Marcus Stein wrote:
What is so special about that kind of cap?
You can find it on Amazon for literally $2
This is exactly what I have done. Have a few spare Amazon pinch caps laying around and use that on this lens 100% of the time. As nice as it looks, the cap that comes with it falls off too easily when you have a filter attached.
I shot a quick roll of Ekar with my MP to see how my new 35. 1.4 did with film
Light was NOT wonderful but an average morning - the LLL 35. 1.4 looks film-like on dig M and on film it performs just fine so I will include it on film outings to get better circumstances and imaging than near my driveway for a very quick roll. Scenes stopped down to see dof and open example of cactus the open looks so 1966 like to me, This being my driveway and view I have photographed all of these before with the 1966, and the 35 1.4 LLL seems so much like a wider 1966 in my opinion.
stgrove wrote:
@EMH2025@
If you own the Leica Steel Rim 35 or the old Leica Rigid 50 how would you say it compares to those lenses? Thanks.
I came so so close to deciding to purchase a steel rim (current ver not original) a few times and didn't do it (maybe yet) because I have been in the Leica 50 more than Leica 35 group set. I have never used it. I have been mostly a 28/50/90 sort of person. I do own a quite good copy of a rigid vintage 1966 ver II, the rigid is sharper and less character in my opinion, even stopped down to 4 or 5.6 the rigid is more a normal sort of lens with a little character than the LLL 35 1.4. The rigid simply cannot do what the 35 1.4 dies at 1.4 be 1966-like. I think the 35 1.4 at 4 or 5.6 looks more film like on dig than the rigid without doing much processing. I really like my rigid and use it on both M11 and MP/M4 it is as Fred has written a lens that holds up very well today on modern dig sensors, with its build and timeless nature it is a lens for the ages, I also own a LLL rigid and two are again as fred as reviewed so so close. A slight difference in color render and I think the Leica is a hair sharper toward the edges and without side by side I would never notice. Anyways my vintage rigid remains in my A set of more frequently used lens, compared to the B or C set I have remind myself sometimes I ought to use them. I think so far the 35 1.4 and 1966 are more kindred, which is why I am thinking when the Leica 35 1.2 noct is tested I am thinking it is going to be kindred to 0.95 or so I am guessing with no evidence, so if true if you like paying/using for the 0.95 you might like paying for the 1.2 35 noct, much as the 1.25 75 seems to be in the same lens groove.
A lot of character and great and of BW sets it to look even more vintage ! looks wide open, and perhaps that is the difference I am not much of people photographer, I am mostly outside and astro, so I stop down a lot for DOF
EMH2025 wrote:
A lot of character and great and of BW sets it to look even more vintage ! looks wide open, and perhaps that is the difference I am not much of people photographer, I am mostly outside and astro, so I stop down a lot for DOF
Yes, I shoot it wide open most of the time. That was on an M11M.
weatherproof wrote:
Apologies: I've only skimmed the first 10 pages or so.
Besides Fred, has anyone else here tested for or noticed any focus shift with their copy of the LLL Aspherical?
I'm curious how its focus shift compares to the Leica 35/1.4 pre-FLE (11874).
Fred's "Final Thoughts" in his review (page 11) contains the following "In short, the LLL 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical sits in a sweet spot between the Leica 35mm f/1.4 pre-ASPH and the FLE, and anyone familiar with the pre-FLE 11814 may appreciate how similar it performs. And for those who prefer the slightly gentler sharpness and softer rendering of the "pre-FLE" Summilux, there's good news: the Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical shows absolutely no focus shift, unlike the original Leica."
You can read it in its entirely inside page 11 post #5.
ZdevilH1 wrote:
Fred's "Final Thoughts" in his review (page 11) contains the following "In short, the LLL 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical sits in a sweet spot between the Leica 35mm f/1.4 pre-ASPH and the FLE, and anyone familiar with the pre-FLE 11814 may appreciate how similar it performs. And for those who prefer the slightly gentler sharpness and softer rendering of the "pre-FLE" Summilux, there's good news: the Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical shows absolutely no focus shift, unlike the original Leica."
You can read it in its entirely inside page 11 post #5.
Thanks, I saw Fred's notes and prefaced my comment to get more anecdotes.
stgrove wrote:
@EMH2025@
If you own the Leica Steel Rim 35 or the old Leica Rigid 50 how would you say it compares to those lenses? Thanks.
Note: this is just my hunch and speculation based on everything I've read regarding and seen images from the new darling LLL 35mm f/1.4 11873 that I don't own nor have tested versus the 35 steel rim reissue which I've had for over a year and used extensively.
And I'm not commenting on the advantage of the min .7M min focus distance of the LLL 35 over the 1M min focus distance of the 35 SRR.
Here's what I believe are the real life differences that most photographers will see when comparing images from the 2 lenses (not pixel peeping or zooming in to see slight differences in things like background bokeh balls (apparently LLL 35 bokeh balls are less defined than those of the 35 SRR):
1. at f1.4 the LLL 35 is slightly more sharp in the center primary focus area as compared to the 35 SRR, while the 35 SRR compared to the LLL 35 renders a more dreamy, ethereal look with beautiful glow of highlighted areas. In the LLL 35 images I've see shot wide open, I've not seen that glow.
2. by f1.8, the 35 SRR sharpens up a bit more to be roughly equivalent to the LLL 35 at f1.4.
3. If, like me, you crave the Leica vintage look including dreamy ethereal looks and are satisfied with the 35 SRR center sharpness at f1.4, but also appreciate the option of stopping it down to f1.8 to be more on par with LLL 35 at f1.4 albeit losing some of that glow/vintage character at f1.4, then go with the 35 SRR.
4. If you like the beautiful ethereal look of the LLL 35 at f1.4, including what I think is more appealing background bokeh, albeit at the expense of the pure vintage look of the 35 SRR at f1.4, then go with the LLL 35.
5. At f1.4, the LLL 35 seems to strike a nice balance between the 35 SRR and lux 35 asph.
6. If I didn't own either the LLL 35 or the 35 SRR and had to make a choice right now after all I've seen/read, I'd still go for the 35 SRR. But that's just me - I don't prize critical sharpness (as I did in all the years I shot Sony and Nikon) when I'm going for dreamy/ethereal/glowy at f1.4.
7. I'm confused by your request to compare the 50 rigid with either the 35 SRR or the LLL 35. The 50 rigid (which I own and love and find a delight to use), aside from a longer focal length, is fairly sharp even wide open at f2. In other words, I don't see the 50 rigid as a substitute for either of the 35 lenses discussed here.
Only wondered if there were extreme differences between the LLL 35./1.4 and the rigid 50, perhaps an inappropriate question here and now. Perhaps the 50/1.4 lux 1959 reissue in 2025 is a more appropriate lens to compare.
stgrove wrote:
Thanks brick.
I will also keep my 35 SRR.
Only wondered if there were extreme differences between the LLL 35./1.4 and the rigid 50, perhaps an inappropriate question here and now. Perhaps the 50/1.4 lux 1959 reissue in 2025 is a more appropriate lens to compare.
I don't think the 2025 reissue is appropriate to compare. For a while I was interested in the 2025 reissue, but after checking it out realized that it is NOTHING like the lux 50/1.4 pre asph version 2 that I ultimately bought and which has become my favorite lens. Examples I just shot with that lens (many of them being wide open and therefore comparable somewhat to the look of the 35 SRR and LLL 35) are here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1860074/8#16967592
I overlooked that you already have the 35 SRR. That being the case, and because you said you want to keep it, don't get the 35 LLL. I just don't think in real life you're going to see much difference between the LLL 35 over the 35 SRR other than not having the 35 SRR's glow.
