I am curious how it does against the FLE. The most remarkable thing to me about the FLE is the very high micro contrast wide open with unusually deep warm colors. I think it gives the lens its defining signature. Stopped down a couple stops, I don’t think most lenses are that special/interesting.
Excellent photos and tests. Basically, it's clear to me. Anyone with an AA lens will be pleased to know that this is a great lens and there's no cheaper alternative.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I am curious how it does against the FLE. The most remarkable thing to me about the FLE is the very high micro contrast wide open with unusually deep warm colors. I think it gives the lens its defining signature. Stopped down a couple stops, I don’t think most lenses are that special/interesting.
Ergo looks good on this lens.
I believe you will like the Light Lens Lab although the FLE outputs higher resolution and contrast across the field and especially at close distance. I am in the middle of evaluating it now and will post a direct rendering comparison soon. Even at this stage, it is easy to tell which lens is which. The Leica 35/1.4 Lux FLE has higher contrast at any distance and clearly higher resolution at close focus thanks to the floating group, with less aberration overall.
The LLL "11873", on the other hand, renders more smoothly, and I believe some will prefer it over the FLE, which shows more structure in the rendering. The FLE's bokeh highlights are cleaner but also show stronger outlining, while the LLL leans softer and smoother with a slightly 'under-corrected' look. I genuinely like both and see them as distinct rather than interchangeable. This is not something you can replicate with diffusion filters, it really comes down to which rendering someone prefers.
You mentioned the warm tone of the FLE, and in practice the LLL is very close in temperature and color as well. Where they diverge more is in behavior across the field. The LLL shows more outward field curvature, while the FLE controls that better but also exhibits stronger purple fringing in comparison.
In many ways, the LLL 35/1.4 Aspherical "11873" is a steal for anyone considering the Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH. FLE. It competes surprisingly well while offering a different character altogether. I will go into more detail about the rendering once I reach that section of the review.
Im very much looking forward to my copy now. :-)
@Fred Miranda, how does the lens handle/feel on your M10R in terms of size and weight? I have been shooting with the CV 28mm f1.5 for reference. Thank you.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I believe you will like the Light Lens Lab although the FLE outputs higher resolution and contrast across the field and especially at close distance. I am in the middle of evaluating it now and will post a direct rendering comparison soon. Even at this stage, it is easy to tell which lens is which. The Leica 35/1.4 Lux FLE has higher contrast at any distance and clearly higher resolution at close focus thanks to the floating group, with less aberration overall.. I am in the middle of evaluating it now and will post a direct rendering comparison soon. Even at this stage, it is easy to tell which lens is which. The Leica 35/1.4 Lux FLE has higher contrast at any distance and clearly higher resolution at close focus thanks to the floating group, with less aberration overall.
The LLL "11873", on the other hand, renders more smoothly, and I believe some will prefer it over the FLE, which shows more structure in the rendering. The FLE's bokeh highlights are cleaner but also show stronger outlining, while the LLL leans softer and smoother with a slightly 'under-corrected' look. I genuinely like both and see them as distinct rather than interchangeable. This is not something you can replicate with diffusion filters, it really comes down to which rendering someone prefers.
You mentioned the warm tone of the FLE, and in practice the LLL is very close in temperature and color as well. Where they diverge more is in behavior across the field. The LLL shows more outward field curvature, while the FLE controls that better but also exhibits stronger purple fringing in comparison.
In many ways, the LLL 35/1.4 Aspherical "11873" is a steal for anyone considering the Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH. FLE. It competes surprisingly well while offering a different character altogether. I will go into more detail about the rendering once I reach that section of the review. ...Show more →
I am hoping I will like it too! As you know, I have spent the last 10 years shooting lots of old and new RF glass and many of the 35mm options. At this point, I am really familiar with the options having owned many of them (though never the AA!), and this LLL seems like it could offer something distinct as you say. I didn't think this lens would out-FLE the FLE in terms of resolution and micro-contrast, but if I can offer something special with a bit more character at this size, price and ergo, I would be highly interested.
Nowadays, I have settled on a CV 35/1.7 that I shoot to make it look like an FLE which it does well but does lack character. I know what you mean about getting an under-corrected look with a diffusion filter--kind of works but not really.
The other comp that would be quite interesting is this LLL versus the Simera 35/1.4--seems like they are probably closer in terms of draw than the FLE.
Will you be shooting the LLL on a stock Sony to see FC affects?
Resolution and Contrast at Infinity distance: Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical vs Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH. (FLE)
I have been shooting with the Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH "FLE" for many years and it remains one of my favorite Leica lenses. I appreciate its compact size, modern performance, and still recognizably classic rendering. Naturally, I was very curious to see how the Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical 11873 would compare in terms of resolution, contrast, and overall rendering. After a week of shooting and side by side comparisons, I have a much clearer sense of how it stacks up.
Evaluated on its own, the Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical left a very positive impression. It is already sharp wide open and benefits from a bit of stopping down to reach its peak. I no longer chase ultimate resolution the way I once did, and if a lens delivers strong performance at wide apertures while reaching its best around f/4 or f/5.6, that is usually more than enough for my needs. In that context, the Light Lens Lab performs exactly as expected.
However, when placed directly against the Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH FLE, the differences become clearer. The FLE performs better across the field at f/1.4, f/2, and f/2.8, showing higher uniformity and contrast, particularly toward the edges. Since I focus at the center for the mid-field and extreme corner crops, I suspect part of this advantage comes from the FLE's lower field curvature, though I will test this more carefully in a separate comparison. By f/4 and smaller apertures, the gap largely closes and the two lenses look very similar to my eyes.
Image comparisons speak louder than words, so below are side by side examples showing how these two lenses perform at infinity distance. Both lenses were checked for centering and are optimal copies, perfectly aligned, so the results shown here can be trusted.
Distance: Infinity
Focus: Center - Best of three shots at maximum magnification
White Balance: Daylight
Both lenses are well centered, as verified with my decentering test.
Software used: Lightroom with FM Default Landscape Sharpening; all other settings are at default.
PS: Vignetting, Chromatic Aberration (CA), and distortion were NOT corrected either in post-processing or in-camera.
Center Resolution and Contrast
Resolution and Contrast at Infinity distance: Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical vs Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH. (FLE)
(open the browser window to view entire image without resizing)
Resolution and Contrast at Infinity distance: Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical vs Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH. (FLE)
(open the browser window to view entire image without resizing)
Resolution and Contrast at Infinity distance: Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical vs Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH. (FLE)
(open the browser window to view entire image without resizing)
ZdevilH1 wrote:
Im very much looking forward to my copy now. :-)
@Fred Miranda@, how does the lens handle/feel on your M10R in terms of size and weight? I have been shooting with the CV 28mm f1.5 for reference. Thank you.
I have the 28mm f/1.5 Nokton in black paint brass, so for reference the Voigtlander is about 27g heavier. In terms of size, they are surprisingly close in both width and height, with the LLL 35mm f/1.4 being slightly shorter.
If you like how the 28mm f/1.5 handles in terms of size and balance, I think you'll feel right at home with the LLL.
_jim_ wrote:
This is the part that has me a little nervous. I love the '1966.' It's not an everyday kind of lens, but it has its unique strong suits. Unfortunately, the amount of structure in out-of-focus specular highlights discourages me from using it in shots were that would be too evident. I was hoping those issues would be resolved on the '11873' (seeing as many modern aspherical lenses have seemingly figured this out). The few examples that exist on Flickr show a texture that doesn't appear like onion rings, but more like flannel (I don't know if that entirely makes sense...the inner structure of the highlights is soft, but not smooth...kind of like micro dimples or dots).
I'll be curious to see what Fred's photos reveal. ...Show more →
Jim,
I've posted many samples showing the inner structure of the bokeh highlights, and as you can see, it's fairly diffuse most of the time. Unless you're inspecting the files at 100% magnification, the checkered pattern (It's not onion) is not very noticeable, and when shooting film I expect it would be completely hidden. Here's a quick sample I just took of Christmas tree lights. I don't see much pattern in the bokeh there.
I've posted many samples showing the inner structure of the bokeh highlights, and as you can see, it's fairly diffuse most of the time. Unless you're inspecting the files at 100% magnification, the checkered pattern (It's not onion) is not very noticeable, and when shooting film I expect it would be completely hidden. Here's a quick sample I just took of Christmas tree lights. I don't see much pattern in the bokeh there.
Thanks for the images! I agree - that's not particularly distracting. There are a lot of good things going for this lens. I look forward to my copy arriving.
No doubt one of the burning questions is how the LL compares in direct testing vs the original AA. I understand the practical implications of being able to do this. Aside from that, I get the feelings the LLL in many ways emulates the rendering of the Leica 35mm f1.4 pre FLE with its gentler presentation and slightly lower sharpness and contrast (structure) compared to the Leica 35mm f1.4 FLE (1) and as previously expressed, would love to see such a comparison. Of course, the Leica 35mm f1.4 pre FLE suffers from very noticeable focus shift and although it hasn't been mentioned if the LLL lens also exhibits any (focus shift), I presume you would have mentioned it if noticed in your testing. Great informative write-up so far. Thanks Fred!
DandA123 wrote:
No doubt one of the burning questions is how the LL compares in direct testing vs the original AA. I understand the practical implications of being able to do this. Aside from that, I get the feelings the LLL in many ways emulates the rendering of the Leica 35mm f1.4 pre FLE with its gentler presentation and slightly lower sharpness and contrast (structure) compared to the Leica 35mm f1.4 FLE (1) and as previously expressed, would love to see such a comparison. Of course, the Leica 35mm f1.4 pre FLE suffers from very noticeable focus shift and although it hasn't been mentioned if the LLL lens also exhibits any (focus shift), I presume you would have mentioned it if noticed in your testing. Great informative write-up so far. Thanks Fred!...Show more →
Hi Dan,
I'm not seeing much focus shift so far, but I'll run a more controlled test to confirm. From an optical design standpoint, it appears closer to the original AA than to the pre-FLE version, though I don't have either on hand for a direct comparison.
DandA123 wrote:
No doubt one of the burning questions is how the LL compares in direct testing vs the original AA. I understand the practical implications of being able to do this. Aside from that, I get the feelings the LLL in many ways emulates the rendering of the Leica 35mm f1.4 pre FLE with its gentler presentation and slightly lower sharpness and contrast (structure) compared to the Leica 35mm f1.4 FLE (1) and as previously expressed, would love to see such a comparison. Of course, the Leica 35mm f1.4 pre FLE suffers from very noticeable focus shift and although it hasn't been mentioned if the LLL lens also exhibits any (focus shift), I presume you would have mentioned it if noticed in your testing. Great informative write-up so far. Thanks Fred!...Show more →
The rendering (at least from what I've seen so far) doesn't exactly emulate the look of the 11874/pre-fle. The pre-fle and the fle draw quite similarly at most distances. The fle is slightly more corrected for SA which is partly why it shows less focus shift (though, it still experiences focus shift) and also why its draw is slightly more structured. The appeal of the 11873 (and the LLL homage) is that its rendering is unique.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have the 28mm f/1.5 Nokton in black paint brass, so for reference the Voigtlander is about 27g heavier. In terms of size, they are surprisingly close in both width and height, with the LLL 35mm f/1.4 being slightly shorter.
If you like how the 28mm f/1.5 handles in terms of size and balance, I think you'll feel right at home with the LLL.
Thank you, that sounds very promising.
I'm really really liking what I am seeing, specially the latest images shared. 🙏
_jim_ wrote:
The rendering (at least from what I've seen so far) doesn't exactly emulate the look of the 11874/pre-fle. The pre-fle and the fle draw quite similarly at most distances. The fle is slightly more corrected for SA which is partly why it shows less focus shift (though, it still experiences focus shift) and also why its draw is slightly more structured. The appeal of the 11873 (and the LLL homage) is that its rendering is unique.
Its hard to say without a direct side by side comparison of the pre Fle vs the LLL, but I recall in my testing years ago, that the pre FLE (aside from the focus shift or compensating for it), was for lack of a better word, was more gentle and a bit "painterly" in its presentation of an image, more so than the FLE (ver I). The latter presented a more structured image, somewhat sharper at wider apertures (even when focus shift was accounted for with the pre FLE), the and with noticeably higher contrast. That's why I was hypothesizing that the LLL might be a bit more like the pre FLE than the FLE (ver I). Again, this is conjecture by inference until a direct head-to-head comparison is performed.
P.S. What I am also trying to say is aside from focus shift in the pre FLE lens (which can be adjusted for in terms of the effect it might have on presentation of an image), I found the pre FLE compared to the FLE (ver I) somewhat different optically (as described above) Additionally, where the original AA fits in, in comparison to these lenses as well as the LLL lens, is an intriguing question.
_jim_ wrote:
The rendering (at least from what I've seen so far) doesn't exactly emulate the look of the 11874/pre-fle. The pre-fle and the fle draw quite similarly at most distances. The fle is slightly more corrected for SA which is partly why it shows less focus shift (though, it still experiences focus shift) and also why its draw is slightly more structured. The appeal of the 11873 (and the LLL homage) is that its rendering is unique.
That's exactly how I see it. The pre-FLE and FLE share the same core optical design, with the key difference being the floating group in the FLE, which improves SA correction at closer distances. Based on that shared design, both the Leica and the LLL 11873 should show very similar rendering, and that rendering is clearly different from the newer Summilux designs.
Update: Jimmy shared a side-by-side rendering comparison of the pre-FLE and FLE, showing that their performance and rendering are very similar, which makes sense given their nearly identical optical design. While there are subtle differences between the pre-FLE and FLE, based on my tests the LLL’s rendering is much more distinct from my FLE, meaning it doesn't really resemble the pre-FLE and likely aligns more closely with the character of the original AA.
