Great review and loved your sample images, especially the factory portraits. Really interested in this lens as well as the steel rim reissue now. The way it glow backlit is calling for me heh.
I think the Thypoch is pretty boring--it's just another going for modern smooth bokeh look with lower contrast. It's not that well corrected WO but not in an intentional character type-way. I can't say I enjoy the ergo at all and the overall images are very meh for my tastes. So, yes, there's a reason to pay more for the LLL IMO.
Not necessarily if you're looking for a modern, clean optic. Though even very modern lenses are each unique in draw from each other. And weigh different, look different, handle differently.
The reason for this lens photographically is the character, the feelings it evokes. The more filmic/less digital look. The atmosphere it shows. You might love, it might do nothing for you.
Others will purchase for the beauty of the lens, the weight, its historical reference. So from my perspective... many reasons to purchase, and other reasons to be happy with the Thypoch. Or in my case, The FLE II.
mudlake wrote:
Is there a reason to pay $1,400 for this lens over the Thypoch 35/1.4 at $595?
mudlake wrote:
Is there a reason to pay $1,400 for this lens over the Thypoch 35/1.4 at $595?
I can also add that this is the reason I sold my Nokton 35mm f1.5, it became too stale and boring for me. I definetly like lenses with some sort of character. I like the 'atmosphere' the LLL AA draws plus the historical aspect of where this lens gets its inspiration, all of that makes it a bit more special to me even if the LLL AA is not an exact replica of the original.
JohnKraus wrote:
Not necessarily if you're looking for a modern, clean optic. Though even very modern lenses are each unique in draw from each other. And weigh different, look different, handle differently.
The reason for this lens photographically is the character, the feelings it evokes. The more filmic/less digital look. The atmosphere it shows. You might love, it might do nothing for you.
Others will purchase for the beauty of the lens, the weight, its historical reference. So from my perspective... many reasons to purchase, and other reasons to be happy with the Thypoch. Or in my case, The FLE II.
Historical reference? Isn't this just a Chinese copy? Very well done, but a copy nonetheless...Is not like you are buying the original one.
To echo what others have said, the ergonomics alone, on the thypoch 35/1.4, is enough to deter me from using it.
Also having owning the CV 35/1.5 and the CV 40/1.4, I tend to gravitate towards the 40 simply because it has more character. The photos have more uniqueness to them. And if I want near perfection, I would pick the 35/1.5, tho someone would say it's stale and boring.
mudlake wrote:
Is there a reason to pay $1,400 for this lens over the Thypoch 35/1.4 at $595?
That would be a great exercise but it wouldn't be as hard to guess as the Leica 50/1.4 Lux ASPH versus Thypoch 50/1.4 ASPH, which I posted in the Thypoch review. Those two lenses are very similar in resolution and rendering.
I think it would be pretty easy to tell the Leica 35/1.4 FLE apart from the LLL 35/1.4 11873 and the other lenses you mentioned. Maybe not in every composition or lighting situation, but when the transition zones and specular highlights show up, it's usually not hard to guess. I did something similar with the LLL 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical 11873 versus Leica FLE and pre-ASPH rendering tests, though it wasn't really a "guess" exercise, but I don't have the other lenses you mention, otherwise I'd be glad to try it.
Those are so much work--and expensive when the differences are pretty clear at this point. And comparing crops at websize only tells one so much. Even lenses like 50 Lux and Simera look artificially close IMO in this scenario, but shooting them you feel and see a difference with processing and micro-contrast, especially at larger viewing sizes.
I'd still be interested though in a proper comp between the ASPH Pre-FLE and AA. And toss in a Pentax 31 ltd cause I think it does the same things as these lenses lens in terms of early digital/late film rendering with some lovely warm character and SA WO.
And while this LLL looks nice--I'll try one at some point—I think it's phony/dishonest marketing to call it a replica unless it really is a close replica of the AA.
My LLL titanium just arrived! Excited to try it out and compare to my FLE. Thus far first thing i notice is the focus ring is very “sticky”/jerky. My elcan was similar out of the box however and didnt take too long to smooth out
Last set of unprocessed samples (minus the night tree) because the lens will be going to a new home soon so I stopped using it. After switching to the FLE SS and looking back at the images, I would use the LLL AA as my sole primary 35 1.4 with an edge over the FLE (if I didn't have the matched SS/Ti set).
ftllens wrote:
Last set of unprocessed samples (minus the night tree) because the lens will be going to a new home soon so I stopped using it. After switching to the FLE SS and looking back at the images, I would use the LLL AA as my sole primary 35 1.4 with an edge over the FLE (if I didn't have the matched SS/Ti set).
Thank you for sharing this batch of images, truly lovely. I can't describe it but this len's rendering has a big pull on me. Still waiting for my Ti shipping notification.
Does anyone have thoughts on how this would compare with a 35mm f1.4 Nokton Classic II? Less distortion sounds nice.
I want to pick up a film m later this year and was considering one of these as a more easy carry character vibe lens.
- lovely samples, ftllens, very atmospheric. Are those mostly wide-open?
Thanks all and yes, they are all WO with the exception of the last shot with the trees and birds (f4 or 5.6) and I think the child with the Porsche was 2.0 or 2.8.
