Marcus Stein wrote:
I got mine today.
Initial quick test seems to suggest that the focus is spot on.
The serial number is 183/800. I saw lots of people having xxx/998, does that mean mine is from a completely different batch?
The hoods, both black and Ti, are kind of badly executed. It rattles like a bell on donkey's neck. I am a hood guy anyway.
The filter feels high quality too. But with the filter on, the cap doesn't stay on anymore.
The focus and aperture rings are smooth, I don't feel any resistance or inconsistence across the whole trip.
By the way, there is even a small brass soft release button included. I never use that thing anyway....Show more →
I ordered mine about a week ago based on this great review, member posts and images. I'll be using it on my M8 so the vintage aspect is guaranteed.
With the crop it will be a 46mm -ish standard lens on the M8.
Very nice and responsive communication with LLL (David) so far. Can't wait!
I got mine last week and is 067/300 mine was held up a bit because they waited until my 28/2.8 was repaired to come back and put in the same box. My theory is my 300 number comes from those first ordered as the very limited by those who ordered quickly as I did, then I recall LLL sold the 300 way before their deadline (there might be atleast 300 who have most or all their lens, like me), offered to make more until the deadline and those numbers floated up to something closer to 1000 (?). Since they likely already made the rings for the first 300, I and others got those, then others got other numerical configurations up to and including all the orders until the deadline. This included a small allocation to dealers, like Popflash has a few Ti, probably sold quickly to people who did not make the deadline. So I think the different batches is especialy different batches of rings… anyways that is my theory, revisions to total number and not starting over with the ring count but using those already made and assembled which I would guess they made a lage fraction of the first 300 before switching but less than 117 (!) when they went from XXX/300 to XXX/800, and then finally to XXX/998 to fill out the final count to deadline.
That is my theory on how the numbers occurred, because they sold more, they are a business, and they are in the business to sell more and did- I think this this great because LLL are photographic tools, user lenses, not sit on the shelf lenses and they are very upfront with this they are supplying us with tools most of us will never see much less use in the forms that inspired. Maybe some day collectors will value them, but for the moment I am going to use mine.
There are also likely some test Tis out there sent to the youtubers so I would think there would be at least another dozen or two not included in the final count for testing etc… those could have other odd numbers, there might be staff lenses not included as well.
working on learning how to use my 35/1.4 capture my vision- dusty Tucson view in predawn this morning, I thought it would be good for the dusty red glow before Sunrise being a lens that glow is built in.
Thanks! I use the lens profile corrections (Leica 35 lux ASPH) in LR. Then auto levels with minor tweaks to those adjustments. Export to Photoshop for skin fixes, and other image element tweaks and then a Dehancer film profile based on AGFA Vista 200.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Love the processing and compositions, Jim. Care to share your post‑processing secret?
Very interesting review by Jimmy Cheng from 6 months ago comparing the original Leica 35mm Double Aspherical and Leica's current 35mm FLE. His testing shows how similar the 2 lenses are, with the current FLE being better corrected on all levels.
This review suggests if you're looking to match the Lecia AA 11873 the current FLE is the answer. If you like the Light Lens Lab 11873 it's for the ways it doesn't quite match the original, creating a slightly softer focus, less micro contrast, etc look.
I still hope someone will compare the LLL 11873 with an FLE with a black pro mist or other diffusion on a portrait ... to see how close the 2 lenses will come, and what their differences will be.
_jim_ wrote:
Thanks! I use the lens profile corrections (Leica 35 lux ASPH) in LR. Then auto levels with minor tweaks to those adjustments. Export to Photoshop for skin fixes, and other image element tweaks and then a Dehancer film profile based on AGFA Vista 200.
Thanks Jim. I was not aware of Dehancer since I mostly use Cobalt for film simulations. It looks great on your images.
JohnKraus wrote:
I still hope someone will compare the LLL 11873 with an FLE with a black pro mist or other diffusion on a portrait ... to see how close the 2 lenses will come, and what their differences will be. s
You don't even need that. To get the FLE a bit closer to the LLL, just use this preset:
Contrast = −15
Clarity = −5
Tint = −9, applied with a Linear Gradient mask, since the FLE tends to output a stronger magenta tint
Thanks Fred. Why would it need a linear gradient mask for tint. Applied to the sky?
I'd personally subtract a bit of dehaze as well for many images.
And re: just the FLE... to my eye and others.. the sharpness of both the 35 and 50 are often happier with a touch of diffusion/mist.. a 1/4 Gliimerglass, black soft frost, black mist....especially for portraits.
JohnKraus wrote:
Thanks Fred. Why would it need a linear gradient mask for tint. Applied to the sky?
I'd personally subtract a bit of dehaze as well for many images.
And re: just the FLE... to my eye and others.. the sharpness of both the 35 and 50 are often happier with a touch of diffusion/mist.. a 1/4 Gliimerglass, black soft frost, black mist....especially for portraits.
The linear mask is applied outside the image but affects the entire frame. The goal is to apply a consistent −9 tint, since the amount of tint in Lightroom can vary from image to image depending on lighting and white balance.
It probably makes more sense once you see the image below showing the linear gradient overlay and where the line is placed, outside the entire image. For this mask, I only apply a −9 tint, but you can also include other settings there, like clarity and contrast, if you want.
JohnKraus wrote:
Very interesting review by Jimmy Cheng from 6 months ago comparing the original Leica 35mm Double Aspherical and Leica's current 35mm FLE. His testing shows how similar the 2 lenses are, with the current FLE being better corrected on all levels.
This review suggests if you're looking to match the Lecia AA 11873 the current FLE is the answer. If you like the Light Lens Lab 11873 it's for the ways it doesn't quite match the original, creating a slightly softer focus, less micro contrast, etc look.
I still hope someone will compare the LLL 11873 with an FLE with a black pro mist or other diffusion on a portrait ... to see how close the 2 lenses will come, and what their differences will be. ...Show more →
If you watch Jimmy's two videos (super helpful, by the way), the side‑by‑side samples show that the pre-FLE and FLE are basically the same in performance and rendering. There are subtle differences, but nothing structurally different.
Similarly, the original Leica 35/1.4 AA isn't that different from the FLE or pre-FLE in terms of bokeh structure and outlining, though it does show slightly stronger outlining and more busy inner highlight structure.
To me, the LLL 35/1.4 stands apart from all of these. Its rendering and contrast are noticeably different, the outlining is less pronounced, and the bokeh seems less structured because of that. There's also a touch more SA than the other versions.
This is all based on my own tests and on watching Jimmy's comparisons on YT. Since he owns the Leica 35/1.4 AA, hopefully he'll post a side‑by‑side with the LLL soon, so we will know for sure..
Jimmy Cheng is always worth watching, in that his testing is consistent and objective. I do hope as well that he'll post the Leica vs LLL 11873 comparison.
Agree with your observations. The LLL version is more gentle, overall, to my eyes. Deciding whether it's worth it if I already own the FLEII is one thing. If I did not own the FLEII I could easily lean towards the LLL version. That is a testament towards the great work LLL is doing. Incredibly interesting company and great addition to Leica world.
Fred Miranda wrote:
If you watch Jimmy's two videos (super helpful, by the way), the side‑by‑side samples show that the pre-FLE and FLE are basically the same in performance and rendering. There are subtle differences, but nothing structurally different.
Similarly, the original Leica 35/1.4 AA isn’t that different from the FLE or pre-FLE in terms of bokeh structure and outlining, though it does show slightly stronger outlining and more busy inner highlight structure.
The LLL 35/1.4 stands apart from all of these. Its rendering and contrast are noticeably different, the outlining is less pronounced, and the bokeh seems less structured because of that. There's also a touch more SA than the other versions.
This is all based on my own tests and on watching Jimmy's comparisons on YT. Since he owns the Leica 35/1.4 AA, hopefully he'll post a side‑by‑side with the LLL soon, so we will know for sure.....Show more →
JohnKraus wrote:
Very interesting review by Jimmy Cheng from 6 months ago comparing the original Leica 35mm Double Aspherical and Leica's current 35mm FLE. His testing shows how similar the 2 lenses are, with the current FLE being better corrected on all levels.
This review suggests if you're looking to match the Lecia AA 11873 the current FLE is the answer. If you like the Light Lens Lab 11873 it's for the ways it doesn't quite match the original, creating a slightly softer focus, less micro contrast, etc look.
I still hope someone will compare the LLL 11873 with an FLE with a black pro mist or other diffusion on a portrait ... to see how close the 2 lenses will come, and what their differences will be. ...Show more →
He does indeed do nice controlled tests, and this is useful to compare lens to lens under these controlled conditions. As he mentions toward the start he tries to test independent of lighting and other things that are really the heart of photography. I think as one uses a lens in a variety of circumstances you discover its strengths and weaknesses, the quality of the light, the distance camera to object, depth of the field, angle of the light, the distribution of colors and on, and ultimately the talent and expertise of the photographer. Each is a different paint brush, and it is in our hands how the picture is made in the end blending together all the variations and permutations. I appreciate, read listen to all these tests and the can infuence my credit card use, others like the 35 1.4 I bought as a leap of faith and I am happy with it.
By the way, here's a side-by-side showing the preset I posted above applied to a LLL 35/1.4 Aspherical image compared to the Leica 351.4 FLE. You can see how much closer they get, though the LLL's rendering still has a slight different structure.
To recap for the FLE:
(You can create a preset with these settings and apply it to your FLE images to get a look closer to the LLL.)
Contrast: −15
Clarity: −5
Tint: −9
...all other settings identical for both images.
LEICA M10-RSummilux-M 1:1.4/35 ASPH. 11873 lens35mm1/1000s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M10-RSummilux-M 1:1.4/35 ASPH. FLE lens35mm1/1000s100 ISO0.0 EV
Rec'd mine yesterday. 162/300. Well made. Packed well. Looks and feels great. Will go out this weekend to see how it compares to my LLL 28mm 2.8 black and my LLL 35mm 2.0 stainless. Hope LLL makes a nice vintage chrome 50mm 1.4 one day....
I just received and unpacked my Aluminium Black Paint LLL 35mm f/1.4 11873. It comes with one square black hood which rattles a tiny little bit. I put a little piece of 3M electrical tape inside the rim of the hood which solves the issue. The hood doesn't come with a plastic hood cover.
dumchidumchi wrote:
I just received and unpacked my Aluminium Black Paint LLL 35mm f/1.4 11873. It comes with one square black hood which rattles a tiny little bit. I put a little piece of 3M electrical tape inside the rim of the hood which solves the issue. The hood doesn't come with a plastic hood cover.
Mind posting some photos of the lens itself? Curious how the finish is in-hand.
