I have a quite good original Rigid, these are not rare lenses, you have to wait for a bit to find a good one and jump on it, and it will likely be 1-1.5 K$ but I have seen several lately that look good on Leica Classics sales and the current Spring photo auctions. The original Rigid is one of the truly great Leica lenses and worth having. I also have a LLL Rigid and they as Freds review outlined did an exceptional job with their design and workmanship. Slightly different than original as Fred showed, but an exceptionally nice lens and render- and unfortunately the LLL rigid is not available it seems to be off the menu for now. Now that LLL is doing a family of rigid loused lenses I imagine they will recycle back to the original, but I don't know if that is in fact true. David Chen may weigh in as he is on this forum. I got the LLL because I wanted a black one, the original black paint Leicas are very expensive, although Kanto and others in Japan have painted the chrome ones that are more reasonable. I bought the LLL rather than a repaint. If you want an original, my own experience with it is great and I would encourage you to explore it. The rigid is perfect for film both BW and color and still holds up extremely well with 62 mp M11, again as Fred showed in his review. Original or LLL remake are both great as Fred outlined and at the moment both are only aftermarket lenses.
Another cheap Leica of the same vintage is the 2.8 50 elmer, it too is a great lens, good copies are not expensive, it collapses, it is made like no one makes lenses anymore. I would rather have a rigid if I had to choose, I do have both.
Sonnar-7 wrote:
Ah, I understand. I remember that some time ago you advised me to look for a Summicron rigid as you thought it did fit my taste in lens, I did look at a ton of photos at the time and in the meanwhile never found one that was fairly priced and in good shape.
When I heard that LLL was about to make a remake of it, I patiently waited and bought one.
It’s indeed a great lens, but I thought that they did improve too much on the coatings once more since I barely could make it flare and I remembered that what I liked about the photos of the rigid I had seen were the orange artefacts it could produce.
That’s what I thought until a friend of mine did lend me its original rigid that it didn’t flare like I saw on those pictures.
I guess that there are some variations regarding that characteristic.
Well, I do agree with you, I do like when LLL make some replicas and do work hard to keep the imperfections, that being said, I think I don’t mind the extra center sharpness of their 1966, it helps with the rendering and everything else is there.
I wish they would do more of those replicas, and some more classics likes they used to. ...Show more →
EMH2025 wrote:
I have a quite good original Rigid, these are not rare lenses, you have to wait for a bit to find a good one and jump on it, and it will likely be 1-1.5 K$ but I have seen several lately that look good on Leica Classics sales and the current Spring photo auctions. The original Rigid is one of the truly great Leica lenses and worth having. I also have a LLL Rigid and they as Freds review outlined did an exceptional job with their design and workmanship. Slightly different than original as Fred showed, but an exceptionally nice lens and render- and unfortunately the LLL rigid is not available it seems to be off the menu for now. Now that LLL is doing a family of rigid loused lenses I imagine they will recycle back to the original, but I don't know if that is in fact true. David Chen may weigh in as he is on this forum. I got the LLL because I wanted a black one, the original black paint Leicas are very expensive, although Kanto and others in Japan have painted the chrome ones that are more reasonable. I bought the LLL rather than a repaint. If you want an original, my own experience with it is great and I would encourage you to explore it. The rigid is perfect for film both BW and color and still holds up extremely well with 62 mp M11, again as Fred showed in his review. Original or LLL remake are both great as Fred outlined and at the moment both are only aftermarket lenses.
Another cheap Leica of the same vintage is the 2.8 50 elmer, it too is a great lens, good copies are not expensive, it collapses, it is made like no one makes lenses anymore. I would rather have a rigid if I had to choose, I do have both.
I do have a black LLL Rigid, I thought it would be a good bargain while I was still looking for a Leica one and learnt about it, at the time I was delighted by the fact that it would come in black.
I was a bit disappointed upon first testing even though I like the replica a lot that it didn’t render quite as I had seen on the various sites I had explored but mostly the flaring part.
And that’s where I think there may be some serious variations but not just due to the age or mist but some other factors, because it was not the veils but the artefacts that did differ.
I got to use an original recently, a loan from a friend and did discover that his copy was closer to the LLL replica than of what I thought an original would render based on all the photos I had browsed to get an idea of the lens.
Another question would be, is it worth it to still try to get an original when I own the LLL replica and that it seems that I might get something more similar than imagined with an older version.
The Elmar has quite some character to it for a 2.8 lens but oddly enough if I had to budget a slow lens, I feel the latest Ms-Optics is quite compelling, the no coating version is calling to me.
The Elmar Leica is one of the finest constructed lenses you will ever see, quite opposite of the fairly fragile light weight ms-optics lenses that I have a few. The light weight ms-optics has many variations of great optical formulas all built around that light weight structures, some are rather difficult to operate well because of the design. The # of blades in the elmar is also exceptional. The mechanics if it is a good copy is exceptional. As an optics train it is very nice but not as exceptional but it meets a criteria of collapsible, far more than sharp enough etc. Kent Rockwell has it right in his review. A great copy of the elmar is not a difficult find and in fact much easier than an out of production ms-optics lens. No bad choices, just different ones.
Sonnar-7 wrote:
I do have a black LLL Rigid, I thought it would be a good bargain while I was still looking for a Leica one and learnt about it, at the time I was delighted by the fact that it would come in black.
I was a bit disappointed upon first testing even though I like the replica a lot that it didn’t render quite as I had seen on the various sites I had explored but mostly the flaring part.
And that’s where I think there may be some serious variations but not just due to the age or mist but some other factors, because it was not the veils but the artefacts that did differ.
I got to use an original recently, a loan from a friend and did discover that his copy was closer to the LLL replica than of what I thought an original would render based on all the photos I had browsed to get an idea of the lens.
Another question would be, is it worth it to still try to get an original when I own the LLL replica and that it seems that I might get something more similar than imagined with an older version.
The Elmar has quite some character to it for a 2.8 lens but oddly enough if I had to budget a slow lens, I feel the latest Ms-Optics is quite compelling, the no coating version is calling to me.
Sonnar-7 wrote:
Another question would be, is it worth it to still try to get an original when I own the LLL replica and that it seems that I might get something more similar than imagined with an older version.
The Elmar has quite some character to it for a 2.8 lens but oddly enough if I had to budget a slow lens, I feel the latest Ms-Optics is quite compelling, the no coating version is calling to me.
The LLL looks like a fine replica (and I'm quite picky about these things), so you shouldn't get too hypnotized for the 1960's original unless you want whole-stop aperture detents. Even a few years ago, we didn't have these Chinese companies and had to buy the real thing which is always a tricky mission with old glass. I find the design and apparent haptics of the rigid to be compelling, but already own the Elmar and Summilux of that period. The Elmar is super cool and an excellent performer even today, but is kinda awkward to use. The 'Lux is a dreamboat in every way, including haptics, but is quite heavy with all that brass. Neither of them is overbuilt in the fashion of the collapsible Elmar 90.
We also need to remember that we’re comparing not only the optical design and glass formulation, but also the condition of the glass itself. If a lens has accumulated dust, developed some haze, or picked up thousands of micro scratches from older, softer coatings, flare characteristic can certainly change.
Even something as simple as accidentally leaving a fingerprint on the rear element can noticeably affect flare. So while LLL has done an impressive job bringing the overall rendering and performance characteristics very close with lenses like the Light Lens Lab 50mm f/2 Rigid and 35mm f/2 Eight Element, the condition of the glass can still play a role when making direct comparisons.
Fred Miranda wrote:
We also need to remember that we’re comparing not only the optical design and glass formulation, but also the condition of the glass itself. If a lens has accumulated dust, developed some haze, or picked up thousands of micro scratches from older, softer coatings, flare characteristic can certainly change.
Even something as simple as accidentally leaving a fingerprint on the rear element can noticeably affect flare. So while LLL has done an impressive job bringing the overall rendering and performance characteristics very close with lenses like the Light Lens Lab 50mm f/2 Rigid and 35mm f/2 Eight Element, the condition of the glass can still play a role when making direct comparisons....Show more →
Whatever old stuff can cause orange artefacts in a lens, I would pour it into mine by the bucket.
I did make some tests recently and the LLL rigid does flare more than the Elcan but it still is hard to provoke on either lens.
The halation is quite different too, even though the Rigid is more well corrected it still has an edge over the Elcan in terms of character if it was not for that incredible special 3D sauce the Elcan have the Rigid doesn’t quite achieve.
I should get an 8 elements from LLL that lens seems to win the best flares of all lens category hands down. I think I need it.
Sonnar-7 wrote:
Whatever old stuff can cause orange artefacts in a lens, I would pour it into mine by the bucket.
I did make some tests recently and the LLL rigid does flare more than the Elcan but it still is hard to provoke on either lens.
The halation is quite different too, even though the Rigid is more well corrected it still has an edge over the Elcan in terms of character if it was not for that incredible special 3D sauce the Elcan have the Rigid doesn’t quite achieve.
I should get an 8 elements from LLL that lens seems to win the best flares of all lens category hands down. I think I need it....Show more →
According to Light Lens Lab, the 35/2 Eight Element "Stainless Steel" version uses different coatings and may produce slightly lower contrast with a bit more veiling flare than the standard version. I haven't had a chance to test this myself yet, but since I own both the Stainless Steel and Safari versions, it's a comparison I would like to explore in the future.
Fred Miranda wrote:
According to Light Lens Lab, the 35/2 Eight Element "Stainless Steel" version uses different coatings and may produce slightly lower contrast with a bit more veiling flare than the standard version. I haven't had a chance to test this myself yet, but since I own both the Stainless Steel and Safari versions, it's a comparison I would like to explore in the future.
It’s quite odd but interesting, maybe they could develop an alternative version of the lens following what they did with the Super Six. They can put it in the rigid if it lowers the cost.
Sonnar-7 wrote:
It’s quite odd but interesting, maybe they could develop an alternative version of the lens following what they did with the Super Six. They can put it in the rigid if it lowers the cost.
I found it. Here is the info about the Stainless Steel Limited Edition version:
. I remember that some time ago you advised me to look for a Summicron rigid as you thought it did fit my taste in lens, I did look at a ton of photos at the time and in the meanwhile never found one that was fairly priced and in good shape.