Fred Miranda wrote:
I wonder if there is some copy variation in regards the intensity of the aspherical grinding pattern.
I'm gonna guess there is something to that. To wit, in my above photo, you can see that the interior most pip in the center of the interior most ring of the 'onion' isn't perfectly centered. I can't imagine any math based on spheres would benefit from dead center not being, well, dead center...but, then again, I am not an engineer.
In my experience, the intensity of their presence is highly dependent on the strength of the light source and there distance from the lens. In many situations, the blur discs are very smooth/airy/feathery as others have posted.
_jim_ wrote:
I'm gonna guess there is something to that. To wit, in my above photo, you can see that the interior most pip in the center of the interior most ring of the 'onion' isn't perfectly centered. I can't imagine any math based on spheres would benefit from dead center not being, well, dead center...but, then again, I am not an engineer.
In my experience, the intensity of their presence is highly dependent on the strength of the light source and there distance from the lens. In many situations, the blur discs are very smooth/airy/feathery as others have posted.
Jim, you've had the lens for a good bit of time. Based on your experience, would you recommend this lens? I love my Leica 50/1 Noct, but I'm curious about trying out this LLL.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Jim, you've had the lens for a good bit of time. Based on your experience, would you recommend this lens? I love my Leica 50/1 Noct, but I'm curious about trying out this LLL.
Would I recommend this lens? In short, yes.
But...there needs to be a big qualifying statement to go along with the recommendation - this lens is absolutely not for everyone.
Here are some of the 'issues' (and to be clear, I believe most of these 'problems' are true to the original lens that LLL faithfully reproduced):
1. It is very heavy...I might suggest looking into the aluminum or titanium versions (but I don't know how well the black paint on aluminum version will wear. My black paint brass version is already showing some scuffs from where the hood attaches).
2. It vignettes like crazy (the mechanical vignette does clear up when stopped down to f/8, though).
3. It is soft at full aperture. It is soft away from the center until f/5.6-f/8.
4. It is very difficult to focus using the rangefinder with typical focus and recompose (and that's on a recently CLA'd camera with the LLL 1.4x magnifier). I'd say 6 out of 10 shots appear to lack critical sharpness at 1.2/1.4. Field curvature and astigmatism are mostly to blame. When used on a camera where you can actually see through the lens, this issue goes away.
5. There is a solid amount of barrel distortion.
6. The onion rings.
Now, with that out of the way, here is what I love about it:
1. The build quality. It is an absolute jewel. Each of the LLL lenses I have owned or used represent an incremental step forward in build and manufacturing. I love seeing the improvement. That being said, there are still issues with lenses leaving the factory not being perfectly centered/collimated/rangefinder calibrated. I want to believe they are working on fixing that. My particular '1966' is centered ok, but not perfectly. I'm hoping that Jadon can address this for me.
2. The size. It is small for an f/1.2 lens. Without the hood, the viewfinder intrusion is minimal.
3. The rendering. This is the reason you get this lens. Nothing else looks like it. The optical vignette coupled with (excluding the onion ring structure) soft, evenly illuminated blur discs and high contrast, but also glowy images make for really unique photos. Excluding the Noct f/1, other high-speed lenses from this time period have terrible wide-open draw. This lens has 'special sauce.'
I have had the lens mounted to my camera since I received it at the end of December. I am still learning how to use it. As mentioned, rangefinder focusing is hard and fraught. I have been very tempted to pick up an M240 off meta marketplace to further experiment, but I am certain that my partner might kill me if I spend any money before taxes are finalized. If you have an M with live view capability, I suspect this lens would be even more enjoyable.
_jim_ wrote:
I have had the lens mounted to my camera since I received it at the end of December. I am still learning how to use it. As mentioned, rangefinder focusing is hard and fraught. I have been very tempted to pick up an M240 off meta marketplace to further experiment, but I am certain that my partner might kill me if I spend any money before taxes are finalized. If you have an M with live view capability, I suspect this lens would be even more enjoyable.
M240 so you have a relatively affordable digital Leica? One drawback of the M240 is its live view implementation is fairly limited; it only zooms into the center of the image. You cannot magnify and scroll around the image to check focus. You would need to go with the M10 series for this capability.
I absolutely love my first run LLL 1.2 1966. The thing is built like a tank. The sheer heft and build quality alone blew my mind. It's paired with a brand new Leica MP. I don't do digital, so I rushed a same-day practice roll, souped it in some HC-110 dilution E, and created some quick and dirty silver gelatin prints. I don't yet have a proper film scanning rig, so this is simply an iPhone photo of wet silver prints stuck to the window. It's not going to provide any jaw-dropping res, but you can at least get a feel for the spirit of this lens.
I'm not encountering any focus issues, the fit and finish is exquisite, and there doesn't appear to be any onion ring effects in the bokeh lights. It's hard to nail focus with this lens, especially on wirey-haired fox terriers, but when you hit it, magic. Hopefully I can convey this once I get a proper scanning rig. The next test will be with the brand new Steel Rim.
But kudos to LLL, and the enigmatic Mr. Zhou. I love that he's putting untouchable lenses in the hands of shooters!
anitasanger wrote:
I absolutely love my first run LLL 1.2 1966. The thing is built like a tank. The sheer heft and build quality alone blew my mind. It's paired with a brand new Leica MP. I don't do digital, so I rushed a same-day practice roll, souped it in some HC-110 dilution E, and created some quick and dirty silver gelatin prints. I don't yet have a proper film scanning rig, so this is simply an iPhone photo of wet silver prints stuck to the window. It's not going to provide any jaw-dropping res, but you can at least get a feel for the spirit of this lens.
I'm not encountering any focus issues, the fit and finish is exquisite, and there doesn't appear to be any onion ring effects in the bokeh lights. It's hard to nail focus with this lens, especially on wirey-haired fox terriers, but when you hit it, magic. Hopefully I can convey this once I get a proper scanning rig. The next test will be with the brand new Steel Rim.
But kudos to LLL, and the enigmatic Mr. Zhou. I love that he's putting untouchable lenses in the hands of shooters!
anitasanger wrote:
I absolutely love my first run LLL 1.2 1966. The thing is built like a tank. The sheer heft and build quality alone blew my mind. It's paired with a brand new Leica MP. I don't do digital, so I rushed a same-day practice roll, souped it in some HC-110 dilution E, and created some quick and dirty silver gelatin prints. I don't yet have a proper film scanning rig, so this is simply an iPhone photo of wet silver prints stuck to the window. It's not going to provide any jaw-dropping res, but you can at least get a feel for the spirit of this lens.
I'm not encountering any focus issues, the fit and finish is exquisite, and there doesn't appear to be any onion ring effects in the bokeh lights. It's hard to nail focus with this lens, especially on wirey-haired fox terriers, but when you hit it, magic. Hopefully I can convey this once I get a proper scanning rig. The next test will be with the brand new Steel Rim.
But kudos to LLL, and the enigmatic Mr. Zhou. I love that he's putting untouchable lenses in the hands of shooters!
A few more with the '1966' on the Sony A7RII. Part of me still wonders if the corners look bad because of the Sony sensor...or because of the insane amount of astigmatism (maybe both). A friend just lent me a very nice copy of the version 2 f/1 Noctilux. I am floored by how much sharper it is across the frame vs the 1.2. The 1.2 rendering is different enough and the size small enough to warrant having both.
Not LLL but interesting to me to see the replica lens and how it compares to my re-release-
Would love to post side by side comparisons- Hopefully no one minds the Noctilux re-release images being posted here- I enjoy seeing the differences if at all-
The LLL re-make of it looks to be a great little lens!
RustyRus wrote:
Not LLL but interesting to me to see the replica lens and how it compares to my re-release-
Would love to post side by side comparisons- Hopefully no one minds the Noctilux re-release images being posted here- I enjoy seeing the differences if at all-
The LLL re-make of it looks to be a great little lens!
OK by me as the thread starter.
If anyone else wishes to post comparison images with non-LLL lenses, please be sure to clearly state the lens(es) used for the respective images to avoid potential confusion.
anitasanger wrote:
I absolutely love my first run LLL 1.2 1966. The thing is built like a tank. The sheer heft and build quality alone blew my mind. It's paired with a brand new Leica MP. I don't do digital, so I rushed a same-day practice roll, souped it in some HC-110 dilution E, and created some quick and dirty silver gelatin prints. I don't yet have a proper film scanning rig, so this is simply an iPhone photo of wet silver prints stuck to the window. It's not going to provide any jaw-dropping res, but you can at least get a feel for the spirit of this lens.
I'm not encountering any focus issues, the fit and finish is exquisite, and there doesn't appear to be any onion ring effects in the bokeh lights. It's hard to nail focus with this lens, especially on wirey-haired fox terriers, but when you hit it, magic. Hopefully I can convey this once I get a proper scanning rig. The next test will be with the brand new Steel Rim.
But kudos to LLL, and the enigmatic Mr. Zhou. I love that he's putting untouchable lenses in the hands of shooters!
I'm curious what your serial number is. It's amazing how the fifth image shows no onion rings in the out of focus highlights. I have 559 and onion rings similar to what the photo from 'mdg137' shows (they are sometimes unobtrusive...sometimes very noticeable).
_jim_ wrote:
A few more with the '1966' on the Sony A7RII. Part of me still wonders if the corners look bad because of the Sony sensor...or because of the insane amount of astigmatism (maybe both). A friend just lent me a very nice copy of the version 2 f/1 Noctilux. I am floored by how much sharper it is across the frame vs the 1.2. The 1.2 rendering is different enough and the size small enough to warrant having both.
I have both, a Noctilux 1.0 (v4) and a Noctilux 50 1.2 (reissue). You need your subject centered with the 50/1.2 when it is wide open and it will have a nice “sharpness” in that area, but away from center sharpness will be lacking due to a waviness in where focus lies and a that further degrades into a total lack of sharpness as one moves toward the edges. Stopped down a few stops (4-5.6), and the 50/1.2 is sharp everywhere and can stand in for a summicron. The Noctilux 1.0 has a uniformity of sharpness from center almost all the way to the edges, but it is still much softer than one expects from a Summicron or even a Summilux. The 50 1.4 Summilux ASPH is sharper at wide open than either of the aforementioned Noctiluxes at 1.4 and has a beautiful falloff wide open. The 50 1.4 Summilux is truly an unsung hero among all this Noctilux love. Shoot one of those wide open and you will pleased at the additional sharpness and the gently different look. It might make you rethink Noctiluxes altogether. My Summilux gets far more use than my Noctiluxes, but sometimes you just have to scratch that itch.
As for putting them on a Sony. It’s not worth the fight. Get yourself a used SL, SL2, or SL2S and enjoy the lens mated to a sensor designed to accomadate an M lens. Used prices are good.
I was playing around with my Fujifilm X-Pro3 today and decided to try the Fujifilm 1.4x and 2x teleconverters for compatibility with my Leica M lenses. To my surprise, they work seamlessly with my Leica 90/2 cron, Leica 135/4, and Light Lens Lab 50mm f/2 SP2 lenses. What's even better is that this combination supports autofocus when paired with the Fotodiox AF adapter. Below is an image showing the Fuji 2x teleconverter with the Lens Light Lab 50/2 lens. With the 2x teleconverter, it's like shooting with a 150mm lens. The Leica 135/4 becomes a 400mm lens with AF!
