My lens arrived yesterday, it rained most of the day, but there was a brief window when it suddenly cleared (in Tucson) and that was my chance to try the 35 1.4 AA. I noted some parallels with the 1966, light falloff for landscape is quite severe, but close to medium distance doesn't matter and is enhancing of 3D pop (wide open small Saguaro in morning light). For landscape a stopdown to 2 or more is better. What seems remarkable already to me with a brief use is how film-like the imagery looks without using a film emulation, indeed when I ran through film emulations with Cobalt I decided Adobe profiles was more than enough and the film emulation was overkill at least on this image.
Weather will improve next days and I should have lots of good light time to give the new lens a spin .
Ordered an alum version; production said to begin soon, shipping mid-Jan. David said the titanium versions took longer than expected to make, but are sold out and shipping now. Looking forward!
EMH2025 wrote:
My lens arrived yesterday, it rained most of the day, but there was a brief window when it suddenly cleared (in Tucson) and that was my chance to try the 35 1.4 AA. I noted some parallels with the 1966, light falloff for landscape is quite severe, but close to medium distance doesn't matter and is enhancing of 3D pop (wide open small Saguaro in morning light). For landscape a stopdown to 2 or more is better. What seems remarkable already to me with a brief use is how film-like the imagery looks without using a film emulation, indeed when I ran through film emulations with Cobalt I decided Adobe profiles was more than enough and the film emulation was overkill at least on this image.
Weather will improve next days and I should have lots of good light time to give the new lens a spin ....Show more →
Great samples, and congrats on picking up the lens. Was the first shot at f/4 and the second wide open? Beautiful scenery.
I just picked up the 1966 again too, this time in silver chrome. I previously had the titanium version.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Great samples, and congrats on picking up the lens. Was the first shot at f/4 and the second wide open? Beautiful scenery.
I just picked up the 1966 again too, this time in silver chrome. I previously had the titanium version.
Yes 4 and then wide open , I am finding scenery still looks film like > 2.8 but the light falloff for scenics is an issue while open is enhancing for closer photos whether people or plant portraits. Even at 2.8 and 4 it still retains a film like look, it is much like a wider 1966 in my hands the use of which seems a comfortable mimic to me, with a lighter package (!). The glass difference in 1966 does render different but both have a vintage filmy look. On the scenery - the view from driveway- over the years I have developed a lot of stand here spots, the scenic is a flat rock I stand on which makes reproducing a scene easy from lens to lens. I like the 1966- but it a bit heavy- that lead glass is so obvious. I think both lenses 1966 and 35 1.4AA are a bit challenging to use for scenics, has to be right light and is stop sensitive both are easy for closer photos. I'd say the same about the 0.95 Leica noct, in my hands I find scenics are a challenge to get my vision for their photo, but quite easy to use closer.
tried to find my inner ansel adams this morning- planned photo- I knew with the clearing sly the Moon would be in a good position with the cactus on the side of the house, I waited for my moment, and tried to get a BW with my adams inspiration with the 35 1.4 AA it had to be at 4 to get the Moon in a better focus, wide open was terrible. It was finally cold here, avoids the issue of rattlesnake encounter in the underbrush, I avoid this stand spot when it is warmer using this photo spot as the snakes are there.
I added a second color version of this shot wide open, the troubling aspect is not only the light fall off that might be edited/cropped, but have a look at the way the moon is rendered at 1.4 is doubled for infinity using the Saguaro as point of focus. I need to spend a lot more time with this lens and scenics, much to learn, and a lot of trial and error to see what works and what doesn't- close in is easy and the lens is great.
one more, this time medium distance, far enough back to capture an entire large Saguaro, morning light after dawn, focus point on front of Saguaro, wide open (note light fall off that I did not correct), no additional sharpening - narrow DOF so the side of the Saguaro is out of focus. This shows better why wide open scenics so far are a challenge, might be great under the right circumstances but in only using the lens for a day or so I have not found that yet. Close in, or not scenic emphasizing object of interest the lens is great for my plant portrait tests. It will be a learning experience like the noks, whether 1966, or Leica noks both more challenging for scenics. If I was going to really use this I'd probably crop the center 60% or so and use that to get the wide open shallow DOF and limit the light fall off effect. With 60 mp that would still be maybe 40 mp or roughly equip to using my Z Nikons.
Wait, aluminum versions are not even in production yet?
geoffreyg wrote:
Ordered an alum version; production said to begin soon, shipping mid-Jan. David said the titanium versions took longer than expected to make, but are sold out and shipping now. Looking forward!
Mine arrived yesterday afternoon. Haven't had a chance to use it much...yet.
Initial impressions - it's good.
This is the fourth LLL lens i've purchased and I'd say that each iteration/new release shows improvements. For starters, this is the first LLL lens for me that doesn't have play in the guides or helical. That being said, the lubricant is heaver than I'd prefer. Image quality is lovely - it's very close to my 11874 with one massive improvement - no meaningful focus shift...and one apparent bummer - the artifacts from the aspherical polishing are kind of ugly/unusual (I had the same hang up when I got the '1966,' and I mostly got over it).
Here are three random snaps on Nikon Zf from a quick walk yesterday between rain bursts. All at 1.4:
rji2goleez wrote:
My lens arrived today. Not much time to play but my tradition is to take a shot of Nora wide open.
Noras eyes show so well DOF at that distance is maybe a few inches, not razor thin like the 0.95 noct but quite narrow for her eyes to be in focus in broadening fall off of sharpness- so much like the 1966 a close cousin of this lens
rji2goleez wrote:
A review Bobby Tonelli of the LLL lens vs the Leica double aspherical. He generally likes the lens except for the square hood that rattles.
I’m finally getting around to unpacking my copy, which arrived early this week. The focus ring on my lens feels smooth throughout the range right out of the box, but I am experiencing the hood rattle issue with both hoods that were included. It’s noticeable enough that a light shake of the lens is enough to make it rattle.
As others have mentioned earlier in the thread, this is probably something that could be addressed with a small strip of tape, but before going that route I wanted to ask: are others who have received the lens seeing the same thing? I’m mostly trying to understand whether this is something affecting only certain copies or if it’s more consistent across the batch.
ZacP wrote:
I’m finally getting around to unpacking my copy, which arrived early this week. The focus ring on my lens feels smooth throughout the range right out of the box, but I am experiencing the hood rattle issue with both hoods that were included. It’s noticeable enough that a light shake of the lens is enough to make it rattle.
As others have mentioned earlier in the thread, this is probably something that could be addressed with a small strip of tape, but before going that route I wanted to ask: are others who have received the lens seeing the same thing? I’m mostly trying to understand whether this is something affecting only certain copies or if it’s more consistent across the batch....Show more →
Mine rattles, the hoods look good might use them, but i have other E46 lenses and have some other hoods that I use including some cheap screw-in hoods and might just use those when a hood is needed. The included hoods are rather large, and so I am not sure I want to carry them in preference to adapting some other hoods. Besides a screw-in hood is better from my perspective as I can use a ND filter with that and not have issues trying to get the hood over a variable ND filter, a nice option for digital but with TTL film like a MP a varible ND makes it all so much easier to stay 1/1000th or under.
ZacP wrote:
I’m finally getting around to unpacking my copy, which arrived early this week. The focus ring on my lens feels smooth throughout the range right out of the box, but I am experiencing the hood rattle issue with both hoods that were included. It’s noticeable enough that a light shake of the lens is enough to make it rattle.
As others have mentioned earlier in the thread, this is probably something that could be addressed with a small strip of tape, but before going that route I wanted to ask: are others who have received the lens seeing the same thing? I’m mostly trying to understand whether this is something affecting only certain copies or if it’s more consistent across the batch....Show more →
Mine is like yours . . . focus ring is smooth and not sticky as others have had. My lens hood also rattles, especially the square hood a bit more than the round.
Thanks EMH2025 and rji2goleez, that’s really helpful. Sounds like this may be fairly consistent across copies. Minor annoyance aside, the rest of the lens feels super solid. For street shooting I may just end up running it hoodless anyway to keep the size down. Looking forward to shooting with it over the weekend.
mdg137 wrote:
My replacement arrived, perfectly calibrated
Nice capture here
Question, did you boost contrasts or such? I am seeing quite a bit of LoCal--wondering how much of that is processing versus inherent to the lens of real word shooting.
Question, did you boost contrasts or such? I am seeing quite a bit of LoCal--wondering how much of that is processing versus inherent to the lens of real word shooting.
I shot about 2 stops under to preserve the sky tones, and then raised the exposure in the foreground/subject area- made a few tweaks to lower the black and shadows after raising the exposure, but no actual contrast adjustment.
I already have E46 several screw in hoods, there are cheap black ones on amazon and other places like this one, and there are lot of other hoods available that are screw in for E46 that can be found by hunting around, easy fix, and then I can use a ND on film. The look of the supplied hood is really great but the two hoods are larger and use of filters with them is problematic. My hoods are more likely to stay home if I am using film, but digital I might well use them, they do look good.
rji2goleez wrote:
Mine is like yours . . . focus ring is smooth and not sticky as others have had. My lens hood also rattles, especially the square hood a bit more than the round.
