I ordered a chrome on the 7th but upgraded to the titanium on the 18th so I'm assuming I'm going to be in line based on the upgrade date. Hoping it gets sent out in time for an early Jan trip to Tokyo, but if not I have plenty of other lenses to distract me (and a new Q3 43 for the time I need AF)
hsberlin wrote:
I contacted LLL yesterday about shipping date and got following message:
"Thank you for your message. Your order is most likely shipped by the end of the month. We are currently shipping out orders to customers who are ahead of you. "
i ordered my Titanium version on November, 13.......
Don't hold your breath. I ordered Titanium on Nov 20, and was told exactly same timeline: end of December.
I don't think it will happen.
I contacted David about all the recent speculation and he shared a detailed message that he said I could pass along to everyone since it was originally sent to a reader. I am posting it here so the entire forum can see the information directly.
David wrote:
"I am very familiar with the threads on Fred Miranda, because I am the said person who has been posting and replying under Light Lens Lab in the thread. Regarding the comments and feedback, I did not respond at this time because I have been very occupied with Titanium AA shipping since the beginning of December, and it has been taking far too much time. But if you would like to forward my words to the forum, please do let people and Fred know that I have read every single one of them.
In regards to the customs comments made by John. I have not seen any major changes in terms of extra charges at this time. From the shipment that is going to the US, and also the shipment that is going to Fred at the moment, as he needs the lens for review, we have seen about 30 to 50 dollars per order, with the charges not based on a percentage; however, it is fixed for some reason, and it is not valued based on the cost on the order.
As for transparency on charges, I have been working on a website overhaul since August this year, which will be published in 2026, so customers and readers will have greater transparency into what we are doing. We are also overhauling the checkout process, which will have an active notification in terms of extra charges and customs reminder, or it will have an automated process with a DDP shipping label that can prepay customs tariff charges.
Please also note that we never receive those extra charges; the cost is being applied there because of the tariffs going into the US. I will need to remind you again that customers are the ones paying for it. There are also processing fees that are being charged by UPS, DHL, or FedEx that handle brokerage, which is usually half of the said extra charges from what we have seen.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I contacted David about all the recent speculation and he shared a detailed message that he said I could pass along to everyone since it was originally sent to a reader. I am posting it here so the entire forum can see the information directly.
David wrote:
"I am very familiar with the threads on Fred Miranda, because I am the said person who has been posting and replying under Light Lens Lab in the thread. Regarding the comments and feedback, I did not respond at this time because I have been very occupied with Titanium AA shipping since the beginning of December, and it has been taking far too much time. But if you would like to forward my words to the forum, please do let people and Fred know that I have read every single one of them.
In regards to the customs comments made by John. I have not seen any major changes in terms of extra charges at this time. From the shipment that is going to the US, and also the shipment that is going to Fred at the moment, as he needs the lens for review, we have seen about 30 to 50 dollars per order, with the charges not based on a percentage; however, it is fixed for some reason, and it is not valued based on the cost on the order.
As for transparency on charges, I have been working on a website overhaul since August this year, which will be published in 2026, so customers and readers will have greater transparency into what we are doing. We are also overhauling the checkout process, which will have an active notification in terms of extra charges and customs reminder, or it will have an automated process with a DDP shipping label that can prepay customs tariff charges.
Please also note that we never receive those extra charges; the cost is being applied there because of the tariffs going into the US. I will need to remind you again that customers are the ones paying for it. There are also processing fees that are being charged by UPS, DHL, or FedEx that handle brokerage, which is usually half of the said extra charges from what we have seen.
I just got charged $150 by UPS for the Sonnetar which was about $850. I'm ok with it, but it's just a mess ordering internationally right now. If it's wasn't for limited edition, limited production, I wouldn't preorder these lenses. The case for the Sonnetar it's actually cheaper even after UPS fees than getting the mark 1 used on Ebay.
Marcus Stein wrote:
Don't hold your breath. I ordered Titanium on Nov 20, and was told exactly same timeline: end of December.
I don't think it will happen.
Yeah I ordered within the first 30 min of it going live on Nov 7 and do not have a ship date. FWIW, I’ve also been told by the end of the month. Just a personal opinion but it doesn’t seem like it’s truly going out in the order orders were received. Appears wholesalers, influencers, and reviewers, will all jump to the front. From a business pov I get it, I just think it isn’t what was stated on the website.
Fred’s response from David sounds promising. More transparency from a business to its customers is never a bad thing, and it’s also always a better thing for more transparency in the pre order model where you already have their money.
Tracking down a person's personal FB page to message them (presumably) about your concerns over a product that isn't even late yet is a bit much. Sorry that David has to deal with that kind of stuff.
_jim_ wrote:
Tracking down a person's personal FB page to message them (presumably) about your concerns over a product that isn't even late yet is a bit much. Sorry that David has to deal with that kind of stuff.
Thanks Fred for passing on his message.
I agree 100% with this. Finding an employees personal page to ask questions about his place of business is violating all boundaries. Asking a question via the LLL email or LLL IG account is very different.
David's response makes sense to me. I look forward to the review from Fred.
In the meantime, here is a video that I came across last night that explores the original 35mm Summilux AA, at the end he stated that LLL is working on a replica :-)
The DDP thing is great, IDS uses LDP (same thing) and would prefer to have transparent all inclusive one price and done even if it's a little higher.
There's still 3 weeks left in December so I think it's reasonable for an initial batch release. There's been instances of delays for almost a year with bigger manufacturers sometimes (Leica).
endergemini wrote:
I ordered a chrome on the 7th but upgraded to the titanium on the 18th so I'm assuming I'm going to be in line based on the upgrade date. Hoping it gets sent out in time for an early Jan trip to Tokyo, but if not I have plenty of other lenses to distract me (and a new Q3 43 for the time I need AF)
Make sure to check out the Evangelion exhibit at Small Worlds museum (miniature of TOKYO III) and the limited installation "ALL OF EVANGELION" at Mori Art Museum! (Ends Jan 12th)
Looking at the video (and your images above), it appears this is the only aperture, apparently f/11, where the LLL aperture shape looks noticeably different from the original Leica. At the other apertures, especially the ones that matter most for bokeh such as f/2, f/2.8, f/4, and even f/5.6, the aperture shape seems to follow a very similar form.
I am very hopeful about this lens I had the original and Leica told me it would not work with the digital Leicas so I sold it at not a premium. Now can never get that back. I loved that lens.
davidsee wrote:
I am very hopeful about this lens I had the original and Leica told me it would not work with the digital Leicas so I sold it at not a premium. Now can never get that back. I loved that lens.
We are all very hopeful, on paper this is the lens I have been waiting for so I look forward to kicking off the new year with it.
Why did Leica say your original would not work with digital?
I would also like to know why Leica said the original would not work with digital cameras. Perhaps they were referring to the inablilty to have the lens mount 6-bit coded as there is a screw in that location ( Leica confirmed that it cannot be six bit coded) . There is a 6 bit code in the Menu under Manual M that can be selected.
Why did Leica say your original would not work with digital? They said it would not work as it couldnt be 6 bit coded. At the time we didnt know we could use a marker to 6 bit coded. I was scared and thought my lens would be worthless that it wouldnt work with the digital bodies
I don't believe Leica ever stated this, and the fact the lens is included in the lens detection menu on digital M bodies like the M9, allowing manual selection for profile application, is a confirmation that Leica thinks the lens is suitable for digital.
But it wasn't designed for digital sensors but for film. So perhaps things like field curvature, focus shift, and edge performance (due to aberration) are way more noticeable on a digital sensor, and therefore these ill-effects are more forgiving on film.
The bokeh inner structure business (onion pattern) due to aspherical molding is also much more visible when shooting with a digital camera.
I think LLL made some changes to overcome these issues when shooting on digital, so the overall look and perception should give a similar look to shooting the Leica lens on film (like extended rear element, added ED glass).
Also, it's true that Leica does not offer 6-bit service for this lens, because it's a pre-2006 vintage lens with a different bayonet flange design, but I am pretty sure Don at DAG can make this work. I have not seen the LLL's bayonet so I'm unsure if it has grooves like Cosina lenses have for us to add 6-bit code easily.
The original worked perfectly on the M11 P. And you can still buy them, there are at least 7 copies right now available in excellent to mint condition from $18-21k.
ftllens wrote:
The original worked perfectly on the M11 P. And you can still buy them, there are at least 7 copies right now available in excellent to mint condition from $18-21k.
Yes, absolutely, it works. It's an M-mount lens and is mechanically compatible with all M bodies going back to the M3, including the M11-P. That was never really in question. The point being discussed is that Leica designed this lens for film, not for digital sensors. So while it functions perfectly on digital Ms, certain optical characteristics can become more apparent on digital.
My understanding is that LLL chose to optimize their version to better match the film rendering of the original Leica when used on digital bodies. Not about achieving higher resolution, but potentially improving things like edge CA behavior, field curvature, onion-bokeh or focus shift that digital sensors tend to reveal more than film.
Leica told me on a phone call it would not work with a M8 that was before they had manual codes to put on lenses. For a few years after that debackle they made sure I got an early M9 and also lenses when I needed one and quick repairs.
But why shouldn’t a fully manual M lens work on every M body?
Apart from the convertibles, where the shutter curtain can be touched on some Ms if the rear section is inserted slightly misaligned.
It’s still just another 35mm lens in M mount, isn’t it?
