was a rumour going round that Chairman Mao's wife had a hand in these being produced. I'll see if I can find it just out of curiosity.

Incidentally the same source pointed out that these cameras and lenses are worth FAR more than their Leica counterparts. I see that in the link you posted, Tom, one of the footnotes states;

"Red Flag 20 serial no. 73001 with all three lenses sold (Westlicht Auction) for 60 000 Euro"......and that was way back in 2014!

Philip.

[pippy]

46 minutes ago, pippy said:

There was a rumour going round that Chairman Mao's wife had a hand in these being produced. I'll see if I can find it just out of curiosity......

Found it.

This is the passage that I rembered having read;

"Mao's wife, Madam Jiang Qing was very keen on photography. She worked as an actress in Shanghai in 1930s and had several affairs with some stars of that period. During the Cultural Revolution, Madam Jiang Qing's role was mainly to control the art movement for the campaign's propaganda. Being loyal to Mao, she took a quite number of Mao's portraits and published them under different pseudo-names (Wu 2016). When the Iranian king visited China, he gave Leica M3 as a gift to Madam of Mao, and she adored immensely. Sooner, Jiang Qing ordered the copy production of Leica M3 and gave her M3 to Shanghai Camera Factory as a template..."

Here is the link to the relevant page;

https://kimon.hosting.nyu.edu/physical-electrical-digital/items/show/1241

Looking at the camera shown in this link does anyone else suspect that like Leica copied the plan-shape of the top-plate as well as the window relief-profile of the Red Flag 20 for the design of their M5?.......😺......

Philip.

EDIT : Before any lawsuits start to fly I should point out that I wasn't exactly being 100% serious at the end of that post......😸......

Edited April 11, 2024 by pippy

[John Robinson]

I have the TTArtisan M 35/1.4 ASPH.  For the money (about 1/10th the price of the Leica lens that it looks uncannily similar to) it is an excellent lens.  I have used it wide-open and stopped down on film and digital and had some very good results.  If I was looking for other M-lenses (not at present), I would certainly try some of the other TTArtisan range.

I previously had some of the Voigtlander 40s and found them to be unobjectionable but rather bland and much preferred the Summicron-C 40 when I managed to find one at a reasonable price (maybe not any more unfortunately).

The Zeiss M-range has some excellent choices.

It's never been a better time to be looking for good M-mount lenses.

[FrozenInTime]

It could be argued that the whole retro M  lens movement was started by Miyazaki Sadayasu’s MS Optics.

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/overview-ms-optics-lenses/

These are small batch, reimagined classic lens formulae, each housed in uniquely minimalist mechanical designs.

I am happy to be able to use the 50/1.1 Sonnetar and 35/1.4 Apoqualia.

Not for everyday use, but lots of speed and character.

I also have the 28/2 Apoqualia and 35/3.5 Perar ; these are almost impractically small !

 

Edited April 11, 2024 by FrozenInTime

[spydrxx]

Kivis - the question of whether you should try some of the Chinese lenses is a conundrum. Can't tell you whether you should or shouldn't - that depends on several factors. Many mentioned above, but also, what is missing from your current bag? If you are looking to fill a spot, or just add another lens to your collection for fun, some of these lenses may fit the bill. I was initially hesitant to try some of them, but being a fan of several Japanese lenses, decided to give a couple a try, and was pleasantly surprised. Are they Leica quality - IMHO no, but some of them may last you a number of years, probably not a century. Their characteristics, IMHO, also seem somewhat dependent on whether you are usnig them for film or digital...personal enjoyment and internet posting, smallish prints or massive exhibition prints. If your pockets are flush with cash, why not give a couple a try...you might like them.

[Mr.Prime]

we all know there have been knock offs of the M3 in the past, and the Barnacks and the Russian one's go on ePay pretty cheap. 

But given that the Chinese lens makers have the ability to make good quality optics I assume that a range finder optical assembly is well within their grasp and that's the hard part - so why not a good M4 clone to modern standards at Chinese prices, to go with all those good lenses ?  Perhaps the market is just too tiny - all those good lenses are going onto digital cameras.

Edited April 12, 2024 by Mr.Prime
capitalize B

[newtoleica]

The Venus Dreamer 15mm f2. Is a very good ultra wide for the money. Ideal for astrophotography. Very niche for me, but at the price it finds a place on suitable trips.

[dpitt]

14 hours ago, Warton said:

I have some LLL lenses. Their quality is miles better than ttartisan or 7artisan, of course with the cost of price about 1/3 of leica’s counterparts, while others are a fraction of the cost 

After trying some TTArtisan lenses, for both M and L mount, I concluded that they are not worth my time and money. Yes, you can make images with them, and they can even get images that are sharp and not too bad looking at first sight. But apart from possible build quality issues, the images all feel emotionless and artificial to me. I have a lot of vintage Leica lenses, some  (LTM) can even be had cheaper than these Chinese ones, and all of them are superior on this point to the cheap TTArtisan lenses that I tried.

I was always pleased with the Voigtlander lenses that I tried, and even the old Nikon and Canon LTM lenses feel like they are worth the money. I would recommend trying theses if you want to find a keeper. OTOH one of these Chinese lenses can be fine to start using your new (to you) Leica M while waiting for availability or budget for a better lens. Although I think there is a danger that you will dismiss the M system  because the Leica 'magic' might have difficulty shining through, and that would be a shame.

YMMV

15 hours ago, pcgarner said:

Reviews for several of the brands compare them favorably to originals. And the cost runs 80-90% less. 

It is hard to qualify image quality in percentages. From my experience I found that you get more or less what you pay for. Alternatives like vintage Leica, Voigtlander, Canon and Nikon pleased me much more than these brand new modern lenses, and some can be had at similar prices.

 

14 hours ago, pippy said:

The answer to that depends on a great many factors.

For a start it has to be stated that there is a large gulf between the cheaper Chinese lenses and those at the other end of the scale.

...

A far more awkward issue, however (and I speak from personal experience), is that there can be problems with QC meaning that no matter how the lens is calibrated 'at-home' it might never be able to function perfectly at all apertures and at all focus-distances. From what I've read (here and elsewhere) these issues tend to crop-up more frequently in the early batches and those manufactured after the model has become - if you like - a 'mature product' seem to have had these issues resolved.

One (or more) step above 7Artisan is the simlarily-named TTArtisan. These are manufactured to a higher standard and there have been surprisingly few bad reports - relatively speaking - with their products. Some of their lenses are actually superb performers.

Going towards the top end of the scale are the lenses from Light Lens Lab. There are many threads here regarding their products and, again, almost all are favourable. LLL tend to issue 'Reverse-Engineered' recreations of famous lenses from the past and their optical design is as close to the originals as it is likely to achieve with modern glass types. So far they have released replicas of the original '8 Element' 35mm Summicron; the 50mm f2.0 ELCAN; the 50mm f2.0 'Cooke Speed Panchro 2' and the original 50mm f1.2 Noctilux. They have even released a version of the Speed Panchro 2 in a body which is a replica of the original 50mm f2.0 Summicron 'Rigid' (and I really would LOVE to have one of these!).

LLL lenses could hardly be called 'cheap' - they are all priced towards (or over) the $1,000 mark - but they are certainly cheap in comparison with the originals!

....

I think LLL will provide a very different experience, and I definitely want to try them some day. Problem is that they are relatively expensive and relatively rare on the used market (good indication of their quality) so they are in direct competition with some very nice vintage options...

[250swb]

I like the new Chinese lenses and I'm not particularly poor or a beginner.

 

 

[pippy]

4 hours ago, dpitt said:

...I think LLL will provide a very different experience, and I definitely want to try them some day. Problem is that they are relatively expensive and relatively rare on the used market so they are in direct competition with some very nice vintage options...

Funny, Dirk, that you should mention the 'Vintage Option'.

Not long before I acquired my LLL 8 Element - and before I even knew of its existence - I had been half-heartedly on the lookout for an original. I had recently looked at three examples, being offered by well-known London dealers, which were priced reasonably (all things considered) but each one had age-related flaws in their optics which was not a great surprise as they were all around 50 years old.  All had scratches (ranging from minor to 'medium') on their front elements and all had haze to a lesser or greater extent.

Then two things happened. The first was that I read a thread in the Forum which was started by Al Brown where he (and, later in the thread, Shirubadanieru) compared an original Leica 8 Element with the LLL version. His conclusions were as facinating as they were illuminating. The second was that just three weeks after I had read the thread - and purely by chance - I came across a s/h 'New In Box' example of the LLL - again; in a London dealership - and tried it out for myself. I didn't hesitate.

My reasoning was as follows. The Leitz 8 Element lenses which would be priced to be used (rather than as a 'Collectible') would almost certainly be showing their age in some way; whether that might be merely cosmetically or, worse, optically. OTOH I could buy the LLL which was, in effect, a brand new lens with the same performance. From those Leitz lenses which I had been considering the best of those was five times the price of the LLL and it still wasn't as clean in terms of its optics. How could it be?

To make things perfectly clear I have absolutely nothing against buying and using old lenses; quite the contrary. Two of my three most used lenses these days are a 1974 35mm Summilux and a 1953 50mm f1.5 Summarit (oddly enough I had acquired the 35mm v2 just 2 months before I bought the LLL).

If anyone is interested in reading through Al's thread here is the relevant link;

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/326477-summicron-352-8-element-vs-light-lens-lab-352-a-direct-comparison/#comment-4312043

Philip.

Edited April 12, 2024 by pippy

[Borna]

The title scared me little

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Danner]

I would be more interested in a Chinese M-mount film body for my Leica lenses than I am for Chinese lens to fit my Leica film body.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, Danner said:

I would be more interested in a Chinese M-mount film body for my Leica lenses than I am for Chinese lens to fit my Leica film body.

Are the Chinese M-mount bodies really that good?

Philip.

Edited April 12, 2024 by pippy