I just read the press release for the Stainless Steel edition and saw what you mentioned:
"Adjustments and changes to our element spacing, coating, and element fitment assembly are being made to achieve close render performance to the original 35mm f2 Eight Element and optimize for analogue photography."
I didn’t know this, but I did notice a difference in rendering, particularly in contrast and color. While the difference between this version and the other LLL 35/2 8E versions is likely small, it was noticeable enough for me to pick up on it.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I should be receiving the new Light Lens Lab 50mm f/2 Rigid for review soon! I'll be comparing it to the original Leica. Stay tuned.
Did this happen, and I missed it?
Really curious about the comparison, though I think I'll, eventually, go for the DR version anyway.
My bad, I got the impression that @brick33308 pictures were taken with the LLL "Rigid" replica, but checking it now I realised he has bought the "real thing". Those images look very good.
I am more and more convinced I will buy a Summicron Rigid lens, still undecided if "DR or not DR" knowing it won't work on digital M's past 3-4m to infinity....
I just read the press release for the Stainless Steel edition and saw what you mentioned:
"Adjustments and changes to our element spacing, coating, and element fitment assembly are being made to achieve close render performance to the original 35mm f2 Eight Element and optimize for analogue photography."
I didn’t know this, but I did notice a difference in rendering, particularly in contrast and color. While the difference between this version and the other LLL 35/2 8E versions is likely small, it was noticeable enough for me to pick up on it.
I'd be interested to know exactly what they mean by that. The side-by-side tests I remember seeing with the original 8E and the LLL replica were nearly identical except for perhaps the far corners were weaker on the original at high magnification. Usually when Leica says it has optimized a lens for digital, it just means they tightened up the element spacing in order to better align the light rays to focus on the much thinner plane of focus of digital sensors. So did they loosen tolerances?
A change in coatings, however, would be what most of us would find noticeable in everyday shooting. The 8E (non-stainless) has pretty modern contrast and vivid color, and Fred, your samples look like there's a slight reduction in contrast/color that would align with a change in coatings.
They also changed the coatings between the regular SPII and the Rigid SPII (not to be confused with the actual Rigid replica that's upcoming), but they went the opposite direction by making the coatings slightly more modern.
But I think it's difficult to really know what an original Leica 8E was like when it was new. After all these years, many of the copies have worn coatings, etc. So when I hear a lens has been made more like the original, I have to assume they mean more like the original copies we have today, and that may or may not have been how they originally rendered. But I guess that's another topic completely.
catacore wrote:
My bad, I got the impression that @brick33308@ pictures were taken with the LLL "Rigid" replica, but checking it now I realised he has bought the "real thing". Those images look very good.
I am more and more convinced I will buy a Summicron Rigid lens, still undecided if "DR or not DR" knowing it won't work on digital M's past 3-4m to infinity....
yes, on the advice of Fred and others, I got the "real thing", and fortunately a mint perfect copy. It has now overtaken my 35 steel rim reissue as my favorite lens.
Interesting. Tried a copy recently but rangefinder was not aligned well up close. I really liked the rendering of the lens, but wasn’t willing to fight with it.
Previous owner had only shot it on film and had no issues.
I’m tempted to get another copy.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I had the exact same experience – previous copies of the regular version that were either decentered or not focusing correctly with the rangefinder. However, the collapsable version I bought around the same time was centered and focused correctly.
Does yours align the rangefinder patch perfectly at the infinity hard stop? My current one stops just slightly short of alignment at the hard stop, but infinity focus is correct.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I'd be interested to know exactly what they mean by that. The side-by-side tests I remember seeing with the original 8E and the LLL replica were nearly identical except for perhaps the far corners were weaker on the original at high magnification. Usually when Leica says it has optimized a lens for digital, it just means they tightened up the element spacing in order to better align the light rays to focus on the much thinner plane of focus of digital sensors. So did they loosen tolerances?
A change in coatings, however, would be what most of us would find noticeable in everyday shooting. The 8E (non-stainless) has pretty modern contrast and vivid color, and Fred, your samples look like there's a slight reduction in contrast/color that would align with a change in coatings.
They also changed the coatings between the regular SPII and the Rigid SPII (not to be confused with the actual Rigid replica that's upcoming), but they went the opposite direction by making the coatings slightly more modern.
But I think it's difficult to really know what an original Leica 8E was like when it was new. After all these years, many of the copies have worn coatings, etc. So when I hear a lens has been made more like the original, I have to assume they mean more like the original copies we have today, and that may or may not have been how they originally rendered. But I guess that's another topic completely. ...Show more →
I’m not entirely sure, but the lens description does mention optimizations to the element 'spacing' and coatings. Honestly, I didn’t know about this before, but I did notice a difference between the glossy black paint version I used to own and this new Titanium copy.
Maybe if David sees this, he could chime in and clarify things for us!
Sonnar-7 wrote:
The Panchro is a funky lens.
Leica M9 & LLL Speed Panchro ii 50mm f2
Something seems to be wrong with your copy. This really extremely poor imaging performance cannot be normal. The image examples on Phillip Reeves' website certainly tell a different story.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Something seems to be wrong with your copy. This really extremely poor imaging performance cannot be normal. The image examples on Phillip Reeves' website certainly tell a different story.
It might be that all shots were wide open, at 2 there will be a fair amount of glow. Maybe the shots from the website were at a variety of apertures, it does lose the glow already at 2.8.
I find the LLL 50/2 SP2 to be a relatively sharp lens capable of capturing fine detail across the center, mid-field, and corners. However, it does produce low contrast and some spherical aberration. It performs well from minimum focus distance to infinity. Here are some infinity crops demonstrating this:
Quick question for owners of the 28 9e....does yours mount properly on an SL body? Mine does not, which seems really weird. I'm using the OEM Leica M adapter L on an SL601 and the lens works perfectly on my M262.
The issue seems to the brass helicoid of the lens hitting something inside the camera. I can't be sure what, but I believe it's a plastic mask/frame that surrounds the sensor and sits a few millimeters in front of it. Trying to mount the lens when it's focussed as infinity, the lens mount ring sits about 1 mm from the mount flange and won't go further. Focussed at 0.7 m the gap is maybe 0.1mm or less (the mount ring and flange are almost flush) but the lens won't bayonet into position.
This looks like something inherent in the design rather than some manufacturing defect in my copy, but if that's true, incompatibility with an SL body feels like a major caveat that I would have thought would be reported elsewhere, if not by LLL themselves.
I'm far from an early adopter here...surely I can't be the first person to try to put one of these on an SL601? Thoughts? Maybe I'm missing something?
brad_w wrote:
Quick question for owners of the 28 9e....does yours mount properly on an SL body? Mine does not, which seems really weird. I'm using the OEM Leica M adapter L on an SL601 and the lens works perfectly on my M262.
The issue seems to the brass helicoid of the lens hitting something inside the camera. I can't be sure what, but I believe it's a plastic mask/frame that surrounds the sensor and sits a few millimeters in front of it. Trying to mount the lens when it's focussed as infinity, the lens mount ring sits about 1 mm from the mount flange and won't go further. Focussed at 0.7 m the gap is maybe 0.1mm or less (the mount ring and flange are almost flush) but the lens won't bayonet into position.
This looks like something inherent in the design rather than some manufacturing defect in my copy, but if that's true, incompatibility with an SL body feels like a major caveat that I would have thought would be reported elsewhere, if not by LLL themselves.
I'm far from an early adopter here...surely I can't be the first person to try to put one of these on an SL601? Thoughts? Maybe I'm missing something?...Show more →
Any purchaser of a LLL 50mm f/1.2 '1966' over the past few months- how is QC doing at this point? Any issues? Either in optics, mechanics, barrel lettering?
Also, how are the finishes holding up for those who have purchased 6 months ago or longer?
Many thanks -
