Sonnar-7 wrote:
It’s indeed a series with the LLL? I hadn’t seen yet samples of it with that kind of flares, it’s nice. I begin to be tempted by that lens.
Great photos as always, I’m compelled to go fetch a film now.
Yep, all with the LLL 35/1.4.
It flares in mostly cool ways, but the prismatic radial flare around bright light sources isn’t my favorite. The Leica 11874 also flares nicely, but it shows beautiful highlight bloom around bright light sources instead (which I greatly prefer).
It flares in mostly cool ways, but the prismatic radial flare around bright light sources isn’t my favorite. The Leica 11874 also flares nicely, but it shows beautiful highlight bloom around bright light sources instead (which I greatly prefer).
Yeah, the prismatic flare is what I saw the most from the LLL, I was on the market for a 35mm but the LLL was not my favorite(although none that I found were) for the price tag even if the proposition has some alluring sides. I wish it flared more like it does on that sample that you had.
sumerland wrote:
No, I haven't. I doubt I will receive an answer. Here is why: While waiting for the lens to ship I was wondering more and more, if the purchase was a good decision. The reports about focus issues in this forum and the hazzle of returning a potentially faulty lens to China (including claiming the tax back) finally made me write an email to their support. I asked them two questions. First, if they were aware of the focus issue reported here. Second, if they (now that they had been made aware that complaints exist) would take care that my sample will focus correctly. If they cannot confirm this, I would like to cancel my order (which they offered previously due to the long holiday break). I did not receive an answer but a week later my item was shipped.
In addition, my lens arrived with a small scratch next to one of the screws on the lens mount. I expect they would claim the lens showed signs of usage and would not refund the full price.
That's why I will keep it for now. Focussing with the Visoflex on digital solves the issue. I will practice more before using it on film. If I cannot achieve consistent results using the finder I will try to remove the mount and see if some aluminum foil might help.
P.S.: Don't get me wrong, it takes beautiful photos...
Thanks for all of this. That is disappointing that they never responded to your questions before the lens was shipped. All of those should have been addressed and you should have been able to cancel your order if you elected to do that. In fact, they should have an order cancellation option available anyway.
Mine was ordered on March 5 and still has not been shipped.
I am pretty much stuck with using the Visoflex or screen on the back of the camera for focusing, as I cannot see the rangefinder patch well enough to use it effectively. So, in my case, the rangefinder focusing issue won't be as much of a problem if the lens that I receive has it, although it could affect resale if I decide to sell it later.
Reading the discussion here, I almost get the impression that I should be celebrating the fact that my lens is perfectly aligned as if I’d won the jackpot in a lottery. What’s the situation with other LLL lenses that have been on the market for a while? Was the proportion of poorly aligned lenses high, or are these just isolated cases?
paulleica wrote:
Reading the discussion here, I almost get the impression that I should be celebrating the fact that my lens is perfectly aligned as if I’d won the jackpot in a lottery. What’s the situation with other LLL lenses that have been on the market for a while? Was the proportion of poorly aligned lenses high, or are these just isolated cases?
Fortunately, that's not really the situation. The mechanical RF system relies on very tight tolerances, so alignment has to be extremely precise, especially with fast lenses. Because of that, any M-mount lens, from any brand, can occasionally have alignment issues, even Leica. I have personally had two brand new Leica lenses that needed adjustment, and that's with their high standards. What you're seeing with LLL is actually the usual pattern where the vast majority of lenses are fine. The small number that are not tend to show up in discussions, which can make it feel like a bigger problem than it really is.
So no, it's not a lottery. It's just the nature of a very precise mechanical system, and this known issue with the RF system amplifying the exceptions.
I do understand the frustration. RF alignment is honestly my biggest headache with the M system, and it always makes me a bit wary when buying a new lens. I much prefer buying used lenses from people who know how to properly check alignment first, or having the option to exchange lenses if there are alignment issues. Over the years, I've learned to adjust this myself, but it usually requires some level of disassembly and varies from lens to lens.
@Fred Miranda Thank you for your detailed reply. I’m very impressed by the quality of this lens – how it renders images at wide-open aperture, the beautiful bokeh it produces, and how sharp it becomes when stopped down a little. It’s similar to the Voigtländer Nokton 50mm 1.2 VM. I now own both and find that they complement each other very well, even if the colours of the Nokton appear slightly more neutral.
paulleica wrote:
@Fred Miranda@ Thank you for your detailed reply. I’m very impressed by the quality of this lens – how it renders images at wide-open aperture, the beautiful bokeh it produces, and how sharp it becomes when stopped down a little. It’s similar to the Voigtländer Nokton 50mm 1.2 VM. I now own both and find that they complement each other very well, even if the colours of the Nokton appear slightly more neutral.
You're welcome. That comparison had not crossed my mind since they're different focal lengths, but I can see the connection. The CV 50mm f/1.2 and the LLL 35mm f/1.4 do share some characteristics. Both show a bit of residual SA at close distances, likely due to the lack of a floating element, and neither renders in a harsh way compared to some other lenses. So overall, they do produce a somewhat similar look.
Just received my copy, ordered a black finish one on March 2nd. Serial number is V1 722/998 and seems to be really well aligned with my m11 at all distances. Will check on my M6 and see too. No hood rattle either!
Fred Miranda wrote:
Fortunately, that's not really the situation. The mechanical RF system relies on very tight tolerances, so alignment has to be extremely precise, especially with fast lenses. Because of that, any M-mount lens, from any brand, can occasionally have alignment issues, even Leica. I have personally had two brand new Leica lenses that needed adjustment, and that's with their high standards. What you're seeing with LLL is actually the usual pattern where the vast majority of lenses are fine. The small number that are not tend to show up in discussions, which can make it feel like a bigger problem than it really is.
So no, it's not a lottery. It's just the nature of a very precise mechanical system, and this known issue with the RF system amplifying the exceptions.
I do understand the frustration. RF alignment is honestly my biggest headache with the M system, and it always makes me a bit wary when buying a new lens. I much prefer buying used lenses from people who know how to properly check alignment first, or having the option to exchange lenses if there are alignment issues. Over the years, I've learned to adjust this myself, but it usually requires some level of disassembly and varies from lens to lens....Show more →
True, but one thing LLL rarely if ever gets right is the rangefinder alignment at the infinity hard stop. Infinity focus is always correct at the hard stop, but the rangefinder rarely reaches full alignment. My 50 SPII was aligned at infinity, but no other LLL I've owned was. The 8-element copies I've tried were all off by an annoying amount. It's not an issue limited to LLL, either, but I find Leica and Voigtlander get it right most of the time.
_jim_ wrote:
These look fantastic! The subject separation is tangible (though, I am afraid to use the term 3D after looking at that thread).
Haha, I would love to get back into the 3D testing I did recently pick up a Zf as a basis for testing lenses from all manufacturers, so who knows, maybe I will try.
The issue in the old thread was always that people meant different things with 3D. Makten, Luka, myself and some others meant that the lens rendered in such a way that we felt that we could reach in and feel how the object was shaped in 3D, from front to back, a real plasticity in the image that revealed 3D shape. Many others simply meant that they could see depth in the image, which usually just meant subject separation, i.e. layers in the image. Subtle difference, but we were never able to find a proper definition that satisfied everyone
Thank you Fred for this comparison. I find this lens very interesting, and did own the ASPH. version in the past. Great lens, and I love that special Leica rendering where the subject in focus is high contrast with punchy colours, but the rendering in the boke is low contrast and more pastel colours. I have no idea how they do it, I have never seen any optical theory which could explain that. This lens seems to capture some of that, although I don't find the price compelling.
Thanks for the solid review Fred. You are making me want this lens!
I had the Summilux 35mm pre-FLE 11874 once upon a time. I really loved that lens but it's focus shift was a bit annoying but the rendering was phenomenal. I sold it because I felt I wasn't getting 4k worth of value from the lens.
I have the LLL 35mm 8e and my copy is amazing. Very detailed sharpness even wide open and I love the character. Stopped down and it's a real powerhouse. I am interested in this new 11873 simply because I miss the rendering of my old summilux and the cheaper price point and no focus shift seems like a no brainer.
I'm coming to terms with the should I? Or just use what I have.
I have the LLL 50mm rigid but I'm less impressed with it wide open. The central focus is sharp but gets very glowy with spherical aberration that doesn't really become usable until f2.8 and then it's pretty good. I recently bought a v3 summicron off ebay and waiting shipment. I'm not looking forward to the long focus throw but I'll do my best to try and like this lens. I got a good price for it and the optics are immaculate. Worst case I try and find a classic leica rigid and sell this one but we'll see!
@fredmiranda and others: I’m weighing the LLL 35mm f/1.4 "11873" against the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 or f/1.5, but I’m hesitant to pull the trigger. Given the persistent LLL shipping delays and reported lack of quality control on their production units, is it worth "playing that card" for the unique rendering?
mvillegas wrote:
@fredmiranda@ and others: I’m weighing the LLL 35mm f/1.4 "11873" against the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 or f/1.5, but I’m hesitant to pull the trigger. Given the persistent LLL shipping delays and reported lack of quality control on their production units, is it worth "playing that card" for the unique rendering?
I would say the closest rendering to the LLL "11873" would be the Leica Summilux 35mm f/1.4 ASPH pre-FLE (11874). Next in line, in my opinion, would be, maybe, the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 v3 or v4 - same optics. I am saying this since I was also interested in this type of rendering (to complement my Nokton Classic), so I did a bit of research.
As for the Nokton 35/1.4 Classic v2 - this is less corrected, so a bit wild, especially wide open. As for the Nokton 35mm f/1.5 - I have no idea about this, at all.
The Nokton 35mm f/1.5 lacks character. It’s reasonably sharp at wide open, and when stopped down to f/5.6 it’s relatively sharp right out to the corners. It was the most boring 35mm lens I’ve ever had for my Leica.
I'm not sure that I totally agree with this characterization. I've had two copies of 35/1.5 Nokton. It is sharper across more of frame than the LLL with better ergonomics and build quality. It's more contrasty with better flare resistance and more vibrant colors. It is overall a better corrected lens with a smoother rendering. As a result, it can appear a bit boring compared to the LLL.
paulleica wrote:
The Nokton 35mm f/1.5 lacks character. It’s reasonably sharp at wide open, and when stopped down to f/5.6 it’s relatively sharp right out to the corners. It was the most boring 35mm lens I’ve ever had for my Leica.
paulleica wrote:
The Nokton 35mm f/1.5 lacks character. It’s reasonably sharp at wide open, and when stopped down to f/5.6 it’s relatively sharp right out to the corners. It was the most boring 35mm lens I’ve ever had for my Leica.
---------------------------------------------
_jim_ wrote:
I'm not sure that I totally agree with this characterization. I've had two copies of 35/1.5 Nokton. It is sharper across more of frame than the LLL with better ergonomics and build quality. It's more contrasty with better flare resistance and more vibrant colors. It is overall a better corrected lens with a smoother rendering. As a result, it can appear a bit boring compared to the LLL.
I agree with both. I think the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.5 Nokton does have character, but it's not the kind of character I personally enjoy, although I think most shooters probably do. Its signature follows the look of other Nokton lenses, including the f/1.2 versions, where spherical aberration is not fully corrected at the focus plane and out of focus transitions remain smooth with almost no outlining.
It's definitely not a highly corrected modern lens overall, but I would describe it as sitting somewhere in between. Shooters who dislike outlining in highlights (structured rendering), yet still appreciate a slight softness wide open, especially at close focus, from partially uncorrected SA, will probably enjoy its rendering style. In this way, I think it offers a somewhat similar look to the LLL 35/1.4 Aspherical. I think the comparison to the Leica 35mm f/1.4 FLE, which renders very differently, is very telling: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1784972/5#16113110
I keep getting this question quite often, so I am posting it here in case it helps others who are considering the same options.
Question: I am looking for my first 35mm lens for a Leica, mainly for street, travel, landscape, and occasional portraits, with a vintage Kodak film like rendering.
I am considering the LLL 35mm f/1.4 11873, the Voigtlander Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4, and the Nokton 35mm f/1.5.
Which would you choose and why?
=====
Answer: They are quite different. You mentioned street, travel, landscape, and occasional portraits. That basically covers everything , so ideally you are looking for one lens that can do it all instead than something highly specialized.
Right away I would rule out the Nokton 35mm f/1.4 Classic. It is great for certain uses like portraits, but it is not ideal for landscape work, even when stopped down. The corners never really clean up fully, and for street it is not the most consistent option either. Since you did not mention wanting a very small f/1.4 lens, I would scratch it off the list.
The LLL 35mm f/1.4 is a strong all-rounder for what you described, and the same goes for the Nokton 35mm f/1.5. Both give a similar rendering style, not overly sharp wide open which works well for a more filmic look, with some residual SA that is actually great for portraits, and then solid sharpness when stopped down for street and landscape work.
If price is a factor, the Voigtlander is the better deal, especially used, although the LLL has a nicer aesthetic in my opinion.
I did recently pick up a Zf as a basis for testing lenses from all manufacturers, so who knows, maybe I will try.
, so ideally you are looking for one lens that can do it all instead than something highly specialized.