LLL got competition

[Elliot Harper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What do you think about this

https://myfunleader.com/products/aritzlab-classic-35mm-f-1-4-for-m-lens
 

Price seems right to me. LLL got cocky these days jacking up the price significantly.

This Aritzlab looks a lot like LLL a few years ago when they debuted 35mm 8e

[Advertisement]

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

[Lee S]

Looks absolutely beautiful, I hope it performs as intended for the price.

Only wish list is a 0.7m focus distance!

id be tempted if I didn’t already own the 35mm Nokton Classic 

Edited January 21 by Lee S

[Elliot Harper]

There are couple of reviews on YouTube but they are all in mandarin.

I went through this one basically he says the center resolution is better than the original v2 and the knockoff is also more contrasty.

It’s a more modern version as opposed to faithful copy of the original.

It’s also lighter because it’s made of aluminum instead of brass.

I feel at this price point ($450 after all the discount) it’s worth to try it out.

 

38 minutes ago, Lee S said:

Looks absolutely beautiful, I hope it performs as intended for the price.

Only wish list is a 0.7m focus distance!

id be tempted if I didn’t already own the 35mm Nokton Classic 

 

[Alberti]

Yes, 100cm minimum focus would be a bummer, that was only needed for some bodies at that time. And the 'faithfull' copying of the series 7 UV is not great imho either. Both could have been "improved" and modernized.

For the rest the pictures look nice from a distance (at that resolution that is of the internet page); but also the 'style' of the chosen examples sort of mimics the mediocre artistic preferences of the Lomography company that looked novel 15 years ago. 

Is it tempting to try out with my style? Sure, I have a lot of experience with the KOB. Even though there the background 'elevation into chaos' occurs at F2.0 which artitically might be nicer or better fitting with the sensitive digital sensors.

 

[Almizilero]

At this price I might consider breaking my one lens per focal length rule and just get one.

Edited January 21 by Almizilero

[Elliot Harper]

19 minutes ago, Alberti said:

Yes, 100cm minimum focus would be a bummer, that was only needed for some bodies at that time. And the 'faithfull' copying of the series 7 UV is not great imho either. Both could have been "improved" and modernized.

For the rest the pictures look nice from a distance (at that resolution that is of the internet page); but also the 'style' of the chosen examples sort of mimics the mediocre artistic preferences of the Lomography company that looked novel 15 years ago. 

Is it tempting to try out with my style? Sure, I have a lot of experience with the KOB. Even though there the background 'elevation into chaos' occurs at F2.0 which artitically might be nicer or better fitting with the sensitive digital sensors.

 

I agree the biggest drawback is 1 meter MFD and the weird series 7 UV implementation. This kind of faithful replica just doesn't make sense in the modern world.

It's hard to see the rest of pictures posted on their website to pixel peep the details, the color is also tuned and way more saturated than natural, I think these two mediocre photographers just want to create something "special" to make the point for this lens.

Nevertheless, $450 doesn't hurt to try, and I am probably going to order one to have fun. In today's Leica's standard, $450 doesn't even make to a nice accessory like grip or case.

When I get it, I will report back with some pictures.

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why so many try to copy the “outdated” or “classical” Leica lenses, instead of building modern and better ones?

Edited January 21 by Einst_Stein

[Elliot Harper]

36 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Why so many try to copy the “outdated” or “classical” Leica lenses, instead of building modern and better ones?

They want a free ride is one thing. Building one on the fame of a legacy with second hand market price to thousands even tens of thousands is pretty nice.

And then they don’t want to infringe the patents to replicate a modern one.

 

Edited January 21 by Elliot Harper

[TomB_tx]

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

Why so many try to copy the “outdated” or “classical” Leica lenses, instead of building modern and better ones?

Many of us prefer the legacy designs to the more complex modern lenses. Some, like the LLL 8 element seem to be the equal of the Leitz-made version. The low prices make it worth the risk to try, and Leica is only making a couple of the older designs, so the well-made copies are welcome.

[pippy]

I can't understand why they didn't allow for a regular E39 screw-in filter.

Yes; I am very aware that the 12504 hood with series VII filters has certain advantages in actual use and, yes, it's far more of an 'Homage' if they wished to replicate the original but still; I'm fairly sure they could have kept the 12504 / Series VII option as well as tapping the lens with an E39 thread.

Having said all that I'm pretty sure the lens will be an absolute beauty and I hope that it is a roaring success. Fantastic to see that they have gone for the v1 - v2 Transition Version with the 'thumb-nail / crescent-moon' infinity-lock. I'm almost tempted to get one for that feature alone...

Philip.

Edited January 21 by pippy

[Einst_Stein]

My question is more toward the buyers than to the sellers. 
Why the buyers are easier attracted to these copy cats than a real modern stuffs? 
Stupid? 

[Nie wieder]

5 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

My question is more toward the buyers than to the sellers. 
Why the buyers are easier attracted to these copy cats than a real modern stuffs? 
Stupid? 

Price, of course. 

[yorda@]

It’s getting out of hand 

https://www.artralab.hk/products/artralab-similar-steel-rim-35mm-f1-4-full-frame-m-mount
 

And 

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!

[pippy]

10 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

My question is more toward the buyers than to the sellers. 
Why the buyers are easier attracted to these copy cats than a real modern stuffs? 
Stupid? 

Even leaving 'Price' to one side I can think of a couple of reasons why people might chose a 'Summilux Clone' over other modern offerings.

For a start the 35 Summilux and its clones are noticeably smaller than most of the current 35mm f1.4 options and for many photographers - myself included - the small size is greatly appreciated.

To give a few examples of the difference in sizes; my '74 v2 Summilux is 28mm long (from flange) and weighs 184g. The same respective dimensions for the current Leica Summilux are 46mm and 338g. For the Zeiss f1.4 Distagon the figures are 65mm and 381g; i.e. the Distagon is over twice the length and twice the mass of the v2(!). The only (AFAIK) current lens - apart from those under discussion - which is around the same, size-wise, as the v2 Summilux is the Voigtlander Nokton v2. It is a lovely lens (itself almost a Summilux clone) but suffers from rather pronounced barrel distortion.

A second reason might be the wish to have a more 'vintage-style' rendering which is a well-known feature of the older optical design of these lenses. It is fairly obvious, from having read so many comments posted here in the M Lens subforum, that the main attraction which the old Summilux has is its ability to go from 'Glowy and Dreamy' when used wide open to 'as sharp as could be needed' when stopped-down.

The Steel-Rim and v2-style clones are also attractive visually-speaking so that might also play a part.

If we were to consider why a potential buyer might opt to choose a Summilux clone over a 'genuine' vintage Summilux - again leaving price out of things - I would imagine that the fact that they would be buying a brand-new lens with unmarked optics would be a significant factor. Add in that the lens would be known to be completely unmolested and that would be another 'Tick' in the box for the Clone.

I was very fortunate in that my v2 - which was bought from a very well-known London dealership and, therefore, came with a full warranty - had perfectly clean optics but I realise that there will be many of these older lenses where this might not be the situation.

Philip.

[Alberti]

IMHO it is not about perfection (all over) but about presentation. The way the OOF area sort of pushed the subject into the frame.

That peace lens at least has a better display of the lens (the elements shine and you see the colour of the coating, promissing a certain quality. What if that there is a company that make stock lenses for others to brand? Then that is the business model. [And someone wrote on that unreliable Reddit  that when negative reviews come in they switch to a new name. . ]

And yes, if the signature is the most important, if you say for safety and peace of mind, I'ld agree : go Nokton Classic ??.

(Although that Classic is smoother . . and having had the KOB I want that specific signature back without the high cost (I traded the KOB for the Summilux FLE . . . 😘)  I'll give a KOB example.

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!

Edited January 22 by Alberti

[pippy]

21 minutes ago, Alberti said:

...if the signature is the most important, if you say for safety and peace of mind, I'ld agree : go Nokton Classic ??...

Nice Pic!

Oddly enough the 35mm f1.4 Nokton was the very first lens I was going to buy after I acquired my M8-2 many years ago but, having read as much as I could find on the way the lens rendered, I knew that I wouldn't be able to live with the amount of distortion inherent in its design.

Obviously the M8.2 has a cropped sensor so what I was searching for was a lens that would replicate roughly the same angle of view as a 50mm lens. Considering the options open I was drawn towards the 40mm f1.4 Nokton which had nothing like the same amount of distortion as did the 35mm Nokton. The difference in effective focal-length was not great - the 35 would be 3mm shorter than a 50 whereas the 40 would be 3mm longer - and I reasoned that by the time I had cropped-into an image shot with the 35mm the result would be almost exactly what the 40mm would provide 'straight out of the box'. So the 40mm was what I bought.

That 40mm Nokton is still one of my all-time favourite lenses; especially now as I'm using it with a FF body and have realised that the 40mm F-L is one I adore.

Philip.

Edited January 22 by pippy

[pgk]

16 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Why so many try to copy the “outdated” or “classical” Leica lenses, instead of building modern and better ones?

If you compare the lens diagram with that of the original you will realise that they haven't copied the 'classical' design, so I would assume that the output will be different. From the claims it appears that the new lens is centrally very sharp, which of course suggests that the peripheral areas may not be. The oof highlights suggest that the new lens perfroms differently too with a higher degree of correctio wide open. Old style or simply optical inadequacy, improvement or fundamentally different (despite exterior likeness)? Many are happy with old style performance but some improvements (which were not possible with the available glass types in the original design) would actually make the lens more iusable IMO.

[Einst_Stein]

I doubt price is the motivation for the outdated or classical M lenses, because I believe they can make it as cheap even with modern lenses. But now I agree they are actually making the classical-like modern lenses. 

Size indeed matters, but I suspect the Leica-like outlook is the main motivation. Sound like some people buying fake Rolex or LV?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pippy]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

If you compare the lens diagram with that of the original you will realise that they haven't copied the 'classical' design, so I would assume that the output will be different...

Taking this train from the main-line and off on a slight detour for just a moment...

In this respect Artizlab seem to going down a similar road as travelled by TTArtisan when they created their 28mm f5.6 'Summaron' lookalike. Externally the TTA is remarkably similar to the Leitz original (to put it mildly!) but its optical design incorporates High Refractive Index glass for two elements and one further element where Low Dispersion glass is used.

As such the TTA has superb sharpness almost from edge-to-edge and corner-to-corner even when shot wide-open......although as the Max. Ap. is 'only' f5.6 this feat isn't quite as impressive as it might at first sound...

As it happens I was out shooting with mine yesterday and the results it produces really are very good indeed.

Philip.

Edited January 22 by pippy

[pippy]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

...If you compare the lens diagram with that of the original you will realise that they haven't copied the 'classical' design, so I would assume that the output will be different...

Hmmm...

I didn't have the optical design of the Summilux to hand when I was looking at the Artizlab blurb earlier but have now had a good look so as to compare their elements.

OK; the Art. lens isn't an exact copy of the Leitz computation (which is where this company differs from LLL) but they are hardly worlds apart. Have a look.

The original 7-element Summilux design shown top with the Artizlab below;

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!

 

...and just for fun here's a scematic showing the Summilux (again and below) this time with the 40mm f1.4 Nokton (above). Easy to see why the Nokton's output closely resembles that of the Summilux!

Philip.