Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.71 #5 · Light Lens Lab (LLL) replica lenses discussion & image thread | |
_jim_ wrote:
I received my copy of the LLL '1966' 50mm f/1.2 yesterday. It's a bit dreary this time of year in the beautiful Pacific Northwest, so it might be a few days before I can shoot/develop/scan photos. Here are my initial impressions of the lens, in-hand and as shot on a Sony A7rII. I have a black paint brass copy.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53432008710_d21fa2b810_b.jpgLLL 1966 50mm f/1.2 by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53430654867_b905301727_b.jpgLLL 1966 50mm f/1.2 by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Build Quality:
Exceptional. This is the nicest of the LLL lenses I have used. Tolerances are tight. The engraving and painting is clean. The quality of the black paint is not glossy (like the 8-Element), but beautifully matte. The 16-blade aperture is smooth with good resistance and distinct clicks (unlike my 8-Element and Elcan copies...more like the SPII I handled). The focus ring turns very smoothly with good resistance, as well. The lens caps (both front and back) appear to made of brass (unlike the prior LLL lenses which have aluminum caps). The included hood is brass and beautifully made (albeit true to the original and comically large). Without caps/hood, the lens weighs almost 560 grams. It ships with an ND4 (in it's own case), a hood (w/ Series VIII UV filter), and a light fawn colored leather case (which is also very attractive). The impression, in-hand, is of a very dense, compact lens of the highest construction standards.
Initial Impression Image Pros:
* Extremely smooth, but intensely characterful bokeh. Other than the appealing size, this is the raison d'etre for this lens. There is swirl and vignetting and the wildest astigmatism (that is extremely divergent in the sagittal and tangential planes...I feel like this is a big part of the look).
* Enough resolution on-center, wide-open with a bit of glow. Unlike, say, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 ai-s, the jump between 1.2 and 1.4 on the LLL is obvious. Image contrast and resolution are markedly better at 1.4 on the '1966.' It is also quite sharp stopped down.
* Focus shift is not apparent (this is a relief).
* Decent flare resistance for a single-coated large aperture lens.
Initial Impression Image Cons:
* Onion Rings. I was a little afraid of this. I don't know if the original Leica 50mm f/1.2 exhibited this degree of aspherical structure in the out-of-focus highlights, but the Leica re-issue does not (at least from what I've seen). Perhaps, this is the trade-off of hand-grinding aspheres. It reminds of some images I've seen from the Noct-Nikkor and Canon K35 Cine lenses (specifically the 35mm). I don't want to post samples yet, but it reminds me of my previous-most-onion-ringy lens - the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton V1...which looked like this:
https://live.staticflickr.com/3291/2415617630_df46ca8bfb_b.jpgJenny at Salsa La by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Zeiss Ikon ZM, Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton V1, Kodak NC 160.
And, I guess, I didn't even know to fret over such things when I took this image in 2008. Lol. Perhaps I can learn to not worry about the the rings in my new LLL lens.
*Geometric distortion. I knew to expect this. It's a lot, but probably won't distract much in most cases.
At any rate, the pros seem to out weight the cons (at least initially). I am excited to get out and use the lens. LLL should be very proud of what they've accomplished. This is a seriously beautiful optic. ...Show more →
Hi Jim,
I was revisiting your initial impressions of the LLL 50/1.2 now that I have one as well. That is a great breakdown of the pros and cons!
So far, I think much of the character comes from the strong coma, astigmatism, and pronounced field curvature. I found the outlining of specular highlights to be well controlled for a double-Gauss design. I have not noticed onion rings yet, but I know they will show up in high-contrast lighting. To me, it is obvious this was a characteristic of the original Leica, since only modern grinding techniques have minimized aspherical structure. In that sense, I feel it is part of the original character and something to embrace.
It is funny how LLL got the weight wrong on their website. Maybe they included the hood in their measurements. Your brass version weighs 560g, but they list it at 632g. Mine is titanium, supposedly 506g, but it actually weighs 473g. Not that I am complaining. 
One more thing I noticed is that the LLL version seems to have 15 aperture blades, not 16 like everyone keeps saying.
|
