Well, the wait is over and I am very pleased with the 'out of the box' first impressions.
Impecable built quality, kudos to LLL. Focus ring needs a little work out to smooth it out, and I will have to get used the longer throw.
I can't wait to get out this weekend and give it a good work out.
It's really a perfect 35 if you have to have only 1. I'm kind of torn between the LLL and Steel Rim. I'm a sucker for the wide open rendering of the Steel Rim.
gordec wrote:
It's really a perfect 35 if you have to have only 1. I'm kind of torn between the LLL and Steel Rim. I'm a sucker for the wide open rendering of the Steel Rim.
from what I've seen/read, the LLL is a slightly more controlled version of the steel rim. Less glow, a bit more center sharpness, some say a bit more micro contrast (although I'm not sure I see that).
If I didn't already have the steel rim, although it would be a hard choice, most likely I'd go with the steel rim. It's just a matter of what look best floats your boat.
Personally I couldn't live without the glow/vintage vibe of the steel rim wide open, which turns tack sharp by f4.
Here are pics taken with the steel rim (the reissue):
brick33308 wrote:
from what I've seen/read, the LLL is a slightly more controlled version of the steel rim. Less glow, a bit more center sharpness, some say a bit more micro contrast (although I'm not sure I see that).
If I didn't already have the steel rim, although it would be a hard choice, most likely I'd go with the steel rim. It's just a matter of what look best floats your boat.
Personally I couldn't live without the glow/vintage vibe of the steel rim wide open, which turns tack sharp by f4.
Here are pics taken with the steel rim (the reissue):
Not to be too short, but the LLL rendering doesn’t have very much in common with the v1/v2 pre-asph/steel-rim reissue. Fred’s examples demonstrated that pretty clearly. The Aspherical is a ‘modern’ lens and has very little glow, more resolution, more contrast and softer/less structured draw.
However, the LLL is quite close to the 11874 (which was the Leica successor to the lens that inspired LLL). Those two lenses are more suited for an apples to apples comparison - to the degree that it doesn’t entirely make sense to have both. The pre-a, on the other hand, is so different that you could easily argue a case for both.
_jim_ wrote:
Not to be too short, but the LLL rendering doesn’t have very much in common with the v1/v2 pre-asph/steel-rim reissue. Fred’s examples demonstrated that pretty clearly. The Aspherical is a ‘modern’ lens and has very little glow, more resolution, more contrast and softer/less structured draw.
However, the LLL is quite close to the 11874 (which was the Leica successor to the lens that inspired LLL). Those two lenses are more suited for an apples to apples comparison - to the degree that it doesn’t entirely make sense to have both. The pre-a, on the other hand, is so different that you could easily argue a case for both.
Yea if this thread has done anything for me, its making me realize the Lux 35 FLE v1 is really the sweet spot Leica lens. I love the design, the metal hood, the rendering (modern but not perfect) and still a decent value in Leica terms.
You won both lenses now don't you? Are you going to be selling one?
RustyRus wrote:
Yea if this thread has done anything for me, its making me realize the Lux 35 FLE v1 is really the sweet spot Leica lens. I love the design, the metal hood, the rendering (modern but not perfect) and still a decent value in Leica terms.
You won both lenses now don't you? Are you going to be selling one?
I love both lenses 🤣🤪. I love all my lenses. I figure I'll probably never sell anything unless I'm forced to. Given the economy, at least my lenses (most of which I bought used) *should* hold their value. I am sure the LLL has depreciated since purchase, but I can live with that.
_jim_ wrote:
Not to be too short, but the LLL rendering doesn’t have very much in common with the v1/v2 pre-asph/steel-rim reissue. Fred’s examples demonstrated that pretty clearly. The Aspherical is a ‘modern’ lens and has very little glow, more resolution, more contrast and softer/less structured draw.
However, the LLL is quite close to the 11874 (which was the Leica successor to the lens that inspired LLL). Those two lenses are more suited for an apples to apples comparison - to the degree that it doesn’t entirely make sense to have both. The pre-a, on the other hand, is so different that you could easily argue a case for both.
That's been my impression early on too, that the LLL is very close to the Leica 35mm f1.4 pre FLE (11874) minus the pronounced focus shift and some other small optical differences. In my personal experience, the v1 & v2 pre asph, is quite different, especially when all three of these lenses are compared at f1.4 and f2. This of course reflects what Jim just expressed.
A bit more play time this afternoon. Focus ring is getting smoother for sure.
As Fred and others pointed out, this lens has a beautiful soft warmth about it.
All images shot w.o.
Are you all happy with the resistance of the focus ring? Does anyone have a comparison between the titanium and the aluminum version?
For me, the highest comfort when focusing comes from the Voigtländer 90mm 2.0 APO Ultron, the 21mm 1.4 Nokton, and the 35mm Summilux pre FLE. Smooth with just the right amount of resistance, an absolute joy to use.
By contrast, the 90mm Summicron pre APO and the Canon 50mm 1.2 LTM have such heavy focus resistance, even with fresh lubrication, that handling them just isn’t fun.
Got my replacement lens from David for front focusing at MFD. unfortunately the replacement lens, though feeling much smoother on the focus ring, still had the same 1” front focusing issue.
ZdevilH1 wrote:
A bit more play time this afternoon. Focus ring is getting smoother for sure.
As Fred and others pointed out, this lens has a beautiful soft warmth about it.
All images shot w.o.
spendychucky wrote:
Got my replacement lens from David for front focusing at MFD. unfortunately the replacement lens, though feeling much smoother on the focus ring, still had the same 1” front focusing issue.
Wow! That's unfortunate!
Have you checked it on multiple cameras?
Respectfully, the odds of that happening twice with two brand new lenses (front focusing the same way, the same amount) seems low...not impossible, but low. The Occam's Razor thinking in me would suggest camera/testing methodology errors over two identically flawed lenses. Again, respectfully.
Yes I tried the same test with my leica and voigtlander lenses and they don’t have this issue. I think it’s happened once with a copy of the LLL Elcan and once with the vm 40f1.2 in the past.
I’m waiting on David’s reply to see if they were able to confirm the focus misalignment.
spendychucky wrote:
Yes I tried the same test with my leica and voigtlander lenses and they don’t have this issue. I think it’s happened once with a copy of the LLL Elcan and once with the vm 40f1.2 in the past.
I’m waiting on David’s reply to see if they were able to confirm the focus misalignment.
But are you trying it on different cameras? What is your methodology?
Focusing at MFD on a ruler and checking the final result.
I will double check a few more of my wife aperture lenses. Is it common for digital M bodies to be out of alignment after a while? Never had an issue with my previous m10p.
Edit:
Checked my body against Leica 35apo, 50apo, 50f1.2 nocti reissue, and those were all spot on at 0.7-1.0 wide open.
Focusing at MFD on a ruler and checking the final result.
I will double check a few more of my wife aperture lenses. Is it common for digital M bodies to be out of alignment after a while? Never had an issue with my previous m10p.
Edit:
Checked my body against Leica 35apo, 50apo, 50f1.2 nocti reissue, and those were all spot on at 0.7-1.0 wide open.
How about when you skip the ruler and just take pictures at closer focus? Same issue? Ideally, of course, using a tripod.
