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!
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), that the pre FLE was for lack of a better word, was more gentle and "pasteli" in the presentation of an image than was the FLE (ver I). The latter presented a more structured image, somewhat sharper at wider apertures (even when focus shift was accounted for) 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) quite 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.
Dec 22, 2025 at 11:23 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
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!
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), that the pre FLE was for lack of a better word, was more gentle and "pasteli" in the presentation of an image than was the FLE (ver I). The latter presented a more structured image, somewhat sharper at wider apertures (even when focus shift was accounted for) 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.
Dec 22, 2025 at 11:15 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
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!
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), that the pre FLE was for lack of a better word, was more gentle and "pasteli" in the presentation of an image than was the FLE (ver I). The latter presented a more structured image, somewhat sharper at wider apertures (even when focus shift was accounted for) 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 test is performed.
Dec 22, 2025 at 11:14 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
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!
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), that the pre FLE was for lack of a better word, more gentle and "pasteli" in the presentation of an image than was the FLE (ver I). The latter presented a more structured image, somewhat sharper at wider apertures (even when focus shift was accounted for) 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 test is performed.
