LLL got competition

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, pippy said:

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.

If you look at the Artizlab Manual for the lens it shows a differing diagram with 8 elements including two of 'high refractive index':

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[Alberti]

Well, to me it is just as brands talk about 'A Gauss lens".

In legal class, we had a lot of discussion on what to do when your brand becomes a 'household' word. 

It seems that the Summilux is a houshold word, and the brands make anything stick as such. Nevertheless, for me the characteristics of the output count.

Still I would prefer a good remake of the F2 35mm KOB. 7E so to say. It is so different from the 8E of course and has another use case as the Summilux 7E (remakes).

[pippy]

29 minutes ago, pgk said:

If you look at the Artizlab Manual for the lens it shows a differing diagram with 8 elements including two of 'high refractive index':

Well that is interesting. Apart from the fact that it is the manufacturer who has published these two optical designs there seems to be little in common between the two when we look at the fine detail (such as it is). Only two of the 'original'(?) 7-element lenses seem to have a similar profile with that of the later (?) 8-element design.

The 8-element is even truer to the Double-Gauss concept in that it is closer to having symmetry either side of the aperture blade; the Summilux (et-al), obviosly, being Modified D-G designs.

This is becoming more interesting (from my PoV solely as an observer!) as time passes.

Philip.

[Alberti]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

If you look at the Artizlab Manual for the lens it shows a differing diagram with 8 elements including two of 'high refractive index':

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!

Can you give the link? In Lens-DB.com the registration data is ‘7 elements in 5 group’ but when you click on this, a different diagram with 7E is shown, this time with the hi-refr in first and last position. The last lens elemnt is ‘gone’.

This must be due to sloppiness, as they at Funleader / Artiz themselves say somewhere 7E.

Edited January 22 by Alberti

[Smudgerer]

58 minutes ago, pippy said:

Well that is interesting. Apart from the fact that it is the manufacturer who has published these two optical designs there seems to be little in common between the two when we look at the fine detail (such as it is). Only two of the 'original'(?) 7-element lenses seem to have a similar profile with that of the later (?) 8-element design.

The 8-element is even truer to the Double-Gauss concept in that it is closer to having symmetry either side of the aperture blade; the Summilux (et-al), obviosly, being Modified D-G designs.

This is becoming more interesting (from my PoV solely as an observer!) as time passes.

Philip.

As I have said before we M mount users are remarkably blessed with a plethora of interesting choices these days in the lens department, ( My Black Paint finish LLL 50mm f2 Rigid arrives early next week so I am told ), and I agree that even with the sometime high price differential between an expensive second hand  "classic" and the price of one of these new "copies" to be able to buy a clean, even updated in some respects, "old design Leica lens" has a lot going for it. Much of what's offered now are built extremely well too and probably a better option than chancing your arm on the "Ebay crap-shoot".

Edited January 22 by Smudgerer

[pgk]

44 minutes ago, Alberti said:

Can you give the link?

The manual can be downloaded ere: https://myfunleader.com/pages/service-and-support

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

57 minutes ago, Alberti said:

Can you give the link? In Lens-DB.com the registration data is ‘7 elements in 5 group’ but when you click on this, a different diagram with 7E is shown, this time with the hi-refr in first and last position. The last lens elemnt is ‘gone’.

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!

This must be due to sloppiness, as they at Funleader / Artiz themselves say somewhere 7E.

It looks (to me at any rate!) to be the case that whoever drew that schematic has simply 'forgotten' to add the rear-most element of the design which, clearly, is an essential part of the D-G design.

In both this and PGK's diagrams the Hi Refractive Index elements are the same ones in both the (newer) 7 and the 8 element designs

Compare this with any of the other Double-Gauss designs and it seems to be a rather obvious 'mistake'. The central 3-element groupings both in front of- and behind the aperture are identical to those shown in PGK's post. The big change between the 'original' 7- and 8-element designs is, surely, the fourth element in the computation and not the 'eighth'?

Has someone forgotten to add this 4th element in the first of these schematics back on page 1?

Whether someone is doing this as a deliberate ploy is a mystery. Time to call Scooby Doo and the Mystery Machine Team?!...

Philip.

Edited January 22 by pippy

[Alberti]

The manual clearly is: 8E/6groups. So that is interesting. It makes it more like a further development of the 8E Summicron then. 😊

 

[Einst_Stein]

I am curious, whatever your choice, would that be the same if the camera is SLx instead of Mx?

[hansvons]

21 hours ago, pippy said:

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.

I own this lens in its single-coated version and shoot with it whenever I want highly moody pictures, e.g., a summer party, flary environmental portraits against strong backlight, and so on. 

Yes, the barrel distortion cannot be argued away. However, it only plays a role when shooting architectural elements. Plus, it appears in such a symmetrical fashion that correcting it in post is as easy as it possibly gets.

It’s a Double Gauss design with 8 elements, mimicking the early Summiluxes perfectly design-wise and also in character/quirks. Voigtlander resisted the temptation to copy-paste the original Leica design one-to-one, but it’s close enough to clearly discern the Leica poster child.

The build quality is as good as in modern Leica lenses. Actually, the dampening is one of the best I came across. It’s a serious offering and not a "fun lens" to play with. 

—

It might be noteworthy that for 35mm lenses that are supposed to be extraordinarily compact and fast, the only meaningful design choice is still a variation of the Paul Rudolph Zeiss Planar Double Gauss design from 1896. Obviously, Leica did not invent the Summilux lens formula but refined it. From that perpective, the Nokton and other Double Gauss-based lenses are not a Leica copy at all. 

[pippy]

2 hours ago, hansvons said:

I own this lens in its single-coated version and shoot with it whenever I want highly moody pictures......Yes, the barrel distortion cannot be argued away. However, it only plays a role when shooting architectural elements. Plus, it appears in such a symmetrical fashion that correcting it in post is as easy as it possibly gets...

I am very familiar with the Nokton, Hansvons, and was intending to buy one for myself. The reason I didn't - and bought the 40mm f1.4 Nokton instead - was wholly due to the barrel-distortion but I have already explained my rationale in some detail back in post #16.

The 35 and 40 Noktons are, focal-length apart, identical twins and I fully agree with your comments regarding the build-quality. However, as I do shoot quite a lot of architectural-type subject-matter, the 35 simply wouldn't have worked for me.

And yes; the double-gauss and modified d-g formulae have been around for well over a century and have been used by hundreds of manufacturers in perhaps thousands of lenses so, in optical design terms, trying to say "X has copied Y" would be a rather silly thing to do!......😸......

Philip.

 

Edited January 23 by pippy

[pgk]

On 1/24/2025 at 2:18 AM, _tc said:

I find it an "interesting" decision to slavishly copy all the crappy parts of owning a vintage 35 lux and then not the bit that actually matters; the optical formula.

This will depend on whether glass of the same optical properties is still available. It may simply be economically viable to produce a new design with cheaper available glass than try to recreate the original optic which may actually be much more expensive to make. The price is low for a reason.

[pippy]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

This will depend on whether glass of the same optical properties is still available. It may simply be economically viable to produce a new design with cheaper available glass than try to recreate the original optic which may actually be much more expensive to make. The price is low for a reason.

It has been well documented that the team behind the LLL '8 Element' reverse-engineered offering went to great lengths to obtain glass types which were identical - in terms of chemical composition - to the glass types used for the original Leitz 35mm Summicron.

The task was made difficult because for some of the elements Leitz used 'Flint Glass' - i.e. a glass with a high lead-oxide content (a minimum of 24%) - which is hardly used by anyone or for anything these days. The main market for such glass 'back in the day' were companies involved in the manufacture of lead-crystal tableware (wine glasses, decanters etc...etc...) but it was precisely because of this high lead content that, due to concerns regarding health and safety, its use for such purposes was banned.

The LLL folks did manage to source a certain quantity of Flint Glass and, subsequently, this has been used for the production of their '8 Element' lenses but it is not known for how much longer this can continue to be the case. As their existing stock becomes depleted there is essentially no 'new' stock coming onto the market to act as a replacement.

Modifying the optical design of the original 35 Summicron in order to be able to make use of modern - i.e. available - glass types will, therefore, have related cost-saving consequences.

Philip.

Edited January 26 by pippy

[pgk]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

.....it was precisely because of this high lead content that, due to concerns regarding health and safety, its use for such purposes was banned.

I seem to remember reading that high lead content glass (including optical) is no longer allowed in the EU/UK and I wonder if this is why there is no 'official' importer of LLL lenses into the UK. Buying direct of from abroad probably infringes the ban but it would take a very well informed customs official to take action over it.

[pippy]

44 minutes ago, pgk said:

I seem to remember reading that high lead content glass (including optical) is no longer allowed in the EU/UK and I wonder if this is why there is no 'official' importer of LLL lenses into the UK. Buying direct of from abroad probably infringes the ban but it would take a very well informed customs official to take action over it.

Oh? Wow! I hadn't read that snippet of info. Interesting.

Philip.

[Einst_Stein]

48 minutes ago, pgk said:

I seem to remember reading that high lead content glass (including optical) is no longer allowed in the EU/UK and I wonder if this is why there is no 'official' importer of LLL lenses into the UK. Buying direct of from abroad probably infringes the ban but it would take a very well informed customs official to take action over it.

Does the ban include used original 8E?

[pgk]

17 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Does the ban include used original 8E?

I suspect that anything like this is not retrospective and only covers new items. I think that I read somewhere (so cannot guarantee its accuracy) that the reason for the Hasselblad Xpan's demise was because its circuitry was soldered using lead solder and that this too was being phased out. But used copies can be sold ok. Like many things, the danger's associated with the use of some materials have been reconsidered. I've finally nearly finished removing the lead piping in our water supply so that tests show the content of lead in our water is below the limits deemed acceptable. But these limits have been revised several times and the accetable limits have been lowered. I was told that lead has an effect of foetal development so reduced lead levels are targetted at mothers-to-be. It sounds like a thorough ban throughout many sectors has been applied and I have no problem with this.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

I seem to remember reading that high lead content glass (including optical) is no longer allowed in the EU/UK...

 

53 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Does the ban include used original 8E?

Hmmm......the currect situation where lead crystal glass as a general rule are concerned aren't 100% clear (pun)...

Having read Paul's post I have tried to find out what the current regulations are with respect Lead Crystal Glass AKA 'LCG' (apparently!).

The most recent "directive" I've seen regarding the use of lead only contains information regarding its use to 20th July 2021 but up to that time there was an exemption made where lead-crystal was concerned. Here are the relevant passages;

"This directive amends Directive 2011/65/EU on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (the RoHS Directive) as regards an exemption for lead bound in crystal glass. Lead is a restricted substance listed in Annex II to the 2011 Directive. Its use when bound in crystal glass was, however, exempted from the restriction. The expiry date of that exemption was 21 July 2016.

An application for renewal of that exemption was received prior to that date and the exemption has accordingly remained in place while the request was under consideration. The European Commission has noted that lead oxides are used as an intermediate for the chemical synthesis of lead crystal glass (LCG). LCG is used in electrical and electronic equipment because its unique combinations of processing (cooling time, working range), optical (refractive index, dispersion) and decorative properties allows the manufacturing of electrical and electronic articles which could not be produced otherwise, such as specific luminaires and chandeliers, electrified mirrors, clocks and watches, digital photo frames and building materials (illuminated blocks).

Substitution or elimination of lead in crystal glass is still scientifically and technically impracticable due to the lack of reliable substitutes. The Commission has therefore decided that the expiry date should be reset to 21 July 2021."

There is no mention of lead-crystal tableware anywhere in the report. This, in itself, might be pertinent. If, as I have read (and had stated earlier), the 'Tableware' industry was by far the largest consumer of this type of glass and its use is now unlawful then I could imagine that those areas where LCG is still required might only constitute a tiny fraction of what was once a sizeable demand worldwide.

As far as its use in optical blocks, however, my interpretation of the report would be that the use of LCG would come under any exemption which might have been upheld past the July '21 deadline. As such the LLL lenses would be in the clear (Ho!Ho!Ho!)...

Philip.

Edited January 26 by pippy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Einst_Stein]

https://breznikar.com/article/ca-prop-65-lead-warning/1337
 

I am surprised there are so many th8ng around actually contains Lead, including Swarovski, LED , and even IPhone.

But the amount of Lead also matters. Small dose is OK.  … sounds like some political lobbying helps.
 

 

[Alberti]

LLL also go into some length to show they 'redeveloped/provisioned' specific glass for their purposes in the 28mm 9E, which I call my "Lightz 28mm 9E'". It is not a simple remake/copy. 

Others that have access to such stock might well repurpose these to fit in an existing scheme albeit with a renewed curvature fomula, where the end result would be 'pleasingly' like a certain vintage lens. My little experience in this says that the Canadian lenses have something 'extra', just a slightly different atmosphere versus the Wetzlars. Is it some creation of depth and 'stage' versus flatness and fast roll-off?

My other hobby is audio electronics. You can copy a circuit, but as you come to the edge, any small change (capacitor choice, idle current, bias point of a tube) might have small but distinct effects.