j.liam wrote:
I remember 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. 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, 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 mad rush to 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. ...Show more →
The LLL version is supposed to bring better sharpness at f/1.2 over the reissue. If the production version can't live up to that, then I'll agree it gets put in the same mush category as the Leica reissue. But we can't yet know based on these first shots on 3200 speed film at 1/15 sec.
highdesertmesa wrote:
The LLL version is supposed to bring better sharpness at f/1.2 over the reissue. If the production version can't live up to that, then I'll agree it gets put in the same mush category as the Leica reissue. But we can't yet know based on these first shots on 3200 speed film at 1/15 sec.
Perhaps I'm wrong but getting that ƒ/1.2 lens to resolve better requires precision collimation and adjustment before it's shipped--Leica messes up on this all too often. Given the LLL price point, don't expect much QA before it's sent out of the workshop. Also with LLL, they probably tore apart one or two random, original samples and copied the elements, including the hand-ground aspherical, tweaking the design. This is also a limiting factor in the end-product.
j.liam wrote:
Perhaps I'm wrong but getting that ƒ/1.2 lens to resolve better requires precision collimation and adjustment before it's shipped--Leica messes up on this all too often. Given the LLL price point, don't expect much QA before it's sent out of the workshop. Also with LLL, they probably tore apart one or two random, original samples and copied the elements, including the hand-ground aspherical, tweaking the design. This is also a limiting factor in the end-product.
My understanding was the point of the 1.2 remake from LLL was not to just copy the original but to improve it both in sharpness and bokeh rendering wide open. I thought I remember seeing some comparisons with their prototype that illustrated this. Leica took a different route using modern lens manufacturing techniques but still remaining faithful to the "mush". It's ironic that LLL is more closely copying the original glass types but trying for better IQ while Leica is using modern techniques but kept the performance similar to the original.
Jury is still out though. There was a big difference between the rendering of the LLL 50 SPII prototypes and the production version – almost a completely different lens from an optics perspective – so the same may hold true for this 50 1.2. Waiting on some digital comparisons between the LLL, the original, and the reissue like Fred mentioned.
Dan Chang wrote:
A cheaper Voigtlander 50mm f1 can do better and faster. The posted images are unimpressive for a 2K lens
The LLL 50/1.2 lens isn't designed for modern high resolution and contrast. You're correct, but that's beside the point, as this lens has a different purpose.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Oh wow, so you're telling me that a Voigtlander lens designed in 2022 has better IQ than a faithful remake of a 57-year old lens? Stunning.
You missed the point. Of course the newby will be superior (duh) but the CV will deliver the millimeters-deep DOF when subject isolation is the goal, "imperfect" rendering--slightly glowy at ƒ/1 plus more usability at ƒ/1.7-2.0, the range that you'd even bother with such an optic. The Leica just looks unusable at any aperture unless of course you're filming a hazy dream sequence for a horror movie. Like the re-released Thambar, it's a "thing" and the (pricey) charm of it fades quickly. The LLL at $2k for this level of (non) performance? Ehh.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The LLL 50/1.2 lens isn't designed for modern high resolution and contrast. You're correct, but that's beside the point, as this lens has a different purpose.
Yup. Some can't wait for the thrill of the mush, others will wonder what's the point. Everyone's entitled to their own aesthetic.
j.liam wrote:
You missed the point. Of course the newby will be superior (duh) but the CV will deliver the millimeters-deep DOF when subject isolation is the goal, "imperfect" rendering--slightly glowy at ƒ/1 plus more usability at ƒ/1.7-2.0, the range that you'd even bother with such an optic. The Leica just looks unusable at any aperture unless of course you're filming a hazy dream sequence for a horror movie. Like the re-released Thambar, it's a "thing" and the (pricey) charm of it fades quickly. The LLL at $2k for this level of (non) performance? Ehh.
Yup. Some can't wait for the thrill of the mush, others will wonder what's the point. Everyone's entitled to their own aesthetic....Show more →
Liam, could you post some photos you took with any of the lenses in question?
j.liam wrote:
You missed the point. Of course the newby will be superior (duh) but the CV will deliver the millimeters-deep DOF when subject isolation is the goal, "imperfect" rendering--slightly glowy at ƒ/1 plus more usability at ƒ/1.7-2.0, the range that you'd even bother with such an optic. The Leica just looks unusable at any aperture unless of course you're filming a hazy dream sequence for a horror movie. Like the re-released Thambar, it's a "thing" and the (pricey) charm of it fades quickly. The LLL at $2k for this level of (non) performance? Ehh.
Yup. Some can't wait for the thrill of the mush, others will wonder what's the point. Everyone's entitled to their own aesthetic....Show more →
You have seen samples from the LLL 1.2 on an M11? I must have missed that, too.
highdesertmesa wrote:
People don’t need high res samples or direct experience to give well-informed opinions
I just don’t understand how people can form such over the top opinions (nothing is useable with x lens) with never even touching it. The internet is a beautiful thing
RustyRus wrote:
I just don’t understand how people can form such over the top opinions (nothing is useable with x lens) with never even touching it. The internet is a beautiful thing
Probably because they're easily triggered by things they don't understand or are prejudiced against. All started with "China" being too red and prominent, IIRC.
highdesertmesa wrote:
People don’t need high res samples or direct experience to give well-informed opinions
Save the snark for someone else. You too Rusty. Desmo, well, that's the tone you take with everyone. If you had actually read what I wrote, I looked at the samples Leica provided on the 50/1.2 and the work of others with that lens. Can only go off the images online for the LLL which mimics that performance. The CV 50/1 was rented for a project and speak from experience. Doesn't take 3 years with the lens to see what the Leica 50/1.2 is about. Go spring $8k, Mr Mesa and tell us of all your wondrous insights. On pins and needles for that one.
j.liam wrote:
Save the snark for someone else. You too Rusty. Desmo, well, that's the tone you take with everyone. If you had actually read what I wrote, I looked at the samples Leica provided on the 50/1.2 and the work of others with that lens. Can only go off the images online for the LLL which mimics that performance. The CV 50/1 was rented for a project and speak from experience. Doesn't take 3 years with the lens to see what the Leica 50/1.2 is about. Go spring $8k, Mr Mesa and tell us of all your wondrous insights. On pins and needles for that one....Show more →
Keep telling us all what to think, what we should like, what we should not like, and why. It has been truly uplifting and encouraging to read all your posts in this thread. However, at this time I feel it wise to hide your posts. That said, I hope you continue to bring love and light to this forum
The discussion got a bit intense, and some posts were removed. Let's steer the conversation back to civil discussion about Light Lens Lab gear. Thanks!
