Light Lens Lab update on their forthcoming 35mm f1.4 Double Aspherical re-creation.

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thought this announcement might be of some interest to folks here.

Into my e-mail box this morning there popped the following message from Light Lens Lab;

https://lightlenslab.com/blogs/upcoming-project/light-lens-lab-35mm-f-1-4-in-prototype-stage?se_activity_id=153038389482&syclid=d3p0busj1gcc73bqbkc0&utm_campaign=Production+Annoucement%3A+Light+Lens+Lab+35mm+f%2F1.4+Aspherical+“11873”_153038389482&utm_medium=email&utm_source=shopify_email

Philip.

[Advertisement]

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

[Kiwimac]

Yes I had an email about that. 
 

Looks like something I might try. 

[jankap]

https://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2024/04/the-leica-35mm-f14-summilux-aspherical.html

[pedaes]

3 minutes ago, jankap said:

https://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2024/04/the-leica-35mm-f14-summilux-aspherical.html

Don't think he will be testing the LLL! 

[pippy]

38 minutes ago, pedaes said:

Don't think he will be testing the LLL! 

Perhaps not for 'public consumption', no, but possibly just for himself?......😸......

The 35 AA has been discussed many times here over the years and one of the most 'convincing' posts as to its wide-open performance (for me) was from our much-missed - but "couldn't keep a secret" - colleague Steven who showed how lovely the Leitz original could render. Not that it 'draws' intrinsically better than any other 35 Summilux; just that it is different.

In the spiel from LLL they mention that after having read the comments published in the LFI test of the prototype they realised that fairly substantial changes were neccessary. One was that the accuracy of the R/F focussing was not up to standard. When the LFI reviewer tested prototype 05 he reported "subltle rangefinder coupling issues".

Another issue LLL addressed was to do with rendering;

"...Following our rigorous testing and reviewing, there are a lot of improvements and considerations we felt were not given to this initial prototype lens. We wish to improve several factors for the produc-tion version (things such as color fringing and rendering). One major factor we want to improve with the production copy is the out-of-focus / bokeh, to give more of a "glow" at open aperture. This factor was not apparent with the prototype copy as we had overcorrected it during our spherical aberration correction testing and eliminated the "glow" when modelling on our optical software..."

I don't need another 35mm lens and with my v2 Summilux I almost never shoot wide-open. Nevertheless this offering does hold an odd attraction to my way of thinking. I doubt there will be any in the UK to try-out but Never-Say-Never...

Philip.

Edited October 17 by pippy

[pedaes]

12 minutes ago, pippy said:

LFI

I think it is LSI (former LHSA) where an individual, not the organisation, did a test and wrote an article for the Journal. I will PM you.

[jankap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The original is handled for 15k now. This new lens will be offered for around 0,5k (depending on Pres. Trump). But it will be "almost" as good.

In the pictures of the comparisons, I - for me - don´t see a difference between the lenses 😃. 

Edited October 17 by jankap

[pedaes]

14 minutes ago, jankap said:

In the pictures of the comparisons

What article are you referring to? In the article you linked they are both Leica lenses.

[Elliot Harper]

5 hours ago, jankap said:

The original is handled for 15k now. This new lens will be offered for around 0,5k (depending on Pres. Trump). But it will be "almost" as good.

In the pictures of the comparisons, I - for me - don´t see a difference between the lenses 😃. 

The original one has a kind of straight aperture blade, while the LLL knockoff is more curvier

[pippy]

1 hour ago, Elliot Harper said:

The original one has a kind of straight aperture blade, while the LLL knockoff is more curvier

Ah! Do you think that is how LLL has managed to improve the chromatic fringing aberrations which plagued the original?

Philip.

[Alberti]

It is certainly interesting. The bokeh looks abundant at times and great at others. Would need to understand when to stop down 1-1/2 stop maybe. And how the blades then render.

Very dreamy and more like what I remember of a Summarit 50mm/1.5 LTM :

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!

The following is a great reason to buy it though I am weary by now of buying a lemon (sorry sounds like a pun) :

I loved the video and how the core spot of focus (one should not say 'plane') is great and separation is superb. That was made with a Nikon Zf (?) avec adapter and live EVF.

And I do appreciate examples with M11 to be shown too. With RF and sans adapter. And exhibiting how well focus shift is controlled. 

For me, exhibiting example pictures without an overlay of plate film would be more appreciated. Otherwise I think they look for the LOMO crowd.

• I also saw Mr.Ding's 35/1.8, which is close at 1/2 stop, might have a very controlled bokeh, but I have not seen clear example of photo's with that lens. Clear = showing the finest focal areas.

 

Edited November 8 by Alberti

[blessingx]

Well, we'll see next month. I jumped in. 

[adan]

I had a chance to compare the Double Aspherical (back when it was "only" $4500 used - c.2003) with the successor ASPH v.1.

Main imaging differences were:

- At f/1.4, the AA was sharper than the ASPH in the center, but softer in the corners. Standard "journalistic" Leica lens design as practiced by Dr. Mandler (who had retired just before the Aspherical project began).

- The ASPH was more evenly "sharpish" across the whole frame at f/1.4.

- The AA was faintly "warmer/yellower" in color rendering. the APSH was a bit pinker.

Had the price been the same (hah!), I would have preferred the AA.

The main feature both shared was significantly less "glow" and corner-coma "butterfly-wings" at larger apertures than the then-existing pre-ASPH/Aspherical 35 Summilux-M (and Summicron-Ms). They behaved like "normal" lenses - no drama or dreaminess; "just the facts, ma'am."

The sole reason for the stratospheric used prices of the AA was/is purely due to rarity-value/collectability. Not the image quality, one way or the other. The hand-ground aspheric elements had a very high discard/wastage rate, and thus were so expensive that Leica was losing money on every lens, at a selling-price the market would accept (similar to the original hand-ground 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux aspherical).

Leica tried again with the ASPH, once they had developed (with Hoya) the techniques of moulded ASPHs.

[Ecar]

12 hours ago, adan said:

The sole reason for the stratospheric used prices of the AA was/is purely due to rarity-value/collectability. Not the image quality, one way or the other.

I have both the pre-FLE and the AA and can only agree. Although I have a slight vintage-oriented rendering preference for "sharper in the center and softer in the corners", the difference between the two lenses is very marginal.
The AA came after - out of curiosity, but mostly because I found a deal too good to pass. I'd be perfectly happy with either.
Therefore, and although I appreciate there's a significant price difference, I'd get a good (not all copies have focus shift...) pre-FLE over the LLL AA replica anytime. But that's just me.

Edited November 20 by Ecar