gammarART wrote:
And look at the photos: it can focus closer than 0.7m 🙌
Good catch! Also looks like it might have a built in hood judging by the lip on the front. This is definitely interesting, I was literally writing up my first impressions script for the peace lens pre asph 50 lux v2 replica when I saw this pop up on IG
Not sure about globally, but in the U.S. patents usually expire after 20 years and design patents 15 years. There are many companies that produce vintage replicas of all types of items. This was originally from the 60's, had a very long run and isn't produced anymore. Personally, I can accept that. I wouldn't if it was a Chinese knockoff of a current item.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
It should be against the law to copy and reproduce something that resembles the original so much.
But then again, its no surprise knowing where it is being made.
I think they bump it up a bit after the 35 success. Thinking $499. I would assume they go with aluminum build only. A brass version might be too hefty.
Isn't discussing price and talking about how it's a replica lens on topic? What do you wanna talk about? It's not out yet. There's no samples. There's nothing.
Nick Dakota wrote:
I think they bump it up a bit after the 35 success. Thinking $499. I would assume they go with aluminum build only. A brass version might be too hefty.
They should release a brass glossy black paint version, a replica of the rarer Millennium Edition.
Nick Dakota wrote:
This was originally from the 60's, had a very long run and isn't produced anymore.
Leica make their own reissue since last year btw, the silver Summilux in the „classic“ line. They use a 1959 style housing but the optical design is the 1962-2004 version. The nice thing about that is we get official MTF charts that we can compare to the Mandler variant.
fjablo wrote:
Leica make their own reissue since last year btw, the silver Summilux in the „classic“ line. They use a 1959 style housing but the optical design is the 1962-2004 version. The nice thing about that is we get official MTF charts that we can compare to the Mandler variant.
Leica chose to optimise the Summilux optical formula in their reissue, perhaps better to call it their reinterpretation; resulting in higher central contrast and resolution, along with smoother background bokeh, but at the expense of significantly worse corners with field curvature destroying detail there. This not insignificant change does show up very clearly in the MTF charts.
Mandler may meet the demand for a lens more faithful to the original formula ; producing a classic drawing with lower contrast, and a more balanced rendition, i.e. much closer to Leica's v2 and v3 Summilux.
FrozenInTime wrote:
Leica chose to optimise the Summilux optical formula in their reissue, perhaps better to call it their reinterpretation; resulting in higher central contrast and resolution, along with smoother background bokeh, but at the expense of significantly worse corners with field curvature destroying detail there. This not insignificant change does show up very clearly in the MTF charts.
Mandler may meet the demand for a lens more faithful to the original formula ; producing a classic drawing with lower contrast, and a more balanced rendition, i.e. much closer to Leica's v2 and v3 Summilux.
Unless i am photographing test patterns, which i do not, mtf are typically meaningless to me.
This is with the reissue released last December. Shot at 3.5 or f4. Not one thought of MTF went through my mind. I'm sure they have their purpose. But for real world use not that important.
That would be very desirable. They could probably price it at $999 and it would sell out. Believe the only cosmetic difference besides the paint/brass is the scalloped focus ring. So it is definitely doable.
Fred Miranda wrote:
They should release a brass glossy black paint version, a replica of the rarer Millennium Edition.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
Unless i am photographing test patterns, which i do not, mtf are typically meaningless to me.
This is with the reissue released last December. Shot at 3.5 or f4. Not one thought of MTF went through my mind. I'm sure they have their purpose. But for real world use not that important.
MTF charts are kind of a rabbit hole in photography: one time getting used to them and their meaning, tendency is to overinterpret a lens performance i. e. by falloff towards the borders. Clinically sharp APO lenses for example with minimal falloff appear in MTF charts as highly desirable - but the real world scenario is much different as you mentioned, and where I would agree with. Some of my most unique and creative vintage lenses have the worst MTF carts - one example is the Leitz 50/1.5 Summarit-M LTM lens. But you get the "wow" when looking at images taken with it due to unique rendering and bokeh caused by optical inaccuracies. In exhibits I have been asked only very few times which lens I had used for a specific photo - few photos taken with this lens caused this kind of inquiry from viewers since the photos with this lens are unique.
More modern and well corrected lenses nobody bothers to care which one might have been used to take a photo - they are indistinguishable in the quality print and only might differ by a unique focal length or composition used. I go even a step further: you can get something very similar nowadays with a cellphone photo comparing sharpness and image quality. Nearly indistinguishable, too.
While I can't speak for the OP and I know this is also off-topic, the way I read the thread so far I see their point:
its no surprise knowing where it is being made
if it was a Chinese knockoff of a current item....
Please don't take this personally. It's not directed at the members who made the statements, and everyone is entitled to their opinions. But I've seen statements like those so many times it's become cliché to the point of meme status for me.
Like it or not, reverse engineering has existed since human beings started creating anything. As a retired software developer, here's a simple analogy. Do you own a PC? If so you're supporting a company that made a ton of money taking the easy route by buying out promising startups and rebranding the tech as their own. That, in turn, often forced original startup employees to find alternate work because they're not built for highly structured corporate environments.
