Lens coding test focused at infinity to provoke strongest color shift and vignetting. White balance was set for the 35 Cron non-ASPH image and applied to all three for consistent DNG export in Lightroom. Any color differences you see are therefore due to the embedded lens code corrections at time of capture rather than due to raw conversion variables.
See watermarks in the images below for lens code details.
My observations: uncoded has strongest vignetting with blue shift in corners. 35 Cron non-ASPH code has most neutral corner colors. 35 Cron ASPH has greenish corners.
A selection is below to give some immediate impressions. Images were mostly at f/2 but a few at f/2.5 might be mixed in. I no longer remember exact details for each. If you go to the gallery, file numbers up to 0028 were uncoded. Everything thereafter was coded as the 35 Cron non-ASPH.
I might compare it more, but I think I’m leaning towards f/2.5 for general purpose use. Contrast picks up a bit and the central hotspot is reduced, yet some of the wide open character is retained. For people photos, with the face located centrally, f/2 might be the most flattering, especially for women. The lower contrast and touch of veiling combined with maximum SA opens shadows and masks skin imperfections (sorry, no examples of this included).
Images have been processed to taste, but I have generally withheld use of clarity. Contrast has been tweaked via curves adjustment. Also generally no cropping other than to level an image, or perspective correction (the plastic snowman, book shop window). No distortion correction has been applied.
Note the strong coma in the upper right corner Christmas lights.
In the above image, the out of focus lights of the building in the background have a hot-spot in the middle of the out of focus ‘bokeh’ ball. Wondering if this is typical of the original 35 Cron? Here's a crop:
That was because I used brass polish... it filled up the areas where the engraving is. I noticed it after this pic and removed residue with a tooth pick, trying also not to remove the paint! Looks a lot better now.
I'm not going to polish it again, I only did it because it was delivered with oily fingerprints etched into the finish! It can now develop patina gracefully...
Just an update. After expressing my concerns about my copy's optical performance with Kevin, the middleman all of us RFF members have dealt with to purchase the LLL lens, the manufacturer requested I send the lens back to them for inspection and possible repair.
Kevin provided a prepaid DHL waybill on January 10th. Around January 26th he said the lens was back at the factory.
Since then I have not received updates. He indicated the lunar new year holiday would cause delays, which was understandable. And I kind of forgot about it for a couple months. But I sent a few update inquiries over the past couple weeks and have not received a reply. This I found to be unusual because Kevin previously responded quickly.
The discussion over at the RFF thread has recently devolved, to a degree. The latest posts concern those who paid for the lens back in December but have yet to receive it. Also, apparently some were on the wait list, have not yet been asked to pay and now apparently might no longer be able to get the lens at the originally promised $500 price.
It seems LLL has been busy pumping out lenses for retail/eBay distribution at a going price of roughly $1500 US. There definitely appears to be a profit motive at work.
IMO the lens was worth the $500 risk/gamble but at $1500, why not stretch for the real thing? While the replica copy I had seemed pretty good, I would't consider it to be worth $1500.
We'll see if I ever get it back.
Update: 6 hours after posting this I received an email from Kevin. This was reassuring, but it appears the lens is still at the factory and he's not sure its status or when it might come back. It sounds like Kevin himself is getting a bit of a runaround by his LLL contact.
I hope it works out. Others have contacted me asking if I had contact info for Kevin outside email, as he had gone radio silent on them for months.
It seems I got lucky getting one, let alone a brass one, and after that they realized they could be getting a whole bunch more cash for them.
At $500 it was an insane deal. $1500? Well, stretching extra for the real thing is a serious possibility but with the replica you are getting a new lens, that is, well, a replica. Personally I wouldn't buy it at $1500 but if money was no issue, then I'd have that and the OG, and ...
Yeah, I think at $500 they could get enough uptake from the non-China market to establish their brand. It's not enough money to make people angry/upset for a short time if the final product doesn't meet everyone's expectations but tempting enough to take the risk. I basically didn't get the VM35/2 Ultron because of the LLL. Maybe for the better because now there's the v2 with ergonomics more to my preference.
$1000? I probably wouldn't have committed.
At $1500 you really have to want to have those kinds of lens performance characteristics/imperfections. There are too many great modern 35s at or below that price point. A problem IMO, is I'm not convinced the replica's optical performance/character is fully faithful to the original. From samples posted by others, I can see differences.
As it stands now, at $500, if I ever get it back, it will be a fun lens to have and enjoy using.
On Rangefinder Forum, I was late to the pre-order from Kevin so had to buy from a Chinese dealer via Ebay. Got the 2nd batch, black version and will try it out soon. Physically, it is very well built and the black paint finish is very beautiful.
I've never bought from Taobao, but someone on RFF posted a link to the lens available there, in both M and previously elusive LTM mounts in black, silver and 'brassed/weathered' black paint finishes.
I received my lens back from repair Monday evening. It was too late to try outside and instead did a few quick tests on a tripod inside.
As a recap, my initial experience with my copy was that of extreme focus shift combined with strong wavy field curvature. The center of the image was unacceptably back focused by f/4-f/5.6, somewhat recovered by f/8 and good across the frame at f/11.
This evening I tried the repaired lens indoors at about 3m subject distance. I'm pleased to report the results were much more consistent across the image with generally very good sharpness. There still was slightly noticeable focus shift in the very center of the image at f/4 and f/5.6 but pretty much within DoF (certainly within DoF for an 8x10" print), which wasn't the case before.
Initial impressions are that the lens will at least be usable without having to give it much thought while in use.
I have to admit I was skeptical that sending it back would result in any improvement. Fortunately, it appears my skepticism was misplaced.
1.5 years and one pandemic later, I look forward to using it for real-world photography.
rscheffler wrote:
I've never bought from Taobao, but someone on RFF posted a link to the lens available there, in both M and previously elusive LTM mounts in black, silver and 'brassed/weathered' black paint finishes.
I received my lens back from repair Monday evening. It was too late to try outside and instead did a few quick tests on a tripod inside.
As a recap, my initial experience with my copy was that of extreme focus shift combined with strong wavy field curvature. The center of the image was unacceptably back focused by f/4-f/5.6, somewhat recovered by f/8 and good across the frame at f/11.
This evening I tried the repaired lens indoors at about 3m subject distance. I'm pleased to report the results were much more consistent across the image with generally very good sharpness. There still was slightly noticeable focus shift in the very center of the image at f/4 and f/5.6 but pretty much within DoF (certainly within DoF for an 8x10" print), which wasn't the case before.
Initial impressions are that the lens will at least be usable without having to give it much thought while in use.
I have to admit I was skeptical that sending it back would result in any improvement. Fortunately, it appears my skepticism was misplaced.
1.5 years and one pandemic later, I look forward to using it for real-world photography. ...Show more →
Great to hear that this seems to be sorted out and that you have a good lens. I was luckier to get a good lens the first time so for me this whole experience of both buying a replica and buying from a group of enthusiasts, if I may call them that, in China was a fun experience and worth the risks involved. Still I am not sure if I will do it again, I guess it willl depend on the offering and the price.
Without Kevin as a fluent English speaking intermediary, the process and/or probability of getting my lens repaired probably would have been a lot more painful. It's certainly one of the risks and challenges of buying from a foreign market where language barriers are present.
rscheffler wrote:
I've never bought from Taobao, but someone on RFF posted a link to the lens available there, in both M and previously elusive LTM mounts in black, silver and 'brassed/weathered' black paint finishes.
I received my lens back from repair Monday evening. It was too late to try outside and instead did a few quick tests on a tripod inside.
As a recap, my initial experience with my copy was that of extreme focus shift combined with strong wavy field curvature. The center of the image was unacceptably back focused by f/4-f/5.6, somewhat recovered by f/8 and good across the frame at f/11.
This evening I tried the repaired lens indoors at about 3m subject distance. I'm pleased to report the results were much more consistent across the image with generally very good sharpness. There still was slightly noticeable focus shift in the very center of the image at f/4 and f/5.6 but pretty much within DoF (certainly within DoF for an 8x10" print), which wasn't the case before.
Initial impressions are that the lens will at least be usable without having to give it much thought while in use.
I have to admit I was skeptical that sending it back would result in any improvement. Fortunately, it appears my skepticism was misplaced.
1.5 years and one pandemic later, I look forward to using it for real-world photography. ...Show more →
Ron, glad to see that your lens performed better now after all the wait and the issues you reported. Do you know how they fixed the problem? Did they adjust the tolerance of the lens alignment or they replaced some lens elements for your copy? I am just curious after reading many posts in the rangefinder.com.
No information was provide about the actual repair. It's not like it went back to some place like Leica, Canon, Nikon, etc., where you're provided paperwork about what's done. My impression is it's not something they're really set up for. At least Kevin covered shipping both ways.
I did more photos with the lens Tuesday afternoon. At nearer distances it's definitely improved, but still not perfect, There's still some focus shift noticeable between f/4-5.6 if images are viewed at 100%. At farther distances focus shift remains similar to what I originally saw, which was considerable, as well as the same wavy field curvature. In the very center of the frame, focus still dramatically shifts behind the intended focus point in the f/4-5.6 range before DoF starts to recover central sharpness around f/8. How noticeable this is in images really depends on the scene.
I think for my uses, it'll be OK, if not ideal. I really wanted the lens for wide open character/rendering, which is more noticeable at nearer working distances with decent background separation. I'll probably use it mostly at f/2-2.8, or stopped down to f/8 when I want deeper focus. Contrast increases a lot at f/2.5 and background bokeh smooths at f/2.8. Stopped down more, overall character doesn't change much, so it'll primarily be for depth of field and masking field curvature.
I got a copy of the original Leica Summicron 35 V1 last year and have been using it since then. I didn’t do any rigorous testing but my general feeling of the lens is pretty similar with what you experienced with your LLL copy with one exception that I didn’t notice any IQ degradation from f/4 to f/5.6 on the original Leica version. I found that the sweet spot of the lens is at f/2.8, which has excellent center sharpness with good contrast and resolution, yet still retains the ‘slightly soft character’ of the lens at f/2. From f/4 and f/5.6, there is almost no performance gains, other than increase the depth of field. So, I was wondering if some of scatter reported for the replica version was related mechanical alignment and tolerance or caused by glass material (flint glass) property variations.
I have the pre asph. Summicron 50mm and it works fine, very sharp on Sony and the 35mm Asph. 1 or 2nd and it is also very sharp. The 90 Summicron pre Asph and 90 Elmarit are also very sharp.
The first two were at f/8 and I think the second was at f/11. Stopped down this much, the field curvature is mostly masked and the lens is pretty comparable to any other 35 stopped down this much.
ocean2059 wrote:
I got a copy of the original Leica Summicron 35 V1 last year and have been using it since then. I didn’t do any rigorous testing but my general feeling of the lens is pretty similar with what you experienced with your LLL copy with one exception that I didn’t notice any IQ degradation from f/4 to f/5.6 on the original Leica version. I found that the sweet spot of the lens is at f/2.8, which has excellent center sharpness with good contrast and resolution, yet still retains the ‘slightly soft character’ of the lens at f/2. From f/4 and f/5.6, there is almost no performance gains, other than increase the depth of field. So, I was wondering if some of scatter reported for the replica version was related mechanical alignment and tolerance or caused by glass material (flint glass) property variations. ...Show more →
Thanks. Yeah, that's what bugs me. For example the LLL replica photos Ashwin Rao posted in the RFF thread way back maybe a year or so ago, I could see no focus shift whatsoever. Yet in my copy I still see it a bit at f/4-5.6 at near distances and a ton of it at far distances. Granted, I think his samples were only around 2000 pixels, which would hide shift if it was mild.
From what I can gather in the RFF thread, it sounds like the factory has tweaked the lens slightly during the course of production, apparently to drop contrast wide open. I definitely see this. It's like a slight veiling combined with SA glow, but it's mostly gone by f/2.5 and definitely by f/2.8. Another thing that bugs me slightly is the occasional rendering of OOF specular highlights with a bright central spot. See the example crop farther up this page. I don't recall seeing this from the original, but I also haven't spent much time looking at sample images specifically for this.
On the original Leica version, it does have the combine effect of slight veiling combined with good amount of SA glow at f/2, pretty consistently at most distances. I'v also seen some of OOF specular highlights patterns similar to your images, but without the bright center spot.
, yeah, that could be an option. I'll see what they suggest be done with the copy I have now...
