I don't personally own the CV 35mm f/2 APO, and one of the main reasons is its size. I'm very curious to see how the new LLL 35mm f/2 APO, which is the same size as the Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron APO, compares to the Voigtlander. If I end up reviewing the LLL APO, the Voigtlander will be my reference lens for comparison.
Can anyone who owns the Leica 35mm f/2 APO-Summicron post a picture of the viewfinder blockage (with the hood attached)? I'd like to get an idea of how much more blockage the Voigtlander has in comparison.
philip_pj wrote:
Robbie reviews the 35/2 APO-Lanthar: 'Why Optical Perfection Can Be Completely Boring'
..
The hypocrisy in these reviews is wild. Everything labeled "boring" about the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO's clinical perfection (as he puts it) is suddenly praised as a feature when he is reviewing the Light Lens Lab 35mm f/2 APO. If you prefer uncorrected, character-heavy glass, fine...just be consistent.
You can't fault an APO lens for high correction, sharpness, or contrast when those traits are the entire reason it was engineered, and you knew that going in.
"The hypocrisy in these reviews is wild."
To me, it seems vulgarly banal, especially considering the timing of the two consecutive reviews... It looks like blatant support for one of two fundamentally competing lenses that serve the exact same purpose.
To casually list—right at the start—flaws concerning the very reason for an APO lens's existence (beyond the hackneyed notion of sharpness), and then conclude that it is a superb investment... looks like a cheap attempt to steer the listener toward reading between the lines: if you like APO, buy the genuine APO LLL instead of the dubious APO Voigtländer.
Almost like he stands to make money from people buying the LLL because he's an affiliate. At least he leaned into his sophomoric LLL review by changing the YT title to This Upset Leica Shooters | Light Lens Lab 35 APO
Love those PERFECTLY ROUND AND BORING CATS EYES in the CV
1. I do genuinely feel the CV is an incredible lens. But just not for me. Not even the Leica APO
2. I did not fault the lens, just pointing out the stuff that I found and I was surprised with the findings showing the lens is not that boring after all.
3. I will absolutely recommend the CV for people who want optimal sharpness.
Seems like I just need to agree with whatever the majority opinion is in this place
Robbie_S wrote:
1. I do genuinely feel the CV is an incredible lens. But just not for me. Not even the Leica APO
2. I did not fault the lens, just pointing out the stuff that I found and I was surprised with the findings showing the lens is not that boring after all.
3. I will absolutely recommend the CV for people who want optimal sharpness.
Seems like I just need to agree with whatever the majority opinion is in this place
Well...this is a thread about the lens, and I watched up to about half way, and I couldn't really detect anything really positive being said. Granted I have the E mount version which comes with a hood and is all black, but all the mushy kinda negative "but maybe it's just me " got old. Critiquing a review isn't really out of bounds here.
If there was actually something positive said later in the review, maybe a short explanation up front about the bad coming first would have helped. (Maybe you did and I missed it.) All the up front opinion didn't jive with my experience, so I moved on.
I said the lens is absolutely brilliant for people looking for what it is. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a bad lens. Negatives are about looks and ergonomics of the lens anyway. Again, notes taken. Thank you.
Robbie_S wrote:
I said the lens is absolutely brilliant for people looking for what it is. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a bad lens. Negatives are about looks and ergonomics of the lens anyway. Again, notes taken. Thank you.
That's a bit simple, isn't it?
First, the problem about this statement is that basically all lenses are brilliant for people looking for exactly those lenses.
Second, what i think people respond to here is that you seem inconsistent in your reviews of two lenses that are optically in the same neighborhood (the LLL 35 APO and the Voigt 35 APO). In your LLL review you said the latter was "just sharp, its just that", before adding that the LLL "maintains a bit of bit of character, maintains a bit of that LLL DNA, maintains a bit of that vintage DNA".
That is just weird. Both lenses are designed to do exactly the same. To be perfectly corrected and have as little character as possible. So if your assessment about the LLL is correct, it is almost as if you say that they failed when designing it. I do not think that is your intention?
And then for much of your LLL review, you show how good it is, and i think people in this forum knows that you could have taken exactly the same photos with the Voigtlander 35 Apo and achieved exactly the same results. It may simply be that you enjoy using the LLL more, or that its design and handling make you feel more inspired. I think that is a different question from how the lens actually performs or renders.
And I think that is really where I struggle a bit with these reviews. When looking at your videos, it feels less like you are reviewing the actual differences between the lenses, and more like you are explaining how you feel about the lens, how it looks, how the aperture ring feels, whether you enjoy using it etc.
There is nothing wrong with that. Those things matter too. But they are also extremely subjective. And when that gets mixed together with statements about optical character and rendering, I think it becomes a bit difficult to know what is actually a property of the lens and what is simply your personal reaction to using it.
For what it is worth: I am a huge fan of both Voigtlander and LLL and have three Voigtlander lenses and two LLL lenses.
OleAndre wrote:
That's a bit simple, isn't it?
And then for much of your LLL review, you show how good it is, and i think people in this forum knows that you could have taken exactly the same photos with the Voigtlander 35 Apo and achieved exactly the same results. It may simply be that you enjoy using the LLL more, or that its design and handling make you feel more inspired. I think that is a different question from how the lens actually performs or renders.
And I think that is really where I struggle a bit with these reviews. When looking at your videos, it feels less like you are reviewing the actual differences between the lenses, and more like you are explaining how you feel about the lens, how it looks, how the aperture ring feels, whether you enjoy using it etc....Show more →
Exactly. Differences in haptics are a legitimate argument. The Light Lens Lab 35mm f/2 APO is smaller, just like the Leica, so it blocks less of the framelines (especially without its hood). It also focuses closer, gives a mechanical alert when the rangefinder disengages below 0.7m, and may well be subjectively prettier. Those are fair points, and I think many would agree with them.
I haven't tried the new LLL yet, but I've been shooting the Voigtlander since this review thread started, so I know how it renders. There's some outlining in the bokeh at the focus transition zone (usually when the subject is at a medium distance) and onion ring texture in the specular highlights, and plenty of people find it less smooth than other modern lenses. So for someone who appreciates a bit more structure or character in the rendering, the Voigtlander should actually be the more appealing one!
That's what makes the comparison so interesting: if the LLL renders closer to the Leica, it could end up being the one with the smoother, more modern transitions. Let's just agree to retire the word "vintage" for ultra corrected APO lenses, please.
Fred Miranda wrote:
...but I've been shooting the Voigtlander since this review thread started, so I know how it renders. There's some outlining in the bokeh at the focus transition zone (usually when the subject is at a medium distance) and onion ring texture in the specular highlights, and plenty of people find it less smooth than other modern lenses.
Interesting. Agree about it being less smooth than some modern lenses at mid-distances: I get the outlining, and a bit of texture in the out of focus highlights from mine, but I haven't noticed any onion rings. They look a lot like the bokeh balls from your tests of the Sony E version near the start of this thread.
Matt White wrote:
Interesting. Agree about it being less smooth than some modern lenses at mid-distances: I get the outlining, and a bit of texture in the out of focus highlights from mine, but I haven't noticed any onion rings. They look a lot like the bokeh balls from your tests of the Sony E version near the start of this thread.
It's barely noticeable during normal shooting. I only spot it when pixel-peeping, particularly in certain night lighting conditions. Since it's a wide-angle lens, bokeh highlights remain small, making the effect very subtle and easy to miss.
First, the problem about this statement is that basically all lenses are brilliant for people looking for exactly those lenses.
Second, what i think people respond to here is that you seem inconsistent in your reviews of two lenses that are optically in the same neighborhood (the LLL 35 APO and the Voigt 35 APO). In your LLL review you said the latter was "just sharp, its just that", before adding that the LLL "maintains a bit of bit of character, maintains a bit of that LLL DNA, maintains a bit of that vintage DNA".
That is just weird. Both lenses are designed to do exactly the same. To be perfectly corrected and have as little character as possible. So if your assessment about the LLL is correct, it is almost as if you say that they failed when designing it. I do not think that is your intention?
And then for much of your LLL review, you show how good it is, and i think people in this forum knows that you could have taken exactly the same photos with the Voigtlander 35 Apo and achieved exactly the same results. It may simply be that you enjoy using the LLL more, or that its design and handling make you feel more inspired. I think that is a different question from how the lens actually performs or renders.
And I think that is really where I struggle a bit with these reviews. When looking at your videos, it feels less like you are reviewing the actual differences between the lenses, and more like you are explaining how you feel about the lens, how it looks, how the aperture ring feels, whether you enjoy using it etc.
There is nothing wrong with that. Those things matter too. But they are also extremely subjective. And when that gets mixed together with statements about optical character and rendering, I think it becomes a bit difficult to know what is actually a property of the lens and what is simply your personal reaction to using it.
For what it is worth: I am a huge fan of both Voigtlander and LLL and have three Voigtlander lenses and two LLL lenses.
It's very hard to put oneself in another's shooting environment. And all photographers have peculiarities in their own way of working. I'm sure I'm not alone is seeing very different results from the findings in any review out there. It fuels the GAS, for sure, not a problem as that is a valid part of the journey.
It's a reason to advocate for plenty of diverse images in reviews and references to other competing lenses - all too often reviews do not mention things that really matter to final images. The tendency is to equate the imagery of similar specification lenses seen at different times, while focusing closely on just that single lens under review - a paradox. Not a criticism, all takes are valuable, I hasten to add.
You almost never read things like: 'this lens will suit xxx photographers, while yyy shooters might consider lens'. It's hard - time is tight, life is demanding as it goes on, it's hard to do, say, streets like Robbie or Bobby Tonelli, Euro street llife, open nature, close ups, people, cars in full daylight, strong or low light etc. to get a rounded take on each lens. Finally, the greatest teacher on this front is shooting similar lenses side-by-side for an extended period. What an education that is.
Which is of course impractical for many. The variations in light handling, conditions, subject matter, focus distances etc. - all this and more teases out the critical differences and behaviours, which ones cope, which ones are 'fussy' and which do not suit. And they really do matter if you do diverse material, to me at least. cheers.
lens'. It's hard - time is tight, life is demanding as it goes on, it's hard to do, say, streets like Robbie or Bobby Tonelli, Euro street llife, open nature, close ups, people, cars in full daylight, strong or low light etc. to get a rounded take on each lens. Finally, the greatest teacher on this front is shooting similar lenses side-by-side for an extended period. What an education that is.