azenis
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.54 #20 · Light Lens Lab (LLL) replica lenses discussion & image thread | |
Ok, I finally mounted the LLL 50mm F1.2 Titanium on the M9P as well as my original 50mm F1.2 Noctilux.
The test was on a tripod, focus was done to the best of my ability. Everything from ISO, and shutter were all manual to make sure they were matched.
Now, without further ado, let's dive in.
The hardware:
LLL did replicate the original Noctilux to the T. Not only you can hardly tell from looking at it (other than the color), but one of the problem I was having with the original Noctilux with Techart TZM-02 adapter was that the focus ring would not clear the tab to lock the lens. Hence even though there's no play, I can always take the lens on and off since the tab is always pushed down.
The same problem can be observed with the LLL.
And all the accessories such as original hoods and caps of the Leica can be used on the LLL and vice-versa. In a sense, I think it's great for original Leica owners to get the LLL just so that they have a set of hoods to use with their Leica since these things are fetching crazy prices.
As far as the build quality goes, I can only comment on the Titanium version I got, but the built was excellent on my copy. Everything that should move is buttery-smooth and everything that shouldn't stay firmly in place with zero play that I could notice.
Now, the image quality. Again, this was done on a M9P to minimize whatever variable a non-OEM camera introduces. I do have another set on Z8, I'll try to post later.
This is wide open. The first thing I noticed was the color temperature difference where the Leica was clearly warmer than the LLL replica.
Now, I think LLL did a decent job of mimicking the bokeh. The drawing of the bokeh on both lenses looks similar to my eyes when looking. If I'm going to pick, I do prefer the Leica as the warmer image seems to be more pleasing overall and the micro-contrast seems just a tad better.
Zooming in at 1:1 to pixel peep, we can see the main difference of the two besides the color temp. The center, in-focus area, which my Amazon JP Danboard stands, the LLL seems a tad brighter albeit with a hue around the edges.
I did verify with Mr. Zhou from LLL that it is a fact that their replica lenses has a slightly faster and therefore brighter than the Leica.
The Leica is a tad dimmer, but all the details and contrast is there. This is what I personally feel the "signature" style of the original Noctilux. Sharp and contrasty wide open, especially considering this lens was designed and made almost 60yrs ago. But the quality quickly change as soon as you leave the center. If you look at the marker I placed right in front of Danboard, you can see on the writing of the word "Expo" is not the same quality. At first I thought it was a vibration or focus problem. However, I took the shot again, re-doing everything, I got the picture that you see above.
The LLL, OTOH, even though the hue, which looks like a coma of some sort, gave less contrast and seemingly less sharpness. But the image quality stays the same way more of less across the focus plane.
Here at pixel peeping level, we can see bokeh difference. It's very subtle, but it's there. Although as I said, I think LLL did a good job trying to replicate that bokeh *feel* to it. The transition and drawing are very similar. But it's definitely present at pixel level.
Then it occurred to me, what if I matched the color temperature so that they look the same. So I did just that. Instead of having 5200 on both, I matched it by using the drop tool at the same spot. It gave me 6500 on the Leica and 7900 on the LLL. And this is the result:
Now, looking at full frame, they look a lot more similar than the original shot when color temps were actually matched. Although the micro-contrast different is still there as shown in the next 2 shots:
From my own eyes, what I could tell was the structure of the contrast. I marked both points where I looked and the out of the focus area on the Leica is a lot more defined than the LLL.
It truly speaks volume about the original Leica Noctilux. A marvel in optical engineering and production at its time. A lens that was made nearly 60yrs ago and it could still show to its competitors that it can do things that modern technology can't quite replicate.
I did think about maybe it's got something to do with the fact that the LLL's aperture is slightly wider at max aperture, but the question that needs to be asked in my mind was... is the LLL a good replicate to the original Noctilux?
I think LLL did a great job trying to find that bokeh drawing of a legendary lens such as the original Leica Noctilux. Are they the same? The short answer is no. But the long answer is more complex than that. For people who are Leica aficionados or collectors who want nothing but the real deal, don't worry, they haven't got it all figured out. Whatever the difference was... the coating, glass type or whatever magic Leica got under its sleeve, LLL was no match. There are certain aspects, which I also discussed it with people at LLL, such as the fact that the aspherical elements on the original Noctilux were hand-ground creating all the little differences, that their digital machines could not quite replicate.
Thus, for my conclusion, I'd go as far as saying that the LLL is very good... a better choice than Leica's own reissue 50mm F1.2 Noctilux-M ASPH for people chasing the look of the original Noctilux. But if one is after the real deal... like trying to match the taste of that incredible bottle of 82' Lafite Rothchild with a modern Lafite, I'm sorry. It's not it. Don't get me wrong... it was a very good one. Like a good bottle of 2018, but it can never be the same.
Jay
|
