rscheffler wrote:
Check the link in Fred's earlier post, post #3.
IMO a huge reason this LLL lens is coming is precisely because the original is so rare and extremely expensive. That has been LLL's modus operandi since the 35 Cron 8-element replica about 5 years ago. It's capitalizing on the curiosity of those who can't justify getting the original but still want a taste of that experience to scratch the itch.
Thanks and sorry for missing that. In Fred's post #3, for some reason, I read "pre-ASPH" instead of "ASPH (pre-FLE)"
catacore wrote:
Thanks and sorry for missing that. In Fred's post #3, for some reason, I read "pre-ASPH" instead of "ASPH (pre-FLE)"
It's definitely a bit confusing. The lens he tested should render very similarly to the latest 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH. The only real difference in its optical design is the absence of floating elements (pre-FLE). Some mention slight variations in contrast due to coatings, but it still gives us a good idea of how the Double Aspherical (AA) compares to the regular ASPH version (with one aspherical element).
'Based on their valuable feedback, we decided to postpone its release to make significant improvements to both the optical design..'
'New Optical Standard: Due to the high-performance aspect of 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical “11873." The lens represents both a tribute to legendary lens design and characteristics and the foundation for our new high-performance optics series.'
I hope many will agree this is the way to go. Well-organised and informative review, also. Thanks.
"Changes to Aspherical Element Production: Transition from the use of a ground and polished method to a modern moulded and polished method. This change is due to the implementation of learning the use of moulded aspherical Elements, enhancing precision and optical consistency."
This likely means the lens will show far fewer onion-ring patterns in highlights compared to the LLL 50mm f/1.2 1966 version.
===========
Key Changes:
Changes to Aspherical Element Production: Transition from the use of a ground and polished method to a modern moulded and polished method. This change is due to the implementation of learning the use of moulded aspherical elements, enhancing precision and optical consistency.
New ED and Achromatic Element: Introduced a high-refractive low-dispersion and Achromatic Element alongside the new aspherical element to reduce distortion, diffraction, and chromatic aberration. At the same time, it maintains the legendary character and characteristics through the use of Lanthanide elements.
Enhanced Quality Control: Improved assembly precision and element spacing—particularly between aspherical and spherical groups—to optimize alignment and image quality. The rear element has been slightly extended for better optical performance, while maintaining full compatibility with M-mount and adapted camera systems.
New Optical Standard: Due to the high-performance aspect of 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical “11873." The lens represents both a tribute to legendary lens design and characteristics and the foundation for our new high-performance optics series.
Finishes & Availability
The lens will be available in the following versions:
Black Paint
Chrome
Titanium Grey Limited Edition: Limited to 300 pieces worldwide.
Black Paint and Chrome versions feature bodies and accessories made from 7075 aircraft-grade aluminum alloy, while the Titanium Grey Limited Edition are made from titanium alloy.
"Changes to Aspherical Element Production: Transition from the use of a ground and polished method to a modern moulded and polished method. This change is due to the implementation of learning the use of moulded aspherical Elements, enhancing precision and optical consistency."
This likely means the lens will show far fewer onion-ring patterns in highlights compared to the LLL 50mm f/1.2 1966 version.
Yes but it makes me wonder if this was supposed to be a faithful replica of the original, warts and all, or if it will now become an interpretation with modern refinements? And if the latter, what will (optically) distinguish it from any other half decent modern fast 35mm lens?
My point being I got the original LLL 35 Cron 8E replica because it was supposed to be faithfully close to the original. But even with it LLL made some changes along the way to final release. It seems here with the AA, they’re doing similar, but to a much greater extent.
rscheffler wrote:
Yes but it makes me wonder if this was supposed to be a faithful replica of the original, warts and all, or if it will now become an interpretation with modern refinements? And if the latter, what will (optically) distinguish it from any other half decent modern fast 35mm lens?
My point being I got the original LLL 35 Cron 8E replica because it was supposed to be faithfully close to the original. But even with it LLL made some changes along the way to final release. It seems here with the AA, they’re doing similar, but to a much greater extent....Show more →
The original didn't have onion ring patterns- or at least my Noctilux 1.2 re-issue didn't.
I tried and tried and tried- Never could replicate it so I think it was more of LLL wasn't as good at polishing/making the Asph element as Leica. (thats not a knock)
That the originals were designed for film they do say that they addressed some of the issues to translate the optics into a modern 60mp M11 so the dig shooters will be happy with the lens. Ted Forbes reviewed the 1966 and the hand ground elements he mentioned in his review that they were likely to have a high rejection rate as did Leica and Leica apparently lost money on hand grinding, so as I read it they went to molded, likely for this same reason, consistency (cost), and made some changes for modern dig. I assume Fred will review and maybe he will be able to put it side by side with the original if he can get one for the test and show all of us the differences, advantages, disadvantages... aside of course the original is extremely expensive and so the LLL would as in their others be a welcome better entry point to the optics.
Hand grinding might be unrealistic for maybe a 1k+ entry lens given the skill set required.
They do mention they used Lanthanum infused elements, this seems to be a LLL specialty capability that I guess gives them additional options for optical design perhaps yielding a similar result through their path, we will see when it is reviewed.
For instance the 9 element 28 has changes as Fred outlined in his review, those changes made the lens better, even if not then identical to the original, and I like the 28 as it is from LLL on both film and dig with these changes, but concede I have never used the original so I do not have that anchor point.
In the end it is what the photographer can do with it and that we will see when we have it in our hands.
RustyRus wrote:
The original didn't have onion ring patterns- or at least my Noctilux 1.2 re-issue didn't.
I tried and tried and tried- Never could replicate it so I think it was more of LLL wasn't as good at polishing/making the Asph element as Leica. (thats not a knock)
rscheffler wrote:
Yes but it makes me wonder if this was supposed to be a faithful replica of the original, warts and all, or if it will now become an interpretation with modern refinements? And if the latter, what will (optically) distinguish it from any other half decent modern fast 35mm lens?
My point being I got the original LLL 35 Cron 8E replica because it was supposed to be faithfully close to the original. But even with it LLL made some changes along the way to final release. It seems here with the AA, they’re doing similar, but to a much greater extent....Show more →
It's not an exact copy of the original (like the 35mm f/2 8-element), since LLL mentioned several design updates, including a new ED and achromatic element added alongside the aspherical element to reduce distortion, diffraction, and CA. The goal seems to be better correction of distortion, color error and focus shift while keeping the same overall rendering. The original Leica 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux had pretty strong onion-ring bokeh, which LLL replicated, and I wasn't a fan of that look. I'm glad it does not seem will be the case with the new LLL 35mm f/1.4 AA.
RustyRus wrote:
The original didn't have onion ring patterns- or at least my Noctilux 1.2 re-issue didn't.
I tried and tried and tried- Never could replicate it so I think it was more of LLL wasn't as good at polishing/making the Asph element as Leica. (thats not a knock)
The original Leica did, but the reissue doesn't, thanks to the modern aspherical production process.
The original Leica 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux was mostly used on film, where the grain helped mask that bokeh onion pattern. On digital, those imperfections become much more noticeable.
Here's a sample showing the onion-ring pattern from the Light Lens Lab 50mm f/1.2 Noct "1966".
This is what I was referring to when I said I'm glad the new LLL 35mm f/1.4 AA may not show this as much. The original Leica 50mm f/1.2 Noct and 35mm f/1.4 Summilux AA also shows this pattern as you can see in many samples online.
