I put the order in last minute right before the deadline around Nov 20 midnight, and was told don't expect its arrival until at least the end of Dec or first week of Jan next year.
I ordered the night of 11/7 but updated to the Ti on 11/10. I have not received shipping notice yet. David did say via email it should be based on when your order was placed, I am just not sure if I count as 11/7 or 11/10.
dumplinknet wrote:
Anyone on this forum get an update on their shipping yet?
Marcus Stein wrote:
I put the order in last minute right before the deadline around Nov 20 midnight, and was told don't expect its arrival until at least the end of Dec or first week of Jan next year.
Hmmm. It didn’t occur to me it could arrive while I’m away for Xmas. 😬
Nice find. That titanium hood screams too loud for my taste, but the stock black hood is obnoxiously large.
Hopefully Haoge or Squarehood makes a more subtle replacement.
viper563 wrote:
Found the first unboxing and sample photos while browsing YouTube
I don't think LLL is aiming for an optimized mechanical aperture design with this lens. Their goal seems to be recreating the mechanical operation of the original as faithfully as possible. That includes the quirks as well.
So if someone isn't a fan of how the classic Leica mechanical apertures behaved, or how big the hood is, or the way the original double aspherical rendered, this remake isn't going to change that. (At least thats my hope). It's meant to feel and perform like the old lens, just built with today's machining and glass. Even the optics are researched and developed by LLL to closely mimic the original.
With that in mind, any critique of the lens' quirks, performance or imperfections is really a critique of the original Leica lens...assuming LLL did their homework correctly.
It does look different at f/11, which seems to be the worst-case scenario, but at this aperture, bokeh balls are so small that the shape of the aperture has little impact. From the video above, it should produce a nice decagon at f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6, where the effect is more noticeable. Thanks for spotting the difference. When I get a chance, I will compare the apertures to show the actual rendering and how the sunstars behave.
Mayasan wrote:
The titanium barrel designs feels very well built and balance. but the images looks like a modern lens, there is no significant glow wide open.
The modern performance is expected. I have seen a side by side comparison with the current 35/1.4 Lux FLE, and the two lenses look very similar. The Leica 35/1.4 double aspherical has a bit more coma and stronger bokeh outlining, but in resolution and contrast it is very close to the latest Leica 35/1.4 ASPH, which is considered a modern design. Honestly, the LLL double aspherical could be a real alternative to the much more expensive FLE. You get Leica level build quality and a very similar look without blowing up your budget.
I'm intrigued by this offering from LLL. Where would you place this lens on a scale in contrast and character comparison to the 35mm f1.4 Steel Rim Reissue, 35mm f1.4 pre FLE, and last Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 classic ii ?
The original AA was like the McLaren F1 of its day (best materials and research design) so it's pretty close to modern Leica looks and not really like any of those "classic/vintage" lenses.
It's indeed intriguing. I've never shot with the Leica 35mm f/1.4 ASPH. "pre-FLE", so I can only comment based on the data, optical design changes, and sample images. From what I've gathered, the current FLE versions (I or II) use the same optical design as the pre-FLE, with one distinct and important change: the floating group. The rear 5-element group moves as a unit depending on focus distance, better correcting SA and other aberrations at closer distances.
So, if you shoot at MFD or moderately close, the pre-FLE's spherical aberration (glow) and slightly lower contrast should be noticeable. Leica also corrected focus shift in the FLE version, which means it may appear sharper...not due to higher resolution, but because focus is more accurate. When using a rangefinder, stopping down produces correctly focused images, which look sharper than on the pre-FLE, where focus shift can soften the result.
From the comparisons I've seen, anything beyond roughly 2.5m looks pretty much the same between pre-FLE and FLE, except that focus shift may make pre-FLE images appear softer when stopping down (since we don't refocus with the rangefinder).
In other words, the floating group improves correction at close distances, not by changing the optical design (Aside from the rear group moving), but by reducing aberration and making focus more precise.
As for the Light Lens Lab Releases 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical "11873", it doesn't have a floating group either, so SA might be more pronounced compared to the current FLE. At moderate distances, however, it should behave similarly.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The modern performance is expected. I have seen a side by side comparison with the current 35/1.4 Lux FLE, and the two lenses look very similar. The Leica 35/1.4 double aspherical has a bit more coma and stronger bokeh outlining, but in resolution and contrast it is very close to the latest Leica 35/1.4 ASPH, which is considered a modern design. Honestly, the LLL double aspherical could be a real alternative to the much more expensive FLE. You get Leica level build quality and a very similar look without blowing up your budget.
Have you seen more sample images somewhere?
Fred, would you say that this LLL replica has the same high-micro contrast and warm colors of the FLE version 1?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Fred, would you say that this LLL replica has the same high-micro contrast and warm colors of the FLE version 1?
If so, at this price, I would be very interested.
I'm dying to test it out but yes I'm expecting it to perform that way at distances of 2m or longer where the floating group correction differences are less noticeable.
I'm not sure about the color temperature though. It will depend on the coatings. Usually LLL lenses run a bit cooler than my other lenses, but I think they try to match the temperature of the originals.
