LLL 35mm APO

[costa43]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Let’s use common sense and educated guesses here: Do all deeply concerned really think LLL will risk it all, their legacy, relations with Leica and a huge lawsuit for one reckless patent infringement?

Nobody seemed this concerned regarding patents for the Voigtlander 35 APO - a lens that does 95% what Leica’s 35 APO does - when it came out. Must have something to do with the fact that Voigtlander is not a Chinese company.

I don't think it has to do with the company being Chinese, at least I would hope not. I think it is more to do with LLL having released replicas thus far of expired patents so it is natural to assume that the expired patent is a thing. All their lenses have been awesome but this one came as a bit of a surprise as it looks like the current production APO even down to the hood,  I'm not sure if even we can get away with calling this a homage to the APO 35 M😁. Voigtlander are a little more discreet with their design choices at least🤣

[Advertisement]

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

[Smudgerer]

I don't know whether Leica will be unhappy enough to try to "go legal" on this if the LLL "copy" of the 35 APO will in fact become a reality and would be similar enough to be regarded as a breach of the patents that Leica may have on their lens, but as Al Brown says LLL surely wouldn't be that stupid to "risk it all, their legacy"...............But the thing is that LLL have been producing some extremely well imagined and well built M mount lenses in recent years, ( I just bought the 50/f2 Rigid in Black Paint that makes it the third LLL lens in my kit now ), and what I do think is a problem for Leica is the real price differential between buying a Leica Lens or buying a LLL "copy", this alone could be an issue for Wetzlar. I'm now holding off on my wish-list purchase of Leica's 35 APO until I know more about this LLL 35 APO, whether it's for real or not because based on what I have bought from LLL so far and just on pricing alone I could very well buy their version rather than Leica's.

Edited March 17 by Smudgerer

[raizans]

Everything LLL has done has shown respect and homage to Leica. The APO is an original optical formula:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1625479/72#16773428

 

[RF’sDelight]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Smudgerer:

I don't know whether Leica will be unhappy enough to try to "go legal" on this if the LLL "copy" of the 35 APO will in fact become a reality and would be similar enough to be regarded as a breach of the patents that Leica may have on their lens, but as Al Brown says LLL surely wouldn't be that stupid to "risk it all, their legacy"...............But the thing is that LLL have been producing some extremely well imagined and well built M mount lenses in recent years, ( I just bought the 50/f2 Rigid in Black Paint that makes it the third LLL lens in my kit now ), and what I do think is a problem for Leica is the real price differential between buying a Leica Lens or buying a LLL "copy", this alone could be an issue for Wetzlar. I'm now holding off on my wish-list purchase of Leica's 35 APO until I know more about this LLL 35 APO, whether it's for real or not because based on what I have bought from LLL so far and just on pricing alone I could very well buy their version rather than Leica's.

Perhaps all these Chinese “efforts” have already led to the relatively modest price of the recently released 50 Lux. 😎

[RF’sDelight]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb raizans:

Everything LLL has done has shown respect and homage to Leica. The APO is an original optical formula:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1625479/72#16773428

 

This is sort of a fun fact to me: If a Swiss luxury watch is "cloned" this is broadly received as fraud but if Leica lenses are copied like this it’s describe as "homage". 🤔

If LLL is good in developing lenses why not come up with an own design (at least for the barrel)?

Edited March 17 by RF’sDelight

[raizans]

The homage vs. replica vs. counterfeit debate in watches is the same thing here.

[Ray Vonn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One senses some cages being rattled with three LLL releases.

[Vanillasludge]

I saw this at cp+ along with many other “repleica’s” from Mr Ding etc.  

We are definitely coming close to a time when “fake” Leica lenses will be a thing (again).  

Dishonest people with access to some basic cnc and anodizing equipment could change out the front retaining rings and fake up the other markings.  
 

The optical performance of these new Leica look a-likes is good enough that most users would not necessarily suspect that they bought a fake, particularly if it’s a copy of an old design.  
 

The profit motive is definitely there.   If you could crank out a steel rim or v4 35 Summicron copy for $300-400 cost and sell it on the used market for $3000-$5000 you have a nice little business there. 
 

 

[raizans]

Unlikely. The Chinese lens companies are clearly proud of the quality of manufacturing, and increasingly showing off their optical design with an emphasis on “character” lenses.

[Smudgerer]

1 hour ago, RF’sDelight said:

Perhaps all these Chinese “efforts” have already led to the relatively modest price of the recently released 50 Lux. 😎

Well here's the thing.........I am pretty much a "35mm FL" user, 80% of the time that one of my Ms goes out it has a 35mm of one flavour or another bolted on, the 50mm FL is one that I rarely use but at times that FL does have it's uses for me. 

The new re-issue Summilux 50mm is an attractive lens, ( would be even more so if it were available in Black paint!.....), but it's price tag even when dubbed "reasonable" by Leica's pricing is still too much for me to consider for a lens and FL I'd not use that much, however the LLL 50mm Rigid I recently bought at around €800, ( and in Black Paint ! ), is priced right for a new lens that may not have a lot of use compared with my favoured 35mm FL lenses, ( and yes I know the LLL 50 is an F2 whilst the Leica 50 is a F1.4, but to be honest that's not a big issue for me, especially not so on a recent digital M with it's very usable high ASA capabilities ).......and I care not about "bokeh".

If the LLL lenses that I now own and use were sub-standard then this would be a different conversation, but they are not, they are well made and have excellent performances. Would I rather have a Leica lens in the equivalent  FL's? Most likely yes but I cannot ignore the €€€ savings for a lens of damn near the same all round quality as Leica's. So yes I hope that the LLL 35 APO rumours are factual and I will now wait to see how that turns out to be before I leap to the Leica APO option that I was quite close to going for up to hearing this news today.

[costa43]

I think LLL and Thypoch for that matter are very interesting. They look to be built to a great standard but I wonder if anyone has opened them up and taken a look at the internal build quality. The stuff that is hidden. I'd be interested to know if it stacks up there.

I'm keen on the Thypoch 28mm f1.4.

Edited March 17 by costa43

[costa43]

Just now, Al Brown said:

a VERY good point. People reviewing the lens be like "built like a tank" but internally plastic hinges are holding the diaphragm blades (true story from a Mitakon 50).

That's exactly the sort of thing I'm dubious of.

[Kwesi]

10 hours ago, Smudgerer said:

This is interesting..........I am, was, very close to pulling the trigger on the Leica 35mm f2 APO, but now with this news I will hold back until I find out more

This is the real problem for Leica with these copies

[Smudgerer]

1 hour ago, Kwesi said:

This is the real problem for Leica with these copies

This is what I was trying to say, it isn't as if the copies / reissues are bad, they're not so in the main and sometimes not so by a long chalk......... And there's the problem for Leica when there's someone like myself, a Leica user for decades who'd rarely leave the fold not much more than a few years ago, but now with some really very good new alternatives available at prices way under what Leica asks I've already gone for three M mount lenses from LLL and I'm more than happy with them.

 

Edited March 17 by Smudgerer

[costa43]

Leica will make more and more profit irrespective of how many people buy a LLL instead of a Leica lens. Mainly due to the overall user base of Leica camera owners growing year on year, rather rapidly in recent times. The Q has probably been a big reason behind this. I just hope they can sort their aftercare out and their QC a bit. Being an early adopter with Leica releases nowadays is a gamble that many of us may think twice about. 

Edited March 17 by costa43

[vkdev]

when you say "copying Leica is a bad idea" you forget that there is a huge market inside China that is not rich enough to pay $10k for one lens. people just don't have the money for new Leica equipment, but they want something similar. I find it hard to blame someone who makes $500-1000/month for buying a replica.

[TomB_tx]

Most of us need to do a value analysis on equipment with Leica's prices. If you have been a film-M user and want a compatible Digital body the choice is Leica, and new or used is the only value analysis. With M-mount lenses there are now many alternative choices, just as there were with ltm lenses in the 1950s. The last Leica lenses that really appealed to me were the 2.5 Summarit series (I have all 4). When Leica dropped the Summarit line they were announcing that they were no longer interested in customers who needed to watch their budgets, and were purely a luxury brand.

So while we are rather captive to the M bodies (if we like the traditional M experience), I appreciate the affordable lens options from other companies. The better non-Leica lenses do all I want, so I expect I bought my last new Leica lens years ago. I have used M-mount lenses on mirrorless bodies with good results, but I value the process of RF photography as much as the results.

Too bad Zeiss/Cosina never tried a digital Ikon ZM, as I've enjoyed the film version.

[adan]

5 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

Too bad Zeiss/Cosina never tried a digital Ikon ZM, as I've enjoyed the film version.

The comment of Zeiss's CEO at the time (after intro of the M8) was "We are not sure there is a sustainable market for one digital rangefinder, let alone two!"

Cosina provided the basic "hardware" for Epson's R-D1 about that same time, as well as the Ikon ZM, but was never interested in moving beyond "glass and metal" themselves. Which would require a signficant investment, outside of their "core competence." They have probably done much better financially, just sticking with lenses.

..................

As to Chinese copies/replicas of Leica gear (lenses and cameras) it's not all that new - from the early 1970s: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Red_Flag_20

Rumored to have been made at the behest of Mao Zedong's last wife, Jiang Qing, who was an actress, eventually "commissar" of the revolutionary-Chinese motion-picture industry, and ultimately a member of the Politburo. And also a amateur photographer. Revolutionary China, of course, paid no attention at all to "capitalist" patents - "All property is theft!"

Regarding Leica's income in the face of competing M lenses, I am sure that is the reason the new price of any Leica M digital (even the last M10-Ms and M10-Rs) jumped ~$700 with the intro of the M11. (Bear in mind the original M10 was introduced at $6495 - cheaper than the M9's intro price of $6995!).

Leica realized they could no longer count on a camera sale resulting in lens sales - the cameras would have to pay for themselves up front.

Personally, I have just two non-Leica M lenses - both chosen for their significantly lighter weight: 75 Nokton f/1.5 (at about the weight of a 75 Summarit f/2.5, and about the weight I hoped for in the 75mm APO-Summicron, in 2004) and the M-mount version of the 21 Color-Skopar f/4.0 (132g, same as a 35mm Summicron-M v.4,  😁 )

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[costa43]

I think Leica more than anyone else will always hike the price of their gear up, they know full well that they have to control the used market as best as they can. If your existing user base is losing too much off the RRP too quickly, the number of people purchasing that product will reduce over time. People will hold onto their cameras for longer and for a company that relies heavily on its existing user base to upgrade, it would cause a headache I’m sure. Cheap 3rd party lenses sell more bodies, gets people into the system, the GAS kicks in slowly and they upgrade. How many of us started with a used m8 or m9 and a Voigtlander/Russian etc lens. These lenses are all free marketing for Leica. 

Edited March 18 by costa43

[Kwesi]

22 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Copies? They are not copies, they are competition products. Even Peter Karbe in an interview I linked in his lens thread acknowledged the 7artisan 50/0.95 is a "good design" lens and could not believe how they could manage to make it for so little money. Gret times for Leica, now people who buy their used cheaper bodies are able to afford some really decent lenses to put on them.

okay, lets call them "look alikes". Im still not convinced that buying a non Leica lens to put on a second hand Leica body has any immediate financial benefit for Leica.