dalegaspi wrote:
I also don't get the idea of having to pay premium for replicas that LLL does (i do admit i am interested in their 35 APO because it's an original lens design...still too expensive i think..but i digress)...but, hey, clearly there's people who like them so...
LLL leveraged a unique position be cloning lenses that were normally only available to collectors or those willing to spend the collector's premium for access to rare optical designs. It made these rare lens designs available to those of us who would like to actually use them for photography without having to worry about impacting the collector's value of an original lens.
That said, they are also running a business, even if it might be an individual's passion project, and know that they can charge X amount for these lenses because the originals are simply out of reach for the vast majority of us. IOW they're clearly not giving these away or aiming at the lower tiers of cost conscious consumers the way other Chinese brands did when they first appeared, by competing primarily on price and undercutting everyone else. Already from the 35 Cron 8 element replica, LLL knew that they did not have to be price competitive (relative to the conventional lens market). They only had to be acceptably priced for enough potential buyers to sell out their limited production runs, yet still significantly lower priced than most of the original lenses they are replicating. In some respects, they're not all that different from Leica by intentionally pricing on the higher side.
tzhang4284 wrote:
But the problem is the LLL 35mm APO is pretty much a straight ripoff - one lens inserted in the formula and some small cosmetic changes. In contrast, Voigtlander’s APO lenses uses an entirely different approach to Leicas - that’s a real competitive alternative. This is more like buying a knockoff watch or handbag that just changes enough details to skirt anti counterfeiting laws.
It’s very much a free market and all and there’s probably practical reasons for Leica to not sue LLL (e.g. access to Chinese market and risk of negative legal judgments) but I do think it feels wrong to buy this. It actually crossed my mind to buy one but then why spend $2k on a knock off when you can buy Voigtlander APOs for a fraction of the price....Show more →
Yeah, Voigtlander does indeed take a different approach with their 35 APO – it's huge
I also think it's odd that LLL copied the Leica 35 APO external design so closely. Why? It's not like automotive design where everything has to be the same suppository shape to reduce wind resistance. Their options for the design were wide open and they weren't exactly copying the optical design anyway.
I hope at some point they have the courage to establish their own lens design style. Just like when learning fine art, it's good to copy the masters, but at some point you have to make your work your own – otherwise just stick to being a replica maker.
raizans wrote:
“pretty much” is doing a lot of work there. And then followed up with how it’s not a straight ripoff. Which boils down to “I don’t like this.”
Insert meme of The Dude saying “That’s just, like, your opinion, man.”
It's an 'interpretation' of the Leica 35 APO, and looks to be a very faithful one. Probably one that would require a not insignificant legal expenditure for Leica to contest in China. They might get a more sympathetic response in the EU, but that might only block LLL's sale of this specific lens in a very specific market. With the size of this market being very, very small, I'm guessing Leica will just ignore it and continue to promote the Leica brand has they currently do, targeting those who appreciate their brand heritage.
tzhang4284 wrote:
It’s very much a free market and all and there’s probably practical reasons for Leica to not sue LLL (e.g. access to Chinese market and risk of negative legal judgments) but I do think it feels wrong to buy this. It actually crossed my mind to buy one but then why spend $2k on a knock off when you can buy Voigtlander APOs for a fraction of the price.
The LLL addresses pretty much every complaint about the VM 35 APO: too big (for M) and bokeh quality, if the LLL is very similar to the Leica 35 APO. That it is ~1/5 the price of the Leica is still a relative bargain if optical performance is otherwise very similar. If one only cares about sharpness in the plane of focus and APO performance, then the VM is the more economical choice.
An unknown is how other lenses, such as the Brightinstar 35/1.7 APO will compare to all of these. Initial images look promising in that it is at least APO and sharp with modern bokeh. Where it may cede somewhat, is build quality/ergonomics, where IMO the LLL will have an edge being a virtual Leica clone. Whether that's worth another $1000 will be a subjective matter.
I also think that a favourable ruling for Leica regarding LLL's 35 APO in China's legal system is not a given. Where I think LLL has been the most brazen this time is actually the decision to revise their design and font choice to virtually mirror Leica's current design language. If that font is trademarked by Leica, I think they would have some recourse to force LLL to at least change that aspect of their design. Again, whether it's worth it...?
DandA123 wrote:
As I posted a couple pages back, I had read on a Chinese website from the translation, that only the titanium version would have (or offer) the magnetic hood while other versions will have a screw in hood. Whether that still holds true or not is hard to say with feedback that not everyone is happy with the magnetic hood design. I don't know if this decision to incorporate it has changed. The site also went over the choice of smooth or knurled aperture ring and shipping dates of these various versions and color which has subsequently been posted.
I confirmed that LLL is actually considering doing exactly that, and I offered my feedback on it directly. Based on what I've read here and my own take, I think all versions of the lens should have a screw-on hood and a knurled focusing ring, especially the Titanium version, since that's the one launching first. I shared that opinion with them in the spirit of helping the product land as well as possible. If others here feel the same way, it might be worth posting your thoughts too, that could genuinely make a difference. That said, I'm not sure if this ship has already sailed and these decisions are locked in.
rscheffler wrote:
It's an 'interpretation' of the Leica 35 APO, and looks to be a very faithful one. Probably one that would require a not insignificant legal expenditure for Leica to contest in China. They might get a more sympathetic response in the EU, but that might only block LLL's sale of this specific lens in a very specific market. With the size of this market being very, very small, I'm guessing Leica will just ignore it and continue to promote the Leica brand has they currently do, targeting those who appreciate their brand heritage.
The LLL addresses pretty much every complaint about the VM 35 APO: too big (for M) and bokeh quality, if the LLL is very similar to the Leica 35 APO. That it is ~1/5 the price of the Leica is still a relative bargain if optical performance is otherwise very similar. If one only cares about sharpness in the plane of focus and APO performance, then the VM is the more economical choice.
An unknown is how other lenses, such as the Brightinstar 35/1.7 APO will compare to all of these. Initial images look promising in that it is at least APO and sharp with modern bokeh. Where it may cede somewhat, is build quality/ergonomics, where IMO the LLL will have an edge being a virtual Leica clone. Whether that's worth another $1000 will be a subjective matter.
I also think that a favourable ruling for Leica regarding LLL's 35 APO in China's legal system is not a given. Where I think LLL has been the most brazen this time is actually the decision to revise their design and font choice to virtually mirror Leica's current design language. If that font is trademarked by Leica, I think they would have some recourse to force LLL to at least change that aspect of their design. Again, whether it's worth it...?...Show more →
I agree the Voigtlander is quite big but this is my point - the LLL version only exists because Leica figured out how to build the 35mm APO first as a compact lens before LLL reverse engineered the optical formula. And yes, that is compounded with brazenness by basically stealing Leica's design language as well.
I also agree with you - I do not think Leica will have a favorable legal ruling in the Chinese courts especially since Nikon lost on a stronger case. Leica could try to enforce its trademark and rights in other markets like the US but I think they will just ignore it too since I think their top market is actually China and it's not worth the political blowback. Ironically, I think it's the Chinese market that values the real thing more than anywhere else given the history with knockoffs there.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I confirmed that LLL is actually considering doing exactly that, and I offered my feedback on it directly. Based on what I've read here and my own take, I think all versions of the lens should have a screw-on hood and a knurled focusing ring, especially the Titanium version, since that's the one launching first. I shared that opinion with them in the spirit of helping the product land as well as possible. If others here feel the same way, it might be worth posting your thoughts too, that could genuinely make a difference. That said, I'm not sure if this ship has already sailed and these decisions are locked in. ...Show more →
If they don't make the titanium version with the screw on hood and knurling of the focusing ring, this will be a situation where the black/silver will be more popular. They obviously are ready to start producing the titanium as planned, but I think they should wait and retool. I just think they were trying to save some money on the cost of producing titanium with all the knurling and with the screw threads for the hood. That can't be easy to do screw threads in titanium – if it's even possible at all.
tzhang4284 wrote:
Ironically, I think it's the Chinese market that values the real thing more than anywhere else given the history with knockoffs there.
I think this needs to be qualified with: if you can afford it. I feel that like anywhere else, if you can't, yet still want what looks to be the original, you buy a knockoff.
The difference with LLL though is that while it looks like a knockoff, it may actually outperform the original, which usually is not the case. In some respects this could be more damaging for Leica because the LLL presents a lower barrier for photographers who care about performance to acquire.
I agree with HDM's earlier point that if the LLL actually does outperform the Leica, this would have been a prime opportunity for LLL to establish their own brand design language that will set them further apart from Leica. Right now, as good as this lens might be, it just looks like a Leica copy.
tzhang4284 wrote:
I agree the Voigtlander is quite big but this is my point - the LLL version only exists because Leica figured out how to build the 35mm APO first as a compact lens before LLL reverse engineered the optical formula. And yes, that is compounded with brazenness by basically stealing Leica's design language as well.
I also agree with you - I do not think Leica will have a favorable legal ruling in the Chinese courts especially since Nikon lost on a stronger case. Leica could try to enforce its trademark and rights in other markets like the US but I think they will just ignore it too since I think their top market is actually China and it's not worth the political blowback. Ironically, I think it's the Chinese market that values the real thing more than anywhere else given the history with knockoffs there.
This to me is the larger injustice. Leica may or may not have a legal case here (I am not knowledgeable enough to know) but there is no chance of them receiving an impartial hearing in China. This lens is hyped because people are hoping to get the Leica lens at a discount. The physical design is a blatant knockoff. Chinese companies seemingly have impunity to do whatever they want, but at some point the actual innovators will be out of business as a result and they will have no more IP to steal. That is not good for anyone.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I confirmed that LLL is actually considering doing exactly that, and I offered my feedback on it directly. Based on what I've read here and my own take, I think all versions of the lens should have a screw-on hood and a knurled focusing ring, especially the Titanium version, since that's the one launching first. I shared that opinion with them in the spirit of helping the product land as well as possible. If others here feel the same way, it might be worth posting your thoughts too, that could genuinely make a difference. That said, I'm not sure if this ship has already sailed and these decisions are locked in. ...Show more →
Yeah my main hangup on pre ordering is the magnetic hood. I forsee this getting knocked off and lost when out in the field. And it doesnt look great without the hood
RoamingScott wrote:
I recently reviewed a lens with a magnetic hood. It's one of the worst ideas I've ever encountered at the front of a lens
I'd do whatever you have to do avoid it.
Hah it doesnt sound great. Sigma's I series lenses had magnetic lens caps which sounded good in theory but were really annoying. Luckily they provided regular lens caps too
Fred Miranda wrote:
I confirmed that LLL is actually considering doing exactly that, and I offered my feedback on it directly. Based on what I've read here and my own take, I think all versions of the lens should have a screw-on hood and a knurled focusing ring, especially the Titanium version, since that's the one launching first. I shared that opinion with them in the spirit of helping the product land as well as possible. If others here feel the same way, it might be worth posting your thoughts too, that could genuinely make a difference. That said, I'm not sure if this ship has already sailed and these decisions are locked in. ...Show more →
I had asked them on IG about a knurled titanium version and they at least said they will be making one, but I assume I’ll have to wait longer for it, which I’m ok with. I do agree with you that I’d suspect the knurled would be more popular but I could be wrong.
I used to be annoyed at 3rd party lenses especially for Leica but now I’ve changed my mind. I wondered why someone would want to put a non Leica lens on a Leica body but the game has changed. Many of these lenses are of fantastic quality. Leica prices have gone through the roof and companies like LLL offer an attractive alternative at a fraction of the price. The homage lenses aren’t really competing with Leica’s modern top end line and 70 year old designs must have exceeded their patents time line. I don’t really care about them using similar fonts in order to keep the aesthetic.
I have both Leica and 3rd party lenses and I am so happy with the choices we have today. If people don’t like what LLL and other Chinese brands are doing just don’t buy them.
treacle wrote:
I have both Leica and 3rd party lenses and I am so happy with the choices we have today. If people don’t like what LLL and other Chinese brands are doing just don’t buy them.
I think it's fair for those who disagree with LLL's decisions around the 35 APO to criticize LLL publicly. It's just one more form of feedback for them to receive and understand that their approach has not been agreeable to everyone.
As OP of this thread, I was in pretty early on their 8-element replica and was extremely appreciative to be able to acquire a quite faithful reproduction of the original for only $500 (the RFF pre-order special). It scratch a longstanding 8-element itch. And I'm very happy that LLL has released so many replica lenses at affordable prices, at least relative to the originals, many of which are now collectables. But I do think they're in very grey territory with their 35 APO.
I imagine they would have anticipated the spectrum of responses at the instigation of the project. It's baked into their business model, only the threshold of angst is subject to change. They would well know the sacred cows in the field.
And more - perhaps many more - LLL APO lenses are foreshadowed, and the response to them will be interesting to observe as well. But after the brouhaha dies down to a mere smoldering resentment, they will still be going about their business. They are coming up to their sixth birthday.
And I'm very happy that LLL has released so many replica lenses at affordable prices, at least relative to the originals, many of which are now collectables. But I do think they're in very grey territory with their 35 APO.