_jim_ wrote:
Can people that have received later versions of the lens confirm that theirs also have fuzzy weird bits in the out of focus specular highlights (like mine and Fred's review copy).
I guess I'll provide an example of what I am referring to (it's not a great example, but you can also check many of Fred's rendering comparisons for more images):
Is everyone seeing this kind of mottled/fuzzy texture in the specular highlights of their LLL 35/1.4's? The author of this review: https://gigantoptik.com/1924 claims that it is a result of residue left over from the production process. I messaged him and confirmed that it was on the rear of the first element. Here is his pic of the issue: https://gigantoptik.com/1924?pidx=17
After having the lens partially CLA'd he claims that it was gone and then the bokeh became cleaner, which can be seen here on the left side of this comparison:
_jim_ wrote:
I guess I'll provide an example of what I am referring to (it's not a great example, but you can also check many of Fred's rendering comparisons for more images):
Is everyone seeing this kind of mottled/fuzzy texture in the specular highlights of their LLL 35/1.4's? The author of this review: https://gigantoptik.com/1924 claims that it is a result of residue left over from the production process. I messaged him and confirmed that it was on the rear of the first element. Here is his pic of the issue: https://gigantoptik.com/1924?pidx=17
After having the lens partially CLA'd he claims that it was gone and then the bokeh became much more clean, which can be seen here on the left side of this comparison:
Interesting, but I'm not convinced. All the sample images I've seen show that "gritty" texture in the highlights, which I suspect comes from the aspherical processing rather than a flaw in element assembly. That said, I can't be 100% certain either.
I enjoy finding spots like this one when traveling on business to begin to unwind.
I haven't used my Ti copy that much but I am still trying to smooth out the focus ring.
DAG wrapped up with my 11873 and it was indeed front-focusing. Can't wait to get the thing back and in action, but it's a personal warning for me about LLL: budget an additional $300 for the required CLA
mkuredjian wrote:
DAG wrapped up with my 11873 and it was indeed front-focusing. Can't wait to get the thing back and in action, but it's a personal warning for me about LLL: budget an additional $300 for the required CLA
Did Don mention anything about removing glue during disassembly, or is it like other Leica lenses? Yukosteel noted that taking apart my Elan was a bit tricky because of how much glue was used:
I wonder if Light Lens Lab have a miscalculated Rangefinder M body. Maybe after so many mount-dismount of various lenses, it could have gone uncalibrated.
Does DAG ever give insights on the repairs, etc?
mkuredjian wrote:
DAG wrapped up with my 11873 and it was indeed front-focusing. Can't wait to get the thing back and in action, but it's a personal warning for me about LLL: budget an additional $300 for the required CLA
Fred Miranda wrote:
Did Don mention anything about removing glue during disassembly, or is it like other Leica lenses? Yukosteel noted that taking apart my Elan was a bit tricky because of how much glue was used:
He didn't mention anything other than the lens was front-focusing, but not the worst he's seen. From a casual glance of the lens, it seems like pretty solid construction, so I wonder where they'd use glue?
mkuredjian wrote:
He didn't mention anything other than the lens was front-focusing, but not the worst he's seen. From a casual glance of the lens, it seems like pretty solid construction, so I wonder where they'd use glue?
That's actually great news and shows that LLL has moved away from using glue during assembly, just as they promised.
The mini is now 20 years old... My wife's car and her celebration, I am the staff photographer this was my lens of choice to go a little wide and have a little subject separation and a little bit of vintage
dumplinknet wrote:
Curious to know if anyone has done a comparison against the small Nokton Vintage Line 35mm f/1.5 ASPH, which is a close contender to the 35 FLE.
I'd love to see:
1) Bokeh quality
2) Field Curvature
3) Sharpness
4) LoCA
Fred tested the VM 35/1.5, including against the FLE. My impression was that the VM didn't wow me. IIRC, it has some mid zone dip and LoCA.
This might give you some impressions about how it also compares against the LLL AA replica. Personally, I'd get the LLL if only for much lower LoCA, to which I'm quite sensitive.
dumplinknet wrote:
Curious to know if anyone has done a comparison against the small Nokton Vintage Line 35mm f/1.5 ASPH, which is a close contender to the 35 FLE.
I'd love to see:
1) Bokeh quality
2) Field Curvature
3) Sharpness
4) LoCA
I have both.
The Voigtlander:
*more contrast
*smoother bokeh
*better resolution across the frame
*better flare resistance
*generally more modern draw
*smaller
*nicer build quality (no play in guides/helicoid)
*third party square hood looks great and attaches firmly
The LLL:
*more classical/structured draw
*maybe 1/3-ish stop faster
*sharper centrally at infinity wide-open (which is cool, but kinda irrelevant for most photographic uses)
*flares 'cinematically'
*subtle barrel distortion is less noticeable than the subtle-ish pincushion distortion of the Nokton
*supplied hoods look great, but require a small strip of tape to minimize rattling (which takes 10 seconds to apply, so no real biggie).
*has a mounting dot
*marginally less CA (which is masked by the subtle residual SA at full aperture)
*marginally less focus shift (though, this is hardly relevant as the focus shift on the Nokton is minimal).
Both are great lenses. The Nokton is a no-brainer for price/performance/size. The LLL is more expensive and is a competent performer with a little more vintage-y charm to the rendering.
I am having a local technician look at my '11873.' He confirmed that there was unusual residue (like a collection of fine droplets) on the back of the front element (which is consistent with the review here: https://gigantoptik.com/1924 ).
I should get the lens back next week and I'll report back if the texture of the out of focus specular highlights has been improved
_jim_ wrote:
I am having a local technician look at my '11873.' He confirmed that there was unusual residue (like a collection of fine droplets) on the back of the front element (which is consistent with the review here: https://gigantoptik.com/1924 ).
I should get the lens back next week and I'll report back if the texture of the out of focus specular highlights has been improved
What shop are you using?
I have always used Advanced camera for film stuff- Any other good shops you recomend?
I have always used Advanced camera for film stuff- Any other good shops you recomend?
I have used Advance many times. I feel bad besmirching them, but quality became somewhat inconsistent during the depths of COVID. I have also used Jadon at Red Dot Repair (who is a 'graduate' of Advance) a few times. He is highly skilled, but is basically retired/out of the game (i.e. he sold Red Dot).
This go around, I used Camera Solutions on Macadam ( @madNbad spoke highly of them). This is my first time using them, but so far, so good (I appreciated that the tech called me to talk about what he was seeing and his plan of action).
Finally got my copy back from Don and after the calibration, I have to admit: the rendering is beautiful. It's not quite "as good" as my FLE, but that's not the point here. Center sharpness is very, very good, and I actually like the vignette when shot wide-open, since it works well for subject isolation.
Are there any 50mm lenses out there that render like this LLL?
I'm glad someone confirmed the front focusing problem. I am sending my 2nd (replacement) lens back to David, and he said this time he will have someone check the calibration on his camera, too.
_jim_ wrote:
I am having a local technician look at my '11873.' He confirmed that there was unusual residue (like a collection of fine droplets) on the back of the front element (which is consistent with the review here: https://gigantoptik.com/1924 ).
I should get the lens back next week and I'll report back if the texture of the out of focus specular highlights has been improved
Jim,
I'm curious about this. I still don't think it’s what’s causing the "textured" look in the highlights' inner structure, but I am open to the possibility that it could be.
