thrice wrote:
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?...Show more →
I did not buy this lens; it was just a review loan. That said, I really liked its performance and rendering. My only drawback was the extreme field curvature, which extends from foreground-focused subjects to the extreme corners of the frame.
However, this is likely a characteristic of the original Leica lens, making it part of its charm.
Fred Miranda wrote:
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.
Fred
I really think you should add this to your list of cons since many are not aware of the SL restrictions and from what I am told even LLL literature does not mention this limitation. Thanks.
stgrove wrote:
Fred
I really think you should add this to your list of cons since many are not aware of the SL restrictions and from what I am told even LLL literature does not mention this limitation. Thanks.
Yup, incompatible with:
Mentioned by LLL: CL and M5
Not mentioned by LLL: All SL and Panasonic bodies
I wonder if a company like Kolari could remove or modify the black plastic frame around the sensor on the SL and Panasonics at the same time as a sensor mod. Or perhaps @yukosteel could remove or modify the shroud around the rear element to allow the lens fit the SL/S5/S9 cameras.
I'm actually fond of rangefinder lenses with field curvature provided it is towards me away from centre of frame. I find it makes focus/recompose more accurate, and with flat field lenses I have to ever so slightly back focus to have the recomposed subject still be in focus. Most likely my poor technique but it makes sense to me.
Unfortunately the field curvature on this lens is the opposite, oh well.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I did not buy this lens; it was just a review loan. That said, I really liked its performance and rendering. My only drawback was the extreme field curvature, which extends from foreground-focused subjects to the extreme corners of the frame.
However, this is likely a characteristic of the original Leica lens, making it part of its charm.
thrice wrote:
I'm actually fond of rangefinder lenses with field curvature provided it is towards me away from centre of frame. I find it makes focus/recompose more accurate, and with flat field lenses I have to ever so slightly back focus to have the recomposed subject still be in focus. Most likely my poor technique but it makes sense to me.
Unfortunately the field curvature on this lens is the opposite, oh well.
I call it outwards curvature because the field curvature extends away from the center. At infinity focus, the corners fall behind true infinity at the center. To bring the corners into focus, the lens needs to be focused closer.
In the illustration below, the red line (representing out-of-focus corners) must align with the black line (true infinity) for the entire field to be in focus.
Like you, I much prefer lenses with inwards field curvature, where the edges bend toward the camera. The best 28mm lens example I've used is the Zeiss 28mm f/2 Distagon, which handled this perfectly.
The outwards field curvature becomes noticeable in background rendering when shooting wide open. A focused subject in the foreground looks sharp and the very corners of the frame in the background which should be out-of-focus, appear sharp and in-focus instead. I find this a bit distracting and that's what I was referring about the LLL 28/2.8 9E's rendering.
This type of rendering characteristic also occurs when using an M-mount lens designed for a thin sensor on a thicker sensor stack, like Sony's. Essentially, the thicker stack causes the field curvature to shift outwards.
Tell me please, is LLL aware of the 28mm f/2.8 compatibility issue with Leica SL and is it going to make changes to the lens design? Or will there be no changes and we can not expect them?
A lot of people are wondering why the Light Lens Lab 28mm f/2.8 9-Element does not work on the Leica SL series. The short answer is that, just like the original Leica version, the rear elements stick out further than usual, which can cause interference with some cameras, like the M5 and CL.
Even when using an M-to-L adapter, the same issue can happen with the SL. The rear element might hit internal components or the sensor, which is obviously not ideal. As we have seen from FM member tests adapting it on the SL, this lens is not a good match for the system. Since the LLL 28mm f/2.8 is a faithful mechanical replica of the original, it makes sense that both would have the same limitations. So, if you are using an SL, it is probably best to skip this lens to avoid any potential problems.
I didn't test it on the SL camera when writing this review, so I had no way of knowing about this issue. However, I agree that to avoid confusion, Light Lens Lab should include a note on their site about this. It would help potential buyers understand that the incompatibility applies not only to the M5 and CL, but also when the lens is adapted to the SL series.
I can confirm that the Light Lens Lab 28mm f/2.8 9-Element works adapted to a Sony E-mount camera.
I have the original version and never thought much about this lens. It’s now the most valuable M lens in my possession. Weird. Anyway I shot with it on my M10M. The lack of distortion is remarkable. I framed this shot for the lines and geometry. Look at the upper left corner. I like this lens because it makes a digital shot more film like I suppose because of the low contrast. I wouldn’t want a modern version with improvements if that was lost.
Came across this used at a reasonable price. It doesn't have the hood, which doesn't bother me because I never use hoods on my lenses anyway, but considering the retail price of a new hood, I'm thinking about to ask for a discount if I go for it.
There is also a used Zeiss Biogon in 28mm available. The used Zeiss and a new Voigtländer Nokton 28mm are only a hundred or two euros more expensive, and Voigtländer Ultron has same price as the LLL.
Which one should I get? I usually don't like if a lens is too clinical, which in my understanding the Zeiss will be. It is also a bit pricier. I have Voigtländer Noktons in 35mm and 50mm already but they exhibit quite heavy CA on wider apertures. Thanks to Fred for the comparison, the 28mm Nokton also suffers from this. I think I answered to myself
What do you think, is ~600€ reasonable price for the LLL without the hood?
hkrazerx wrote:
I have the original version and never thought much about this lens. It’s now the most valuable M lens in my possession. Weird. Anyway I shot with it on my M10M. The lack of distortion is remarkable. I framed this shot for the lines and geometry. Look at the upper left corner. I like this lens because it makes a digital shot more film like I suppose because of the low contrast. I wouldn’t want a modern version with improvements if that was lost.
Great sample. I agree the lower contrast is lovely in B&W.
I never had the chance to compare the LLL directly to the original Leica, but from the samples I've seen, the LLL 28/2.8 9E shows noticeably higher contrast. I really wish Light Lens Lab would resist the urge to 'improve' the performance of these classic designs. Like they did with the 35/2 8-Element, the goal should be to faithfully match the original's resolution, contrast, and rendering with no modern enhancements. And in that case, they nailed it!
Interestingly, the LLL 28/2.8 9-Element even looks sharper and more contrasty wide open than the modern 28mm f/2.8 Color-Skopar. You can clearly see it in the samples from this review.
I took my 28 LLL on a road trip- this is a scenic from Turnagain Arm south of Anchorage. I was inspired a bit to use it seeing an original up for sale, quite pricey, and thought I would use mine this trip. I used it quite a bit over 3 days on both dig and film (with a MP- film not developed yet). Was Fred wrote in final thoughts, I too am impressed with it. It does look pretty classy on both the MP and M11P, definitely turns heads with the hood on from on-lookers.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Any more samples from this lens? I never ended up buying one, but I'm always curious to see more images from it.
Fred
The hood got stuck, so my 28 has been back to LLL (in china) since last summer for a repair, so since this photo above, it is coming back to me with my new 35/1.4 within days. I have a lot of lenses so I just moved on to others and didn't worry about it taking some time. I can take some AZ photos with it then and use my "test scenes" of cactus and mountains for you and post here. I did like it when I had it and assume I will again.
It does look "cool" with that hood and I think the lens will look awesome with M11 EV1 although but as you reviewed it does weigh in a bit more than my pocketable color skoper
The hood got stuck, so my 28 has been back to LLL (in china) since last summer for a repair, so since this photo above, it is coming back to me with my new 35/1.4 within days. I have a lot of lenses so I just moved on to others and didn't worry about it taking some time. I can take some AZ photos with it then and use my "test scenes" of cactus and mountains for you and post here. I did like it when I had it and assume I will again.
It does look "cool" with that hood and I think the lens will look awesome with M11 EV1 although but as you reviewed it does weigh in a bit more than my pocketable color skoper
It's interesting you mentioned the hood getting stuck. When I reviewed my loaner copy, I thought it was stuck too, but it only needed a small twist and came off without any trouble. I learned how to mount and unmount it, but eventually stopped using the hood, so I never brought it up again. In my case, it did come off...it was just a bit finicky.
stgrove wrote:
I have not used mine until I am certain it will not hit my sensor on my now EV1.
Good point but since it was designed for dig Ms I assume there is no difference in spacing between my M11P and M EV1 for a lens and the 28 as designed for dig cameras. I can't imagine Leica would change the spacing- I suppose it does not hurt to ask LLL- I think I will before my lens comes back.
You don't see these very often for sale. Last time I saw one without the hood and accessories, was exactly one year ago. This time, my trusted used camera gear store enlisted one with complete set of original accessories and I did not hesitate to pull the trigger
Only 28mm on my M11 has been Brightin Star pancake, and as much as I like the lens and its characteristics, I've been looking for another lens in this focal length. Not going to sell the pancake, though
