Fred Miranda wrote:
I actually like the Light Lens Lab version for environmental portraits, since it has slightly higher spherical aberration. The FLE is definitely more clinical with higher contrast, which I also appreciate in a different way.
These are straight out of the camera using Adobe Standard, shot wide open.
That's one of the reasons I kept the Leica Pre FLE for so many years as my first intent for the lens was portrait and moderate distance use, often shot wide open and usually if I needed to put it into service for distant landscapes, I almost always shot them stopped down, even if I also was using the FLE (Ver 1) at the time. The somewhat lower more gentle contrast of the Pre FLE could usually be delt with in post processing in most cases if need be.
The LLL lens if indeed matches closely the Leica 35mm f1.4 Pre FLE in optical characteristics with few drawbacks and certainly no focus shift to speak of, it will definitely be a desirable lens.
Love the causal holiday family portraits and the night shots at the posted image size look good. Its hard to say how the bokeh balls in these images would look compared to the FLE or even the Pre FLE.
DandA123 wrote:
That's one of the reasons I kept the Leica Pre FLE for so many years as my first intent for the lens was portrait and moderate distance use, often shot wide open and usually if I needed to put it into service for distant landscapes, I almost always shot them stopped down, even if I also was using the FLE (Ver 1) at the time. The somewhat lower more gentle contrast of the Pre FLE could usually be delt with in post processing in most cases if need be.
The LLL lens if indeed matches closely the Leica 35mm f1.4 Pre FLE in optical characteristics with few drawbacks and certainly no focus shift to speak of, it will definitely be a desirable lens.
Love the causal holiday family portraits and the night shots at the posted image size look good. Its hard to say how the bokeh balls in these images would look compared to the FLE of even the Pre FLE....Show more →
Thanks! I think you're right, and in a way it actually makes a good case for owning both the LLL 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical and the Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux FLE, since they each offer a slightly different look. If the LLL were a perfect one-to-one copy of the Leica 35mm f/1.4 AA, it wouldn't add much value for someone who already owns the FLE, especially since in the direct comparisons I've seen, those two lenses render quite similarly.
I received the Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical about 10 days ago and headed outside right away to grab a few quick shots. I had already shared these in the other official thread. The night was very hazy and foggy, but I still think they are worth including here as additional reference samples for the review.
These are straight out of the camera using the Adobe Standard profile. All wide open.
No in-camera profile was applied.
Some screenshot caps [no processing] of the DNG files from the M60 [M240 output]. Mostly WO ISO 200-800, Auto WB, Auto SS and with the LLL Ti filter on.
These samples are 1617x1078 res phone screen captures from the 24mpx original so not the best indicator of final quality.
Initially I thought it would be closer to the original AA which was close to the FLE output from my usage with it, but the LLL is a nice complementary.
Regarding the colormatch of the lens body; on my M60 the LLL is touch darker, cooler, and more magenta shade. But the stainless steel/Ti coating on the M60 is clearcoated so I'm curious to see how it matches on the non coated bodies.
The haptics are great, similar to the original but feel much crisper. So, the uneven stiction on the focus ring seems to happen when your other supporting fingers are resting on the base of the lens vs on the actual geared area. Maybe helicoid sensitive to off center torque. But it did break in nicely over just 1 day so will need to revisit.
Haven't done any tests against the FLE yet but there's a pretty clear difference in rendering [like others said FLE higher fidelity clear and LLL AA rep more stylized delicate].
ftllens wrote:
Some screenshot caps [no processing] of the DNG files from the M60 [M240 output]. Mostly WO ISO 200-800, Auto WB, Auto SS and with the LLL Ti filter on.
Initially I thought it would be closer to the original AA which was close to the FLE output from my usage with it, but the LLL is a nice complementary.
Regarding the colormatch of the lens body; on my M60 the LLL is touch darker, cooler, and more magenta shade. But the stainless steel/Ti coating on the M60 is clearcoated so I'm curious to see how it matches on the non coated bodies.
The haptics are great, similar to the original but feel much crisper. So, the uneven stiction on the focus ring seems to happen when your other supporting fingers are resting on the base of the lens vs on the actual geared area. Maybe helicoid sensitive to off center torque. But it did break in nicely over just 1 day so will need to revisit.
Haven't done any tests against the FLE yet but there's a pretty clear difference in rendering [like others said FLE higher fidelity clear and LLL AA rep more stylized delicate]....Show more →
Great samples! Keep them coming. It looks great on the "60"!
ftllens wrote:
Some screenshot caps [no processing] of the DNG files from the M60 [M240 output]. Mostly WO ISO 200-800, Auto WB, Auto SS and with the LLL Ti filter on.
Initially I thought it would be closer to the original AA which was close to the FLE output from my usage with it, but the LLL is a nice complementary.
Regarding the colormatch of the lens body; on my M60 the LLL is touch darker, cooler, and more magenta shade. But the stainless steel/Ti coating on the M60 is clearcoated so I'm curious to see how it matches on the non coated bodies.
The haptics are great, similar to the original but feel much crisper. So, the uneven stiction on the focus ring seems to happen when your other supporting fingers are resting on the base of the lens vs on the actual geared area. Maybe helicoid sensitive to off center torque. But it did break in nicely over just 1 day so will need to revisit.
Haven't done any tests against the FLE yet but there's a pretty clear difference in rendering [like others said FLE higher fidelity clear and LLL AA rep more stylized delicate]....Show more →
Really lovely shots representing the LLL lens! May I assume they were all shot at f1.4 and no sharpening in post?
<a href=https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1927151/0#member>Back to sample shots contributed by FM members</a>
Thank you, yes most were 1.4. No sharpening because I transferred them from SD card to my phone, opened DNG in gallery and just screenshotted them in the rotated bigger view.
These samples are 1617x1078 res phone screen captures from the 24mpx original so not the best indicator of final quality.
Some more. The rendering reminds me of the qualities I liked about the Mr. Ding 50 1.1. Would describe the lens as rounded dimensionality. Resolves well when you want it to.
Scenes below WO to 5.6 or so. Same settings as previous photo post.
Lots of well fed dogs and cats just chilling around here.
Tried to get good mix of different foreground background bokeh samples. And off center placements.
@DandA123 and @fredmiranda Neither of you answered my question lol and you don't have to But others might! I understand very well people prefer less harsh lenses for portrait applications and such. I do too.
People are different, but for many and me, to buy a lens means to sell another. Usually and/or often a lens of the similar type. So I am curious who is replacing their fast RF 35mm with this new lens.
From what I am seeing, it's not super character heavy (if the 35 Lux Pre-ASPH or MS-Optics 36/1.3 is one end of the spectrum and a Sony GM 35/1.4 is the other). So maybe a Pre-FLE or FLE, or fast CV or Zeiss or Simera seem the logical RF replacements and competition.
It kind of reminds of the Sony 35 1.4 ZA but cleaner bokeh and more flare in certain scenarios.
I wouldn't sell or replace my FLE with this lens due to the pairing with the body. But if I didn't have a FLE already or had a different body, this could be a great sole 35 1.4. I'd have to shoot with it more and one day a few weeks later I would know for sure. I think it would be really great on the M6 Ti and am thinking about getting it solely for this lens after I resort my current gear.
The meantime, it's pleasant to handle and should feel great on most M bodies. I wish for LLL next lens to have factory 6 bit coding if it's another replica though. That would be really nice and wouldn't mind a small premium for that.
ftllens wrote:
Thank you, yes most were 1.4. No sharpening because I transferred them from SD card to my phone, opened DNG in gallery and just screenshotted them in the rotated bigger view.
Some more. The rendering reminds me of the qualities I liked about the Mr. Ding 50 1.1. Would describe the lens as rounded dimensionality. Resolves well when you want it to.
Scenes below WO to 5.6 or so. Same settings as previous photo post.
Lots of well fed dogs and cats just chilling around here.
Tried to get good mix of different foreground background bokeh samples. And off center placements.
Yes, it's fairly evident no sharpening (which is fine) but if someone came across these images and didn't know, they'd think the lens was soft. Yet I can also see the detail, and I am sure with the appropriate amt of sharpening, the wide open shots would look extremely good. This is also based on many of Fred's images shot at f1.4 and sharpened in post and as you and other have said, it has a roundness that's attractive and its has always drawn me to the Leica 35mm f1.4 Pre FLE (except for it's focus shift).
The resolution WO is good to me and agree that it should be satisfactory for most with post processing. These samples are 1617x1078 res phone screen captures from the 24mpx original so not the best indicator of final quality. With the latest AI sharpening, the 40/60mpx files should be great too. I did see some moire even at 2.8, so I appreciate the non biting sharpness WO for this combo.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
@DandA123@ and @fredmiranda@ Neither of you answered my question lol and you don't have to But others might! I understand very well people prefer less harsh lenses for portrait applications and such. I do too.
People are different, but for many and me, to buy a lens means to sell another. Usually and/or often a lens of the similar type. So I am curious who is replacing their fast RF 35mm with this new lens.
From what I am seeing, it's not super character heavy (if the 35 Lux Pre-ASPH or MS-Optics 36/1.3 is one end of the spectrum and a Sony GM 35/1.4 is the other). So maybe a Pre-FLE or FLE, or fast CV or Zeiss or Simera seem the logical RF replacements and competition. ...Show more →
My apologies, Nehemiah...I thought I'd already circled back on your question. You asked whether it makes sense for someone who already owns the Leica 35mm f/1.4 FLE to pick up the LLL version. I'd say yes, because it really doesn't render quite the same. From what I've seen in tests online, FLE is closer in look to the original AA, while the Pre-FLE and the LLL are a bit less corrected for spherical aberration. They have a softer, more “gentle” micro-contrast and less pronounced bokeh outlining compared to the FLE and AA.
So it comes down to whether you prefer that more modern, over-corrected look, or something a little more classic like the Pre-FLE and the LLL. None of these lenses are worlds apart, but we're all geeks here and those small nuances matter.
I know you appreciate both the FLE and Pre-ASPH looks, and the LLL 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical really lands right in between them. It gives you a bit of the more classic character from the Pre-ASPH with some of the correction and refinement of the FLE. If you're looking to settle on just one lens, it's could be great middle-ground choice.
DandA123 wrote:
Yes, it's fairly evident no sharpening (which is fine) but if someone came across these images and didn't know, they'd think the lens was soft. Yet I can also see the detail, and I am sure with the appropriate amt of sharpening, the wide open shots would look extremely good. This is also based on many of Fred's images shot at f1.4 and sharpened in post and as you and other have said, it has a roundness that's attractive and its has always drawn me to the Leica 35mm f1.4 Pre FLE (except for it's focus shift).
I also get the impression that the lens is genuinely sharp wide open, but it delivers a softer, more graceful sharpness due to a touch of SA. That gives it a really appealing look for certain subjects like portraits. Perhaps LLL intentionally dialed the spherical aberration slightly toward under-correction to help diffuse the inner structure pattern in specular highlights caused by the aspherical molding and polishing, though I'm just speculating. Anyone who enjoys the more gentle rendering of the pre-FLE may likely appreciate the LLL's output as well.
The FLE is still the sharper and more corrected lens, but many people may prefer the LLL's smoother focus transition and subtler micro-contrast, depending on the application.
All of my samples were shot in DNG with minimal processing, though I do apply a baseline amount of sharpening by default. There's always the chance a copy isn't perfectly calibrated to the rangefinder (which will affect overall performance), but mine is spot on, and so far I haven't run into calibration issues with any the Light Lens Lab lenses I've tested or owned.
Once the weather cooperates here in Southern California, I will continue the review and share more rendering comparisons with the FLE and Lux Pre-asph.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I also get the impression that the lens is genuinely sharp wide open, but it delivers a softer, more graceful sharpness due to a touch of SA. That gives it a really appealing look for certain subjects like portraits. Perhaps LLL intentionally dialed the spherical aberration slightly toward under-correction to help diffuse the inner structure pattern in specular highlights caused by the aspherical molding and polishing, though I'm just speculating. Anyone who enjoys the more gentle rendering of the pre-FLE may likely appreciate the LLL’s output as well.
The FLE is still the sharper and more corrected lens, but many people may prefer the LLL's smoother focus transition and subtler micro-contrast, depending on the application.
All of my samples were shot in DNG with minimal processing, though I do apply a baseline amount of sharpening by default. There's always the chance a copy isn't perfectly calibrated to the rangefinder (which will affect overall performance), but mine is spot on, and so far I haven't run into calibration issues with any the Light Lens Lab lenses I've tested or owned.
Once the weather cooperates here in Southern California, I will continue the review and share more rendering comparisons with the FLE and Lux Pre-asph....Show more →
Well said and an excellent explanation of how the LLL lens draws an image.I can't help but wonder if LLL's original intent was to closely emulate the AA and initially attempted to do so, without actually going the hand ground double aspherical route (for obvious reasons) but found during development and testing, certain characteristics of the original AA were unobtainable. Hence the statements that it was not an exact replica, with changes and/or improvements optically.
Personally from what I've seen so far, is that this lens can stand on its own merits and although it sounds good (on paper) that it's a replica of the original AA, I hope in time maybe someone will not only have the opportunity to actually test it side by side with the AA, but that reviews will allow its just due as a lens that has a very attractive draw for use in a wide variety of photographic situations and can be looked at favoritely along side some of Leica's well received 35mm f1.4 asph lenses, each with their own unique strengths.
DandA123 wrote:
Well said and an excellent explanation of how the LLL lens draws an image.I can't help but wonder if LLL's original intent was to closely emulate the AA and initially attempted to do so, without actually going the hand ground double aspherical route (for obvious reasons) but found during development and testing, certain characteristics of the original AA were unobtainable. Hence the statements that it was not an exact replica, with changes and/or improvements optically.
Personally from what I've seen so far, is that this lens can stand on its own merits and although it sounds good (on paper) that it's a replica of the original AA, I hope in time maybe someone will not only have the opportunity to actually test it side by side with the AA, but that reviews will allow its just due as a lens that has a very attractive draw for use in a wide variety of photographic situations and can be looked at favoritely along side some of Leica's well received 35mm f1.4 asph lenses, each with their own unique strengths. ...Show more →
The rain gave me a short break and I was able to shoot a few more comparisons with the Leica 35 1.4 Lux FLE and the Leica 35 1.4 Lux Steel Rim. I do not find the Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical soft wide open at all. It is actually quite sharp, just not as sharp or as well corrected for spherical aberration as the FLE. This is the Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical wide open with no editing in post, only default sharpening. As always, your camera and lens calibration needs to be dialed in when shooting wide open at closer distances.
100% crop from the focused area above
100% magnification crop (pixel level) from image above
Fred Miranda wrote:
The rain gave me a short break and I was able to shoot a few more comparisons with the Leica 35 1.4 Lux FLE and the Leica 35 1.4 Lux Steel Rim. I do not find the Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical soft wide open at all. It is actually quite sharp, just not as sharp or as well corrected for spherical aberration as the FLE. This is the Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical wide open with no editing in post, only default sharpening. As always, your camera and lens calibration needs to be dialed in when shooting wide open at closer distances....Show more →
I didn't intend to imply the LLL lens was soft wide open. What I saw was a notable difference seen between your posted DNG files shot wide open and lightly sharpened vs "ftllens" posted images (his first set of images posted yesterday) also shot wide open but he applied no sharpening. At the screen resolution I was examining both set of images, clearly there was more of a consistent softness in the unsharpened files vs. yours. It was just an observation in comparing the two sets of images.
The important thing to my eye is the wide open shots where you applied a small amount of sharpening, had an attractive roundness to the image without it being clinical but exhibited plenty of detail. As we all know, this is quite different than the Leica Pre asph lens ( steel rim etc) shot wide open.
I don't agree with the opinion that the 35 FLE II is 'over- corrected'. With a background as a long-time Director of Photography, I enjoy a clean modern lens- as long as it's not clinical- and there are some like that. Though I don't put the FLE in that category.
I'd rather the lens be sharp and well-corrected, and then choose from a wide range of filters (glimmer class, pro-mist, black satin...) to obtain the level of 'degradation I want. Such as adding glow, reducing sharpness, contrast, etc.
An 'over corrected' lens would be one that had pin cushion distortion, for example, and was over- corrected to then have barrel distortion. The FLE is not in that category- in my opinion.
That all said.. if the imperfections in a particular more 'vintage' lens add up to a look you love.. of course go for it. I feel that way about the Elcan.
I might end up loving the LLL 11873- but so far can't quite see the reason to purchase if one already owns the FLE. However if I didn't own the FLEII.. the LLL 11873 could end up being a real contender. Awaiting other reviews and looks.
While I liked how sharp the FLE was, I didn’t like what I considered harsh bokeh in that lens. I also regularly use the 35 APO, which is so buttery smooth in the out of focus areas, almost looks like f/1.4 when shot at f/2 plus has the razor sharpness. I also have the 35 Lux V2, which I have founds excels on film, but will sometimes use at f/1.8 or f/2 when I want more character/less sharp image. This LLL (which I should be receiving next week) looks like the perfect middle ground, exactly what I wanted the 35 FLE to be. I can’t wait.
But others might! I understand very well people prefer less harsh lenses for portrait applications and such. I do too.
