Juha Kannisto wrote:
Yes, I also don't know how Buyee is doing the blocking. There are currently Kistar lenses listed in Map Camera as new and used, so maybe somebody from overseas can see if the new ones are blocked by Buyee from international orders (not sure if it can be seen without trying to actually order though).
This is their 40/2.4 in M-mount as new, currently backordered but it could be usable as a test item I think since backordered items can usually be ordered: https://www.mapcamera.com/item/2717014165486 (it seems the link needs to be copy-pasted to browser for it to work)
The new Kistar lens at that link can't be purchased through Buyee when I tried it just now, but any of the used lenses are added to the shopping cart. This is the same with any other brand of cameras and lenses; used is no problem but new is blocked/restricted. It seems like an across-the-board implementation rather than brand specific. Kind of frustrating TBH.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Perhaps they believe the Japanese market is substantial enough to match their production capabilities.
Probably. These lenses are not their main business (they mainly make industrial lenses and some optical measurement equipment, contract work for other companies etc.) and the consumer lenses seems to be kind of passion projects for them without much business aspirations.
It's really helpful to me… I am someone who is weirdly sensitive to edge chromatic aberrations (they make me dizzy; don't ask why, I don't know) and seeing the side-by-sides with the Voigtlander is very helpful, because it is clear how much better the LLL is in this one regard specifically.
I may not end up with the LLL lens but I will definitely *not* go for the Voigtlander. And knowing that is useful all on its own.
Just a quick note for those who may be in similar situations or may have also skipped what I missed. It may also be obvious to others, but depending on where you look at specs "Compatible with all digital M-mount cameras (not Leica M5 and CL)" or "Designed for use with Leica M-Mount Series Cameras (Not Compatible with the Leica M5 and Leica CL)" or "Compatible with all digital M mount cameras, Incompatible with Leica M5 and CL" keep in mind that also means not adaptable in most cases as the rear element is so far inside body. So in my case will work for my M9M, but not SLs. My mistake, but if I can prevent others from making the same, posting here.
blessingx wrote:
Just a quick note for those who may be in similar situations or may have also skipped what I missed. It may also be obvious to others, but depending on where you look at specs "Compatible with all digital M-mount cameras (not Leica M5 and CL)" or "Designed for use with Leica M-Mount Series Cameras (Not Compatible with the Leica M5 and Leica CL)" or "Compatible with all digital M mount cameras, Incompatible with Leica M5 and CL" keep in mind that also means not adaptable in most cases as the rear element is so far inside body. So in my case will work for my M9M, but not SLs. My mistake, but if I can prevent others from making the same, posting here. ...Show more →
It just says not compatible with CL, not SL. CL will be too narrow inside the camera since it's APS-C. You tried this on an SL, and it didn't work? The sensor should be the exact same distance from the rear of the lens on SL as it is on M, so is something else interfering inside the camera or adapter itself?
highdesertmesa wrote:
It just says not compatible with CL, not SL. CL will be too narrow inside the camera since it's APS-C. You tried this on an SL, and it didn't work? The sensor should be the exact same distance from the rear of the lens on SL as it is on M, so is something else interfering inside the camera or adapter itself?
Yes, you see how the compatibility warnings, which of course aren't consistent across sites, could be read different ways. All the m-mount lenses were designed for m-mount cameras, etc. The sensor distance is the same between the M9M and SL (also tried SL2), but the path to that sensor isn't. The space to the shutter is pretty open from the mount circle on the M9M, but it closes down immediately to a sensor-sized rectangle back on the mirrorless SL. Unfortunately, the barrow for the rear element hits the rectangle edge. Sorry for the dusty phone pic below, but it shows the difference. It's possible it would work with other bodies, and if anyone has found it so I would be curious which models.
If you're like me and end up with m-glass as they're nearly mirrorless mount independent with adapters, this may be an exception.
The lens won't fit the Leica SL/SL2 and Panasonic SR1 with an Leica M-L adapter. I try the lens on my Nikon Zf and it works well The image qualities on Zf are pretty good.
blessingx wrote:
Yes, you see how the compatibility warnings, which of course aren't consistent across sites, could be read different ways. All the m-mount lenses were designed for m-mount cameras, etc. The sensor distance is the same between the M9M and SL (also tried SL2), but the path to that sensor isn't. The space to the shutter is pretty open from the mount circle on the M9M, but it closes down immediately to a sensor-sized rectangle back on the mirrorless SL. Unfortunately, the barrow for the rear element hits the rectangle edge. Sorry for the dusty phone pic below, but it shows the difference. It's possible it would work with other bodies, and if anyone has found it so I would be curious which models.
If you're like me and end up with m-glass as they're nearly mirrorless mount independent with adapters, this may be an exception.
ocean2059 wrote:
The lens won't fit the Leica SL/SL2 and Panasonic SR1 with an Leica M-L adapter. I try the lens on my Nikon Zf and it works well The image qualities on Zf are pretty good.
@LightLensLab Please update your list of excluded cameras that don't work with this lens to include the SL cameras. I just wasted overnight shipping cost only to find out it won't fit my SL2-S when it arrives this evening
@LightLensLab@ Please update your list of excluded cameras that don't work with this lens to include the SL cameras. I just wasted overnight shipping cost only to find out it won't fit my SL2-S when it arrives this evening
Sorry to hear that and hope you still have a M body that you can use the lens.
I have not used my copy extensively but I really like the classic rendering with its great center sharpness and color on my M9/M11 bodies. I plan to use it a bit more during the holidays.
ocean2059 wrote:
Sorry to hear that and hope you still have a M body that you can use the lens.
I have not used my copy extensively but I really like the classic rendering with its great center sharpness and color on my M9/M11 bodies. I plan to use it a bit more during the holidays.
Thanks, but no, I went back to the SL2-S from the M11-D.
Is it just the M-Adapter L causing the problem for you? The Zf seems to have the same internal plastic box frame around the sensor as the SL2 but maybe I can't see it well enough in photos online.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Thanks, but no, I went back to the SL2-S from the M11-D.
Is it just the M-Adapter L causing the problem for you? The Zf seems to have the same internal plastic box frame around the sensor as the SL2 but maybe I can't see it well enough in photos online.
I am able to mount the lens onto the Leica M-L adapter without problem. It’s the protrusion of the rear element of the lens that causes the interference between the L mount sensor guard (plastic window) and the rear lens guard, which prevents the lens to mount properly. I included two images below showing the large amount of interference when focus at infinity and smaller amount in MFD.
ocean2059 wrote:
For Nikon Z mount, the adapter is thicker so there is still some recessed amount when the lens is focused at infinity, which allows proper mounting.
Thanks for the images! The adapter for Z has to be thicker due to the shorter Z-mount flange distance. In the end, both L and Z adapters keep the rear element the same distance from the sensor. So the difference with fitment has to be the plastic frames around the sensor. The Z plastic frame sensor protector must be set slightly further back.
It's a shame really, because LLL could have made the metal shroud around the rear element slightly shorter in order to accommodate the SL cameras. Perhaps this is something @LightLensLab could do for a V2 of this lens.
It's definitely not an adapter issue, but for those still wondering I used both a Novoflex and Haoge M-L adapters and the Leica one is also mentioned and pictured above. The lens fit on the SL is so close, it's a shame it doesn't work.
ocean2059 wrote:
I am able to mount the lens onto the Leica M-L adapter without problem. It’s the protrusion of the rear element of the lens that causes the interference between the L mount sensor guard (plastic window) and the rear lens guard, which prevents the lens to mount properly. I included two images below showing the large amount of interference when focus at infinity and smaller amount in MFD.
Thanks for sharing this. It's something potential buyers should keep in mind, as many prefer using their M and SL bodies with M-mount lenses. It's great to see it works with the Z-mount. It also works well with the E-mount, as I used it on my A7CR "UT" mod.
spiffariffic wrote:
Thanks for this thorough review!
It's really helpful to me… I am someone who is weirdly sensitive to edge chromatic aberrations (they make me dizzy; don't ask why, I don't know) and seeing the side-by-sides with the Voigtlander is very helpful, because it is clear how much better the LLL is in this one regard specifically.
I may not end up with the LLL lens but I will definitely *not* go for the Voigtlander. And knowing that is useful all on its own.
Color aberration correction one of the strengths of the LLL 28/2.8!
Do you think is LLL able to make an updated version of this lens that can be mounted on Leica SL cameras? I really want this lens with a vintage character, because my Thypoch 28/1.4 is too clinical.
Fred Miranda
Could you compare LLL 28/2.8 with Thypoch 28/1.4?
ocean2059 wrote:
For Nikon Z mount, the adapter is thicker so there is still some recessed amount when the lens is focused at infinity, which allows proper mounting.
It's not the adapter thickness that allows it to be mounted to the Zf, it's the fact that the Zf doesn't have the thick plastic guard around the sensor like the SL cameras do. M mount flange distance is a constant, otherwise the adapted lens wouldn't be able to focus to infinity. Think of it as the lens stays the same distance from all sensors but the specific mounts and adapter length combinations vary, they just always add up to the same distance.
@LightLensLab – it's so frustrating that this lens will mount on a Nikon Zf and others but not on the Leica SL bodies. Please make a version 2 that has a slightly shorter shroud around the rear element! Please and thank you!!
Our oligarchic overlords at Google decided to feed me a video review for this lens which led to the LLL site and back to this review.
Owning the Voigt 28/1.5 and really disliking the effect of the optical vignetting on rendering, I really appreciate the rendering of this lens.
Over time I've also come to be less critical of other aberrations, and perhaps a bit more enthusiastic about less tangible characteristics like the elusive '3D pop'. I used to think the greenscreen effect, where the subject is so dramatically separated from the Oof areas was what caused a 3D pop, and it does delineate the subject, but if anything it gives us two flat planes and less dimensionality.
This lens from all the samples I've seen and from Fred's review seems to show some great rounded dimensionality. In this age of AI denoise and my growing distaste for shallow DOF for the sake of it, this lens actually looks like one of the best options for M cameras.
Thanks Fred, great review. Do you still have the lens? Have you shot with it much since?
The sensor distance is the same between the M9M and SL (also tried SL2), but the path to that sensor isn't. The space to the shutter is pretty open from the mount circle on the M9M, but it closes down immediately to a sensor-sized rectangle back on the mirrorless SL. Unfortunately, the barrow for the rear element hits the rectangle edge. Sorry for the dusty phone pic below, but it shows the difference. It's possible it would work with other bodies, and if anyone has found it so I would be curious which models. 
