_jim_ wrote:
The LLL may be more like the original 1.2...but it's hard to say. There are so few example photographs taken with that lens (at sufficient resolution) to judge. The street silhouettes blog has the most images, but again, a little hard to discern. The LLL '1966' is absolutely gorgeous, but here are the onion rings in question (a throw away image, for sure, but highlights what I am talking about).
That does seem so, the Leica 1.2 does appear less onion ringy. But then again, unless you have both lenses in front of you for a legit comparison, it is hard to tell.
This however was interesting from his comparison:
Where it gets interesting is when you compare the lens with itself between the two different sensors. For example, the bokeh on the Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux has more blur on the M240 sensor than on the Sony sensor, which appears to be slightly more harsh. To me, it almost appears as if the bokeh on the Leica sensor is less busy and more relaxed than the bokeh on the Sony sensor. Upon comparing the rest of the grouping, it appears that consistently, the Sony sensor is harsher by comparison. But to be fair, I don't think that anyone would ever notice the difference - if it were not for a tedious comparison like this.
It's challenging to determine from the streetsilhouettes's samples. If you shot under similar lighting conditions, you might not notice much of an onion pattern. Like you wrote, the limited number of online samples makes it difficult to draw conclusions.
We're looking for someone who has all three lenses: the original 50/1.2 Noct, the LLL 50/1.2 Noct, and the reissued Leica 50/1.2 Noct, to do a side-by-side comparison.
Developed my first roll with the LLL 50mm f/1.2. There is not a lot of light this time of year, so I experimented with T-Max P3200 shot at 800. The lens's draw is quite striking - a mix of soft out-of-focus and swirl. There is not a ton of resolution...but that's also part of the look. I am excited to keep learning how to use it successfully.
I like the videos of the guy.
He does mention the lack of flare as being a disappointment, I must say it was the only thing that I regret also about the lens, I hoped for some big time.
The blue cast is interesting but the lack of flare is the thing that makes me go back often to the Heliar.
_jim_ wrote:
Developed my first roll with the LLL 50mm f/1.2. There is not a lot of light this time of year, so I experimented with T-Max P3200 shot at 800. The lens's draw is quite striking - a mix of soft out-of-focus and swirl. There is not a ton of resolution...but that's also part of the look. I am excited to keep learning how to use it successfully.
Horses for courses. I think I'll walk instead.
Just a suggestion if interest in a fast lens "with character" is what drives you, the Nikkor 50/1.2 AIS (abundant and affordable) on a Shoten adapter for M bodies with a built in helicoid, is a nice alternative. Higher central resolution than the Leica @ ƒ/1.2, in my experience. Using the EVF makes focusing pretty straightforward,
Being unfamiliar with older Nikkor lenses how does your lens compare to the Nikkor 58mm 1.2 that seems very pricey?
The 50/1.2, a symmetrical design without aspherical elements, demonstrates a lot of so-called 'veiling flare' at ƒ/1.2-1.4 but underneath it all, there's still fairly high resolution. Beyond ƒ/2, sharp as a tack.
The 58/1.2, has a curvature of field that can be tricky, but to my eye, still has a higher resolution & contrast at ƒ/1.2-2 and lower haze than the older Leica 50/1.2--or the CV 58/1.4. Controls comma a bit better too. It was a true low-light lens of the late 1970's and 1980's, whereas the Nikkor 50/1.2 was and is more of 'character' lens.
Neither Nikkor renders in this super-soft "mush".The Leica 50/1.2 redux or this LLL knockoff, appear something that would appeal more to videographers rather than still photographers nowadays. Shooters in the 1960's with money or the need, when the Leica appeared, had little choices with relatively slower emulsions then available.
Desmolicious wrote:
He mentions how smooth the focus action is, while others have complained and had the helicoils regreased.
Did anyone ever go through with the regrease? Mine smoothed out after a few weeks and is very smooth now. My only mechanical complaint about the lens is it's always getting moved off f/2 even though the aperture ring resistance is fairly stiff. I'm guessing the length of the lens makes it easier for the aperture ring to grab onto things when the camera is being moved around.
I still need to take off the "wings" on the focusing ring to see how I like that. I have a feeling I'll like it better, but it's a trade-off since the wings act like a foot when I put down the camera, which keeps the camera from tipping forward.
_jim_ wrote:
Developed my first roll with the LLL 50mm f/1.2. There is not a lot of light this time of year, so I experimented with T-Max P3200 shot at 800. The lens's draw is quite striking - a mix of soft out-of-focus and swirl. There is not a ton of resolution...but that's also part of the look. I am excited to keep learning how to use it successfully....
One of the features of the LLL version was supposed to be better sharpness at f/1.2. Have you checked the rangefinder alignment with the LCD or Visoflex on a digital M? That said, I wouldn't expect a ton of resolving power with T-Max 3200 even stopped down
highdesertmesa wrote:
One of the features of the LLL version was supposed to be better sharpness at f/1.2. Have you checked the rangefinder alignment with the LCD or Visoflex on a digital M? That said, I wouldn't expect a ton of resolving power with T-Max 3200 even stopped down
No need to check the accuracy with a digital M (which I don't have). I have good eyesight, a focus magnifier and recently aligned rangefinders. I can attest that the lens focuses accurately.
Keep in mind, any of the indoor images that I shared are shot at 1/15 of second or less. Motion blur from the subjects or myself is unavoidable.
j.liam wrote:
Horses for courses. I think I'll walk instead.
Just a suggestion if interest in a fast lens "with character" is what drives you, the Nikkor 50/1.2 AIS (abundant and affordable) on a Shoten adapter for M bodies with a built in helicoid, is a nice alternative. Higher central resolution than the Leica @ ƒ/1.2, in my experience. Using the EVF makes focusing pretty straightforward,
I have the Nikkor. It's a swell lens. Different strengths and weakness than the LLL 50/1.2.
_jim_ wrote:
No need to check the accuracy with a digital M (which I don't have). I have good eyesight, a focus magnifier and recently aligned rangefinders. I can attest that the lens focuses accurately.
Keep in mind, any of the indoor images that I shared are shot at 1/15 of second or less. Motion blur from the subjects or myself is unavoidable.
1/15 sec, 3200 speed film, f/1.2, a lens design from 1966, and not a ton of resolution all go together like peas and carrots.
_jim_ wrote:
I have the Nikkor. It's a swell lens. Different strengths and weakness than the LLL 50/1.2.
I watched Leica's promotional video for the ƒ/1.2 redux and it was just so underwhelming, with its very low contrast and startlingly meager resolution, even stopped down. It seemed more of a notable historical landmark in optics and a collector's object than practicable kit. Everyone seems so taken by the extra 1/2 stop over an older non-ASPH Summilux or CV, as if their photographic skills suddenly and magically change--maybe they have, but for the worse. Bastian's comparison of the various super-fast 50's is a perfect counterpoint to this frantic embrace of ƒ/1; the best overall lens for general use in his estimation was the CV 1,2/50 and for good reason. If you've got the cash and need an extra lens for the 5 images a year for which a 1mm DOF is suited for, then a Mr Ding will do. Its rendering seems more relevant than the unholy "mush" of the Leica of LLL knockoff 50/1.2.
