1. some bright ring bokeh at full aperture, typical of fast 35mm lenses
2. no onion rings, excellent news for an aspherical lens
3. bokeh balls become a little swirly in the corners, maybe a little teacup/fish scale shaped
4. glowy highlights at full aperture, like a glimmer glass filter
raizans wrote:
what i can glean from the few test photos:
1. some bright ring bokeh at full aperture, typical of fast 35mm lenses
2. no onion rings, excellent news for an aspherical lens
3. bokeh balls become a little swirly in the corners, maybe a little teacup/fish scale shaped
4. glowy highlights at full aperture, like a glimmer glass filter
Nice summary!
In regards to point 1, yes, this mimics the original Leica 35/1.4 Lux AA with its strong outlining, even stronger than the latest FLE. Not all fast 35mm lenses show that, and it comes from overcorrection in the background bokeh.
You mentioned the lack of onion patterns in specular highlights, and I was surprised by how clean the inner structure looks in the sample images so far. That said, the low contrast might be hiding some of it, so the pattern could still appear under certain conditions. Hopefully, it’ll be much less noticeable than with the LLL 50/1.2 "1966", which shows a very strong onion-ring effect.
There's a touch of glow, but it’s quite subtle...just a bit more than the current FLE and far better controlled than the 35/1.4 pre-ASPH. Of course, there's no right or wrong here. It all comes down to the kind of rendering you prefer. We will need more sample images to really confirm these impressions.
brick33308 wrote:
I've got the 35 steel rim reissue, love it.
If you had that lens, would you still be interested in the new LLL 35 AA, and if so, why?
You're photos have been very nice, and I know this lens has its many fans, but I also feel like it's existence (especially the black paint special edition for $10k) is Leica at their most cynical - "you guys will buy anything." I'd argue it's probably one of their highest margin lenses and, at least for me, doesn't represent a good value for money...especially when there are good alternatives that will get you in the ballpark (a small, fast 35 with glow and structured bokeh at full aperture like the Voigtlander 35/1.4 and the Artizlab 35/1.4) for way less money.
The LLL 35/1.4 is a different beast (potentially). If it could match or approach the resolution of the 35 Summilux ASPH (especially the 11874) and give us its own unique signature for under $2k (which is around the cheapest price you might find a beater 11874), and you can pick the color of lens you want, then that's a good spend. Of course, everyone's relationship to money is different and your mileage my vary, etc., so on and so forth. So, what's true for me may not be true for others.
“ the 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical “11873” faithfully pays homages to the original double-aspherical optical concept while bringing modern advancements in rendering precision, distortion control, and chromatic aberration reduction.”
Those who desired to own an original, specifically for its rendering and not because it is rare, and who are not encouraged by the fact that so many people are commenting that the released photos do not look like anything which would have come from the original AA, are also not encouraged by the LLL counterintuitive language highlighted above. Is the homage more than just the barrel design? People who wanted an original because they loved its rendering, a matter of taste, don’t want a “better one”. There are lots of “better ones” already out there. The people who wanted an AA didn’t want those, didn’t want “modern advancements in rendering precision”. There is no way to square that circle.
Paraphrasing the project: “Because people loved the original AA, precisely because of the way it rendered, but couldn’t come close to ever affording one, we are taking this opportunity to fulfill the dreams of those people by providing them with an affordable way to obtain something different.”
It’s just weird.
Having looked at the few, but convincing, resources available comparing the original AA to other lenses, I would love to have GAS for this lens, as the price and finish seems lovely, and am hoping for many more photos to be released which would prove that it hasn’t been “improved” at all. Except for the elimination of onion rings by better polishing, that’s fantastic, but it’s not nearly enough.
From what I have seen coming from others noting that the so far available evidence indicates it doesn’t produce the rendering that the original did, I don’t think I’m alone.
Fred Miranda wrote:
For anyone interested in the new Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical "11873", you can get an extra 5% off using the link below ... the discount will be automatically applied at checkout:
Just ordered thanks for the 5%- ordered a titanium- I have all the LLL lenses, not sure how many character lenses I actually need, although the elcan remains a favorite of mine, along with 35 mm 8 element, I do have a hard time deciding not to use the 50 mm apo Leica which I guess if I had to give up all the lenses except one I'd keep it.
There has been some discussion here of the 35 mm steel rim- which is 4 grand and change, I did not buy it (could be yet) because of Jo Geier review https://www.jogeier.com/blog/leica-summilux-1-4-35mm-steel-rim-vs-voigtlander-nokton-1-4-35mm-quick-review/ with the Voigtlander 1.4 Nokton 35 mm that is a tiny faction of the cost. Having used that lens since I own one and I like the LLL 35 mm 8 element better ( I know F2 v F1.4) I passed on the idea. Anyone want to comment on the steel rim in that context. The new 1.4 LLL 35 mm seems to me more of what I think I am looking for, I will find out- I will point out it is not that cheap, yes much cheaper than the Leica collectable but still about 40% of new steel rim. In any case I still have a complete collection of LLL so far with this order.
Is the LLL AA a character lens? It’s hard to say. Some sample photos that seem to have been taken at f/1.4 have glowy highlights, but others don’t. If the highlights at f/1.4 are glowy, it’s important to me that the aperture blades are shaped to create bokeh balls that are rounded or regular polygons, and not sawteeth, when stopped down to around f/2.8 to f/5.6.
raizans wrote:
Is the LLL AA a character lens? It’s hard to say. Some sample photos that seem to have been taken at f/1.4 have glowy highlights, but others don’t. If the highlights at f/1.4 are glowy, it’s important to me that the aperture blades are shaped to create bokeh balls that are rounded or regular polygons, and not sawteeth, when stopped down to around f/2.8 to f/5.6.
The original 35mm f/1.4 AA was introduced in 1990 (designed in the late 80s) and became Leica's first 35mm lens to feature two "hand-ground" aspherical elements. This was a remarkable technical achievement for its time. The goal was ultimate optical correction, not the fast, character rendering of the earlier 35/1.4 pre-asph.
However, Leica soon realized that this lens was more a proof of concept than a mass production model. Each aspherical element had to be ground by hand, making large-scale manufacturing very difficult and expensive. When computer-controlled polishing and measurement systems became available later, Leica was finally able to mass-produce a version with a single aspherical element that delivered nearly the same performance, though not quite identical to the original AA.
That's why the "Double Aspherical" remains so rare and desirable. I'm hoping LLL can revisit this optical design and kept it very close, although I'm curious to see how it compares against the current FLE. If I get the chance to review it, I'll do a direct side-by-side comparison.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The original 35mm f/1.4 AA was introduced in 1990 (designed in the late 80s) and became Leica's first 35mm lens to feature two "hand-ground" aspherical elements. This was a remarkable technical achievement for its time. The goal was ultimate optical correction, not the fast, character rendering of the earlier 35/1.4 pre-asph.
However, Leica soon realized that this lens was more a proof of concept than a mass production model. Each aspherical element had to be ground by hand, making large-scale manufacturing very difficult and expensive. When computer-controlled polishing and measurement systems became available later, Leica was finally able to mass-produce a version with a single aspherical element that delivered nearly the same performance, though not quite identical to the original AA.
That's why the "Double Aspherical" remains so rare and desirable. I'm hoping LLL can revisit this optical design and kept it very close, although I'm curious to see how it compares against the current FLE. If I get the chance to review it, I'll do a direct side-by-side comparison....Show more →
I’m curious to that comparison too. I have the Steel rim reissue and considered getting the FLE but instead opted to pre order the AA as it is 1-1.5k cheaper. Long term I may end up selling the Steel Rim, but haven’t decided yet.
Fred Miranda wrote:
However, Leica soon realized that this lens was more a proof of concept than a mass production model. Each aspherical element had to be ground by hand, making large-scale manufacturing very difficult and expensive. When computer-controlled polishing and measurement systems became available later, Leica was finally able to mass-produce a version with a single aspherical element that delivered nearly the same performance, though not quite identical to the original AA.
That's why the "Double Aspherical" remains so rare and desirable. I'm hoping LLL can revisit this optical design and kept it very close, although I'm curious to see how it compares against the current FLE. If I get the chance to review it, I'll do a direct side-by-side comparison....Show more →
If at all possible, to include the Leica 35mm f1.4 asph pre FLE into such a comparison along with the AA and current FLE, that would be a very helpful and informative comparison in my opinion.
DandA123 wrote:
If at all possible, to include the Leica 35mm f1.4 asph pre FLE into such a comparison along with the AA and current FLE, that would be a very helpful and informative comparison in my opinion.
It was designed by Dr. Walter Watz. At least, according to the internet.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The original 35mm f/1.4 AA was introduced in 1990 (designed in the late 80s by Mandler) and became Leica's first 35mm lens to feature two "hand-ground" aspherical elements. This was a remarkable technical achievement for its time. The goal was ultimate optical correction, not the fast, character rendering of the earlier 35/1.4 pre-asph.
However, Leica soon realized that this lens was more a proof of concept than a mass production model. Each aspherical element had to be ground by hand, making large-scale manufacturing very difficult and expensive. When computer-controlled polishing and measurement systems became available later, Leica was finally able to mass-produce a version with a single aspherical element that delivered nearly the same performance, though not quite identical to the original AA.
That's why the "Double Aspherical" remains so rare and desirable. I'm hoping LLL can revisit this optical design and kept it very close, although I'm curious to see how it compares against the current FLE. If I get the chance to review it, I'll do a direct side-by-side comparison....Show more →
Which, I think it's fair to put some respect on the name...the 35/1.4 Aspherical is the basis for subsequent lenses from Leica - the 75/2 and the 50/1.4 ASPH. Good job Walter Watz!
_jim_ wrote:
It was designed by Dr. Walter Watz. At least, according to the internet.
_jim_ wrote:
It was designed by Dr. Walter Watz. At least, according to the internet.
That's correct. I was wrong to assume it was Mandler...it was another Walter who designed it. Dr. Walter Watz was the designer according what I found online. Hopefully it's factual.
raizans wrote:
Is the LLL AA a character lens? It’s hard to say. Some sample photos that seem to have been taken at f/1.4 have glowy highlights, but others don’t. If the highlights at f/1.4 are glowy, it’s important to me that the aperture blades are shaped to create bokeh balls that are rounded or regular polygons, and not sawteeth, when stopped down to around f/2.8 to f/5.6.
My comment on character is my reset of how I view things, all the LLL have in my opinion some character, indeed I think that is point, and why I have a complete set of them to present. LLL is to date making a some great products at a good price that recreates or reimagines (Z21) lenses of past decades. But anchoring my own view from apo summicron or apo lanthar I own and use all the LL have some character, which is a good thing and the reason I have purchased them. So I would hope the new 35 mm F1.4 will have character, it is what is why I preordered it, my expectation is it will not be an apo summicron or the current summilux and I do not want it to be that,
In my opinion, LLL lenses are different from the original. They can be considered lenses from another manufacturer, but they are definitely not Leica. LLL lenses can be even better (or worse) than Leica, but the optical design and character are not identical. I wouldn't mind having an exact copy (considering the price of the original Leica), and LLL lenses are often better for work due to their cost – it's not such a shame, but my heart still loves the original. But this is only my opinion, and it could be wrong.
Ne314satel wrote:
In my opinion, LLL lenses are different from the original. They can be considered lenses from another manufacturer, but they are definitely not Leica. LLL lenses can be even better (or worse) than Leica, but the optical design and character are not identical. I wouldn't mind having an exact copy (considering the price of the original Leica), and LLL lenses are often better for work due to their cost – it's not such a shame, but my heart still loves the original. But this is only my opinion, and it could be wrong.
I think it would be impossible for any newly produced lens to be truly identical, and even Leica's "Reissued" lenses produce very different results. Ironically, LLL stays more faithful to the vintage lenses than Leica itself. A good example is the LLL 50mm f/1.2 "1966".
Some of their lenses come remarkably close to the Leica originals, such as the 35mm f/2 Summicron 8-Element, which matches the original in color, contrast, and rendering. Others include intentional improvements, which Light Lens Lab discloses...for instance, their 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit is sharper and has less FC than the original, though the overall rendering remains very close. IMO, what matters most is that the overall character, color temperature, and bokeh structure remain consistent with the lens being replicated.
I agree, some LLL lenses may produce a slight different look, while others remain very close to the original. It's hard to generalize because each case is specific.
IMO the interesting thing about this lens is that at ~$1500, it could be a viable alternative to every 35 Lux ASPH version, if it lives up to the original Leica design goals.
What are the modern non-Leica options? ZM 35/1.4 at a higher price, VM 35/1.5 that didn't get glowing reviews, VM 35/1.4 that is basically a non-Leica 35 Lux pre-ASPH, or the VM 35/1.2 that is a bit glowy wide open. I think there have been also one or two other Chinese brand 35/1.4s, but don't recall much about them.
Whatever the case, looking forward to seeing photos from the early adopters.
DandA123 wrote:
If at all possible, to include the Leica 35mm f1.4 asph pre FLE into such a comparison along with the AA and current FLE, that would be a very helpful and informative comparison in my opinion.
I have the original AA, the ASPH Pre-FLE and the current close focus FLE. I ordered the titanium LLL AA moments after the link went live to order it— comparison is the first thing on my agenda…
