@_jim_, I love your images, but I'm not sure I'm fond of the onion ring pattern in the LLL 50/1.2 lens. It seems a bit excessive, even though it was likely present in the original design.
What is your take?
Fred Miranda wrote:
@_jim_@, I love your images, but I'm not sure I'm fond of the onion ring pattern in the LLL 50/1.2 lens. It seems a bit excessive, even though it was likely present in the original design.
What is your take?
Thanks, Fred! From the evidence I’ve seen, I don’t think the onion rings are true to the original. Anson from tahusa.co showed me some comparison photos of specular highlights as shot on the original, the reissue and the LLL replica. Neither Leica lens showed onion ring patterns to this degree.
It’s a bit of a bummer. Just have to avoid situations that might elicit the effect.
Fred Miranda wrote:
@_jim_@, I love your images, but I'm not sure I'm fond of the onion ring pattern in the LLL 50/1.2 lens. It seems a bit excessive, even though it was likely present in the original design.
What is your take?
Fred- Would love a review done of the Leica 50 1.2-
Happy to share mine if you make it happen 🤷♂️
Also I don’t see any of the onion ring patter in my lens-
Perhaps the onion rings appear to varying degrees from copy to copy of this lens. In my pictures I did not see such sharp boundaries between the rings. Some of my examples: https://vk.com/mist.art.filters?w=wall-212138905_133
Fred Miranda wrote:
@_jim_@, I love your images, but I'm not sure I'm fond of the onion ring pattern in the LLL 50/1.2 lens. It seems a bit excessive, even though it was likely present in the original design.
What is your take?
Also consider those onion rings are showing in his ISO 400 film images, which resolves less than on digital.
Listopad44 wrote:
Perhaps the onion rings appear to varying degrees from copy to copy of this lens. In my pictures I did not see such sharp boundaries between the rings. Some of my examples: https://vk.com/mist.art.filters?w=wall-212138905_133
Sure, it's entirely possible. But, I'd suggest setting your lens a subject at minimum focus distance, then have a bunch of super bright LED's about 3-4 meters behind the subject (not sure if you've tried this already...I can't view your link).
Thanks for sharing these photos. I noticed an onion pattern in your images too. One thing I saw compared to Jim's photos is that the specular highlights are less contrasty and more diffused. Maybe if you shoot in high-contrast lighting conditions, we could see more of the inner pattern.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for sharing these photos. I noticed an onion pattern in your images too. One thing I saw compared to Jim's photos is that the specular highlights are less contrasty and more diffused. Maybe if you shoot in high-contrast lighting conditions, we could see more of the inner pattern.
Fred, could simply be the black pro mist filter used on those shots.
_jim_ wrote:
Thanks, Fred! From the evidence I’ve seen, I don’t think the onion rings are true to the original. Anson from tahusa.co showed me some comparison photos of specular highlights as shot on the original, the reissue and the LLL replica. Neither Leica lens showed onion ring patterns to this degree.
It’s a bit of a bummer. Just have to avoid situations that might elicit the effect.
Could bokeh from LED lights produce a more harsh result on film? I also wonder if you could have accidentally been stopped down a half stop.
Otherwise the bokeh balls in your shots look more in focus than the others presented here. I think it's a matter of the distance to subject versus distance to the lights versus brightness of the lights at play.
Hello, I hope this is the right place for this question. I just got an M3, my first M camera.
I also bought a 50mm Fotodiox adapter to use my Summitar, Canon, and Voigtlander lenses on the cameras. This adapter is garbage. It scraped the finish on my M-to-Fuji adapter, and on the M3, it wiggles enough to bring up other framelines!
I see that LLL sells adapters for a pretty reasonable price, and they claim it is made of brass. I was thinking I would get the 3-pack, just so that I could have multiple LTM wide angles ready to go all at once. I know LLL has a good reputation.
Can I assume that their adapters are made to a similarly high standard? Is there any reason to buy used Leica adapters for way more money? I can get the LLL 3 pack for about the same cost as a vintage 90 or 135 adapter, and half the cost of a vintage 50 adapter.
Sax45 wrote:
Hello, I hope this is the right place for this question. I just got an M3, my first M camera.
I also bought a 50mm Fotodiox adapter to use my Summitar, Canon, and Voigtlander lenses on the cameras. This adapter is garbage. It scraped the finish on my M-to-Fuji adapter, and on the M3, it wiggles enough to bring up other framelines!
I see that LLL sells adapters for a pretty reasonable price, and they claim it is made of brass. I was thinking I would get the 3-pack, just so that I could have multiple LTM wide angles ready to go all at once. I know LLL has a good reputation.
Can I assume that their adapters are made to a similarly high standard? Is there any reason to buy used Leica adapters for way more money? I can get the LLL 3 pack for about the same cost as a vintage 90 or 135 adapter, and half the cost of a vintage 50 adapter. ...Show more →
I actually use Fotodiox adapters as well as the original Leica and Voigtlander LTM-M adapters and they all have worked the same for me. I would just return/exchange the one you have for another and see if it is better. The wiggle could be wear on your Leica.
I don’t think brass is a good material for an adapter as it is softer than stainless steel which is what all the other mfgs use.
Yep definitely gonna return this one. I just tried this one again, and I realize now that it doesn’t actually lock up properly, which is a scary thought. And then, when you try to push it extra firmly to lock, that is when it brings up to 90 mm frame lines.
I suppose it’s possible that the camera is at fault, but the two M lenses I got with it worked perfectly. Very smooth to attach and detach, nice positive lock, very very little play, if any.
I had not considered material hardness. The mount on the camera is steel, but aren’t the lugs on the lens made of brass? They definitely are not magnetic, and neither is the thread mount on my IIIc.
The only time I have had issues with fit/attachment of lenses on my Ms is when I am using an LTM-M adapter. And it varies camera to camera and adapter to adapter. There will always be production tolerances that occur in the mfg of the adapters and the camera itself. I have genuine - and very expensive! - Leica adapters that bring up the correct frame lines on one camera, but not on the other. Same with my CV ones. My CV 40mm 2.8 M mount lens does not click attach on one of my M bodies, but it does on all the others! Again due to tolerances between the lens and the body being exactly off.
It is curious that LLL makes their adapter in brass, because their lenses themselves have steel lens mounts. So that is a very strange choice - if brass was fine, they would have used that on their lenses as well.
For example - my brass LLL 8 Element replica - brass finish but the mount is steel:
Is it possible that the LLL lens lugs are chrome plated brass? Because the thread on my Leica III is definitely chrome plated brass, and the lugs on my Summicron DR and 90 Elmarit seem to be chrome plated brass as well. For sure, none of these parts are magnetic, nor do the Leica lens lugs look like stainless steel (which is usually magnetic, but not always).
Yeah, it does seem like the LTM to M adapters are commonly an issue. I was hoping that LLL — a company selling $1100 dollar lenses that come bundled with adapters — would be working to a higher standard.
I mean, I can’t be impossible to make a good LTM to M adapter. The M mount is standardized with lenses and cameras that almost always play nice, and the LTM mount is standardized with lenses and cameras that almost always place nice.
Is everyone sure that what we think is steel is actually steel rather than chromed brass. Most lens mounts on cameras and on lenses are chromed brass (because it is much easier to machine and relatively rugged once chromed)?
All my LTM to M adapters (from a variety of manufacturers) are brass. I've had no issue.
I've never used the LLL mount adapters, but I'd assume they are nicely made. Everything else I have from them is nicely machined.
