Sonnar-7 wrote:
My bad. The charts indeed let suggest some stronger performances in that regard, based on that I would stand on the same reasoning, based on the graph.
But yes, I agree. If you compare the MTF chart of the new LLL "mystery lens" to that of the LLL 50mm f/1.5 Z21, there appears to be a noticeable improvement in the mid field and corners, resulting in more even performance across the frame. The sagittal and tangential lines also appear to track closer together, which suggests better correction of astigmatism.
Leica M10-R with the Light Lens Lab 50mm f/1.5 Z21 wide open. This was my review copy in glossy paint, but I liked the lens enough that I just ordered a matte paint version for my personal use.
LEICA M10-RLight Lens Lab 50mm f/1.5 Z21 lens50mmf/2.01/60s1000 ISO-0.7 EV
I was testing the Z21 just recently, the center sharpness of the lens really saves the day and makes that off center dip in resolution less problematic.
But I just wanted to point out that I tested the flares, at 1.5 there are some rainbow effects from the light sources, in extreme cases some internal reflection, plus some warm arc like artefacts, if you close down to f2, you loose the two first effects but keep the arc like artefacts.
I found it interesting to take note of that.
I put the Z21 on my FX2 for video, it might be one of my better lenses for that, the flares, veils and oof texture and mute tones offer a full package.
Sonnar-7 wrote:
I was testing the Z21 just recently, the center sharpness of the lens really saves the day and makes that off center dip in resolution less problematic.
But I just wanted to point out that I tested the flares, at 1.5 there are some rainbow effects from the light sources, in extreme cases some internal reflection, plus some warm arc like artefacts, if you close down to f2, you loose the two first effects but keep the arc like artefacts.
I found it interesting to take note of that.
I put the Z21 on my FX2 for video, it might be one of my better lenses for that, the flares, veils and oof texture and mute tones offer a full package....Show more →
I don't know how the original lens compares in terms of FC, but I trust that LLL studied it carefully and replicated it as closely as possible. That said, there is one aspect of the Light Lens Lab version that makes the center versus off-axis resolution difference more noticeable. The lens has been optimized for digital sensors, and the center resolution is rather strong. As a result, the transition from the center to the outer image areas can appear less uniform, which I believe is what you're referring to.
My solution is to create two Lightroom masks and save them as one preset for this lens. One mask affects only the center of the frame, while the other targets the off-axis areas. This allows me to slightly tame the center while giving the midframe and edges a subtle boost. The effect is not dramatic, but it helps create a more harmonious rendering while preserving the lens's character.
I also avoid oversharpening images from this lens. In my experience, a Lightroom sharpening setting of 25 / 0.7 / 10 / 50 works well and produces a more film-like look, without adding too much detail to the center.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I don't know how the original lens compares in terms of FC, but I trust that LLL studied it carefully and replicated it as closely as possible. That said, there is one aspect of the Light Lens Lab version that makes the center versus off-axis resolution difference more noticeable. The lens has been optimized for digital sensors, and the center resolution is rather strong. As a result, the transition from the center to the outer image areas can appear less uniform, which I believe is what you're referring to.
My solution is to create two Lightroom masks and save them as one preset for this lens. One mask affects only the center of the frame, while the other targets the off-axis areas. This allows me to slightly tame the center while giving the midframe and edges a subtle boost. The effect is not dramatic, but it helps create a more harmonious rendering while preserving the lens's character.
I also avoid oversharpening images from this lens. In my experience, a Lightroom sharpening setting of 25 / 0.7 / 10 / 50 works well and produces a more film-like look, without adding too much detail to the center....Show more →
I was referring indeed to the rather strong central resolution, I tested it against a bunch of my other lenses, my collection doesn’t include some very sharp lenses but still the Z21 outperforms quite a lot of them(if not all )in the center.
I think it really helps holding the images produced by the lens together in something overall pleasing if you accept the vibrancy of its rendering.
I always thought that it was what was lacking in the Heliar where the images feel more diluted.
The Z21 can give some really out there full of character traits images but they are anchored by that strong central sharpness, as you mentioned the transitions are not gradual but it’s where the lens can shine or it might be its weakness, I just couldn’t say for now.
The comparison with the new Z21 75mm could come handy to figure out if it helps with the charm of the rendering or if it would go against since that 75mm does have some more gradual transitions according to the curves.
Sonnar-7 wrote:
I was referring indeed to the rather strong central resolution, I tested it against a bunch of my other lenses, my collection doesn’t include some very sharp lenses but still the Z21 outperforms quite a lot of them(if not all )in the center.
I think it really helps holding the images produced by the lens together in something overall pleasing if you accept the vibrancy of its rendering.
I always thought that it was what was lacking in the Heliar where the images feel more diluted.
The Z21 can give some really out there full of character traits images but they are anchored by that strong central sharpness, as you mentioned the transitions are not gradual but it’s where the lens can shine or it might be its weakness, I just couldn’t say for now.
The comparison with the new Z21 75mm could come handy to figure out if it helps with the charm of the rendering or if it would go against since that 75mm does have some more gradual transitions according to the curves....Show more →
I did understand what you were saying. You like that the center is very sharp. What I meant in my reply is that I don't.
I actually prefer a more restrained center performance that better matches the off axis areas, since there is a noticeable drop off away from the center. Looking at the Angenieux 50mm f/1.5 images, I find that "slightly" reducing the center's texture, clarity, sharpness, and contrast on the 50mm Z21 makes the overall rendering feel more harmonious.
The 75mm f/1.5 Z21 already has that more balanced look because the off axis performance is stronger, even though the field curvature shape is similar. That's one area where Light Lens Lab clearly put in some work.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I did understand what you were saying. You like that the center is very sharp. What I meant in my reply is that I don't.
I actually prefer a more restrained center performance that better matches the off axis areas, since there is a noticeable drop off away from the center. Looking at the Angenieux 50mm f/1.5 images, I find that "slightly" reducing the center's texture, clarity, sharpness, and contrast makes the overall rendering feel more harmonious.
The 75mm f/1.5 Z21 already has that more balanced look because the off axis performance is stronger, even though the field curvature shape is similar. That's one area where Light Lens Lab clearly put in some work.
Haha! I didn’t quite get it either, I thought you tried to match it mid-frame with some tweaks because you thought it was lacking there.
I get what you mean, I also do find that it makes the image quite a bit odd but it does produce something unique, and the Heliar is gradual in its own right but that lack of central sharpness is a bit annoying. So I’m torn.
The Z21 does indeed exhibit something different in the center, even the glow is not really there at 1.5 in that area not unlike the Elcan.
The Z21 is a strange lens, not an easy one but you are probably right, something more gradual could have made the lens quite strong in its own league, more of an everyday character lens, less difficult and still unique.
That’s why I experiment with it in video now, for photos it’s still a tough choice even though I had some nice results with it on film without thinking twice about it.
I have been enjoying using the 50mm Z21 over the last few days. It is a lens of pronounced character - it flares very easily, there is lots of coma and SA, the field curvature would make focus-and-recompose shooting quite challenging. That being said, the look it creates is different than any other 50 I have.
A totally informal, completely unscientific exploration of two lenses that do semi-similar things:
*LLL 50mm f/1.5 Z21
*Nikkor-S Auto 5.8cm f/1.4
The semi-similar things in question:
*flare
*swirl
*glow
Ok, so first things first: these images were taken two weeks apart at the same location at the same time of day. They aren't meant to be hyper-specific a/b type photos, but rather a demonstration of rendering in similar conditions.
So, in broad strokes, the Nikkor has better/more even resolution across the frame and the LLL is sharper in the center (and softer everywhere else). Both love to flare. Both have gobs of coma and SA. Both swirl. The main advantage for the Nikkor is price. The main advantage for the LLL is overall rendering (which is highly subjective).
_jim_ wrote:
A totally informal, completely unscientific exploration of two lenses that do semi-similar things:
*LLL 50mm f/1.5 Z21
*Nikkor-S Auto 5.8cm f/1.4
The semi-similar things in question:
*flare
*swirl
*glow
Ok, so first things first: these images were taken two weeks apart at the same location at the same time of day. They aren't meant to be hyper-specific a/b type photos, but rather a demonstration of rendering in similar conditions.
So, in broad strokes, the Nikkor has better/more even resolution across the frame and the LLL is sharper in the center (and softer everywhere else). Both love to flare. Both have gobs of coma and SA. Both swirl. The main advantage for the Nikkor is price. The main advantage for the LLL is overall rendering (which is highly subjective)....Show more →
Thanks for the comparison, Jim. It's amazing how our brains always go back to our favorite spots when mentally comparing lenses. I do the same thing around my neighborhood all the time!
I really like the rendering of the Nikkor-S 5.8cm. Your assessment of the 50mm f/1.5 Z21 is spot on. Sometimes I even think the center is a bit too well corrected. In fact, I created a Lightroom preset that reduces contrast and clarity only in the center so the image feels more balanced and harmonious. That said, this is also part of the lens's character, and that's what makes it so interesting.
The newer 75mm f/1.5 Z21 has a very similar signature, but with more balanced performance across the frame.
_jim_ wrote:
A totally informal, completely unscientific exploration of two lenses that do semi-similar things:
*LLL 50mm f/1.5 Z21
*Nikkor-S Auto 5.8cm f/1.4
The semi-similar things in question:
*flare
*swirl
*glow
Ok, so first things first: these images were taken two weeks apart at the same location at the same time of day. They aren't meant to be hyper-specific a/b type photos, but rather a demonstration of rendering in similar conditions.
So, in broad strokes, the Nikkor has better/more even resolution across the frame and the LLL is sharper in the center (and softer everywhere else). Both love to flare. Both have gobs of coma and SA. Both swirl. The main advantage for the Nikkor is price. The main advantage for the LLL is overall rendering (which is highly subjective)....Show more →
Lovely photos, but @_jim_ do you approve of the lens, what mark do you give it out of ten?
The lens did grow on me more when I managed to see what it has to offer other lenses don’t. I feel I still like the 1966 more but for video work where I’m quite a noob, the Z21 is such a winner.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for the comparison, Jim. It's amazing how our brains always go back to our favorite spots when mentally comparing lenses. I do the same thing around my neighborhood all the time!
I really like the rendering of the Nikkor-S 5.8cm. Your assessment of the 50mm f/1.5 Z21 is spot on. Sometimes I even think the center is a bit too well corrected. In fact, I created a Lightroom preset that reduces contrast and clarity only in the center so the image feels more balanced and harmonious. That said, this is also part of the lens's character, and that's what makes it so interesting.
The newer 75mm f/1.5 Z21 has a very similar signature, but with more balanced performance across the frame.
Too bad the 50mm f/1.5 Z21 and the 50mm f/1.2 '1966' appear to have been discontinued....Show more →
It’s odd indeed that the Z21 is already discontinued, the 1966 was also a surprise in that regard, I was waiting for the second batch to come but never did to get one, but I was impatient and managed to order one when a copy appeared in stock out of nowhere at the time.
It scares me for the 35mm 1.4 AA, I didn’t plan to buy it so soon, I feel I might end up not getting one.
The 1966 is incredible.
Oh bugger... by micke vmix, on Flickr
Z8 + LLL 50/1.5 Z21 at F1.5 -2? + Voigtländer VM-Z Close focus adapter at 2-4mm
I actually planted this tree in a place so I could get the early sunlight through my neighbours pine trees...
...and in front of it there are some flowers that will get the shapes of these leaves as backdrop but thats for later. Into the fire... by micke vmix, on Flickr
Z8 + LLL 50/1.5 Z21 at F1.5 + Voigtländer VM-Z Close focus adapter at 5mm
Splash of colour... by micke vmix, on Flickr
Z8 + LLL 50/1.5 Z21 at F1.5 + Voigtländer VM-Z Close focus adapter at 5mm
This lens is a blast to use. I recently took it out for a few instances on vacation. It certainly produces some unique photos. It's actually quite liberating to just let it do its thing.
