Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
p.2 #1Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
RomanMF wrote:
He's clearly got money burning a hole in his pocket though, lol. THE G.A.S IS TOO STRONG!
Lol let he without GAS throw the first stone
He's clearly got money burning a hole in his pocket though, lol. THE G.A.S IS TOO STRONG!
Lol let he without GAS throw the first stone
Aug 31, 2026 at 03:34 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #2Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
freaklikeme wrote:
You've got one of the most boring 28s available winging its way to you.
Fixed that. There's always room for a character lens!
You've got one of the most boring 28s available winging its way to you.
Fixed that. There's always room for a character lens!
Aug 31, 2026 at 04:38 PM
p.2 #3Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
RoamingScott wrote:
Fixed that. There's always room for a character lens!
I (and the bulk of my personal kit) don't disagree with the sentiment, and the OP may find the 28 boring, but it's on it's way and he's not talking about returning it but rather selling it. He may as well give it week to show him what it can do before leaping on another 35. He, like me, may find it boring in the best possible way.
freaklikeme wrote
You've got one of the most boring 28s available winging its way to you.I (and the bulk of my personal kit) don't disagree with the sentiment, and the OP may find the 28 boring, but it's on it's way and he's not talking about returning it but rather selling it. He may as well give it week to show him what it can do before leaping on another 35. He, like me, may find it boring in the best possible way.
Aug 31, 2026 at 05:37 PM
p.2 #4Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
q: how many 35mm lenses does one need?
a: yes
a: yes
Aug 31, 2026 at 06:09 PM
p.2 #5Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
Look at you trying to bankrupt me! IDK… you think the performance of the V1 is much better than the LLL or is it more of a rendering feel thing?
Fred Miranda wrote:
1. Voigtlander 35mm F1/.5 (super small, very light, and sharp-ish but boring)
2. Mandler 35 F/2 (more like an F/2.5, but small with a quirky output due to extreme field curvature)
3. LLL 35 APO F/2 (a super corrected lens for landscape shooting)
4. LLL 35mm AA F/1.4 (will replacement the Voigtlander)
And if I hit the lotto I may own a 35 Noctilux one day because I do love the images out of that thing.Consider a used Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH FLE v1. It will cost more than the lenses on your list, but by Leica standards it's a good buy because it isn't the current v2. I don't prefer the v2's looks or features anyway, and the optical design is the same. It's my favorite 35mm of all time. If you want even more character, look at the Canadian 35mm f/1.4 pre-ASPH.
Fred Miranda wrote:
RomanMF wrote
Yeah, I'll have 3-4 35mm for M mount by year's end, but it's my favorite focal length for EDC.1. Voigtlander 35mm F1/.5 (super small, very light, and sharp-ish but boring)
2. Mandler 35 F/2 (more like an F/2.5, but small with a quirky output due to extreme field curvature)
3. LLL 35 APO F/2 (a super corrected lens for landscape shooting)
4. LLL 35mm AA F/1.4 (will replacement the Voigtlander)
And if I hit the lotto I may own a 35 Noctilux one day because I do love the images out of that thing.
Aug 31, 2026 at 11:31 PM
p.2 #6Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
RomanMF wrote:
Look at you trying to bankrupt me! IDK…
you are not a true FM member if you haven't questioned your financial decisions at least once a week while perusing the B&S board. 🙃
Look at you trying to bankrupt me! IDK…
you are not a true FM member if you haven't questioned your financial decisions at least once a week while perusing the B&S board. 🙃
Sep 01, 2026 at 05:35 AM
p.2 #7Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
RomanMF wrote:
Look at you trying to bankrupt me! IDK… you think the performance of the V1 is much better than the LLL or is it more of a rendering feel thing?
1. Voigtlander 35mm F1/.5 (super small, very light, and sharp-ish but boring)
2. Mandler 35 F/2 (more like an F/2.5, but small with a quirky output due to extreme field curvature)
3. LLL 35 APO F/2 (a super corrected lens for landscape shooting)
4. LLL 35mm AA F/1.4 (will replacement the Voigtlander)
And if I hit the lotto I may own a 35 Noctilux one day because I do love the images out of that thing.Consider a used Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH FLE v1. It will cost more than the lenses on your list, but by Leica standards it's a good buy because it isn't the current v2. I don't prefer the v2's looks or features anyway, and the optical design is the same. It's my favorite 35mm of all time. If you want even more character, look at the Canadian 35mm f/1.4 pre-ASPH.
I've tried many 35mm f/1.4 lenses, and if I could only have one, it would be the Leica 35/1.4 FLE.
Performance: The Leica is better corrected for spherical aberration at the focus plane, which translates to higher resolution and contrast wide open.
Rendering: This is purely subjective. I love the 35/1.4 FLE for its rendering. It's more classical, like the original double aspherical, showing more structure in the bokeh and highlight outlining. I think that's its charm, as it's not chasing a modern, smooth aesthetic. The LLL leans toward that modern look with smooth transitions and much less outlining, which is why many prefer it.
Other Aberrations: Both lenses show noticeable coma, but the LLL exhibits more extreme field curvature. Both show axial chromatic aberration.
Look at you trying to bankrupt me! IDK… you think the performance of the V1 is much better than the LLL or is it more of a rendering feel thing?
Fred Miranda wrote
RomanMF wrote
Yeah, I'll have 3-4 35mm for M mount by year's end, but it's my favorite focal length for EDC.1. Voigtlander 35mm F1/.5 (super small, very light, and sharp-ish but boring)
2. Mandler 35 F/2 (more like an F/2.5, but small with a quirky output due to extreme field curvature)
3. LLL 35 APO F/2 (a super corrected lens for landscape shooting)
4. LLL 35mm AA F/1.4 (will replacement the Voigtlander)
And if I hit the lotto I may own a 35 Noctilux one day because I do love the images out of that thing.
I've tried many 35mm f/1.4 lenses, and if I could only have one, it would be the Leica 35/1.4 FLE.
Performance: The Leica is better corrected for spherical aberration at the focus plane, which translates to higher resolution and contrast wide open.
Rendering: This is purely subjective. I love the 35/1.4 FLE for its rendering. It's more classical, like the original double aspherical, showing more structure in the bokeh and highlight outlining. I think that's its charm, as it's not chasing a modern, smooth aesthetic. The LLL leans toward that modern look with smooth transitions and much less outlining, which is why many prefer it.
Other Aberrations: Both lenses show noticeable coma, but the LLL exhibits more extreme field curvature. Both show axial chromatic aberration.
Sep 01, 2026 at 07:39 AM
p.2 #8Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
Fred Miranda wrote:
1. Voigtlander 35mm F1/.5 (super small, very light, and sharp-ish but boring)
2. Mandler 35 F/2 (more like an F/2.5, but small with a quirky output due to extreme field curvature)
3. LLL 35 APO F/2 (a super corrected lens for landscape shooting)
4. LLL 35mm AA F/1.4 (will replacement the Voigtlander)
And if I hit the lotto I may own a 35 Noctilux one day because I do love the images out of that thing.Consider a used Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH FLE v1. It will cost more than the lenses on your list, but by Leica standards it's a good buy because it isn't the current v2. I don't prefer the v2's looks or features anyway, and the optical design is the same. It's my favorite 35mm of all time. If you want even more character, look at the Canadian 35mm f/1.4 pre-ASPH.I've tried many 35mm f/1.4 lenses, and if I could only have one, it would be the Leica 35/1.4 FLE.
Performance: The Leica is better corrected for spherical aberration at the focus plane, which translates to higher resolution and contrast wide open.
Rendering: This is purely subjective. I love the 35/1.4 FLE for its rendering. It's more classical, like the original double aspherical, showing more structure in the bokeh and highlight outlining. I think that's its charm, as it's not chasing a modern, smooth aesthetic. The LLL leans toward that modern look with smooth transitions and much less outlining, which is...Show more →
Are you talking about this one Fred? Version l ll?
Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH. FLE
RomanMF wrote
Look at you trying to bankrupt me! IDK… you think the performance of the V1 is much better than the LLL or is it more of a rendering feel thing?Fred Miranda wrote
RomanMF wrote
Yeah, I'll have 3-4 35mm for M mount by year's end, but it's my favorite focal length for EDC.1. Voigtlander 35mm F1/.5 (super small, very light, and sharp-ish but boring)
2. Mandler 35 F/2 (more like an F/2.5, but small with a quirky output due to extreme field curvature)
3. LLL 35 APO F/2 (a super corrected lens for landscape shooting)
4. LLL 35mm AA F/1.4 (will replacement the Voigtlander)
And if I hit the lotto I may own a 35 Noctilux one day because I do love the images out of that thing.
Performance: The Leica is better corrected for spherical aberration at the focus plane, which translates to higher resolution and contrast wide open.
Rendering: This is purely subjective. I love the 35/1.4 FLE for its rendering. It's more classical, like the original double aspherical, showing more structure in the bokeh and highlight outlining. I think that's its charm, as it's not chasing a modern, smooth aesthetic. The LLL leans toward that modern look with smooth transitions and much less outlining, which is...Show more →
Are you talking about this one Fred? Version l ll?
Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH. FLE
Sep 01, 2026 at 08:48 AM
p.2 #9Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
fotografur wrote:
1. Voigtlander 35mm F1/.5 (super small, very light, and sharp-ish but boring)
2. Mandler 35 F/2 (more like an F/2.5, but small with a quirky output due to extreme field curvature)
3. LLL 35 APO F/2 (a super corrected lens for landscape shooting)
4. LLL 35mm AA F/1.4 (will replacement the Voigtlander)
And if I hit the lotto I may own a 35 Noctilux one day because I do love the images out of that thing.Consider a used Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH FLE v1. It will cost more than the lenses on your list, but by Leica standards it's a good buy because it isn't the current v2. I don't prefer the v2's looks or features anyway, and the optical design is the same. It's my favorite 35mm of all time. If you want even more character, look at the Canadian 35mm f/1.4 pre-ASPH.I've tried many 35mm f/1.4 lenses, and if I could only have one, it would be the Leica 35/1.4 FLE.
Performance: The Leica is better corrected for spherical aberration at the focus plane, which translates to higher resolution and contrast wide open.
Rendering: This is purely subjective. I love the 35/1.4 FLE for its rendering. It's more classical, like the original double aspherical, showing more structure in the bokeh and highlight outlining. I think that's its charm, as it's not chasing a modern, smooth aesthetic. The LLL leans toward that modern look with smooth transitions and much less outlining, which is why many prefer it.
Other Aberrations: Both lenses show noticeable coma, but the LLL exhibits more extreme field curvature. Both show axial chromatic aberration.Are you talking about this one Fred? Version l ll?
Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH. FLE
Yes, that's the one. Version I or II won't make any optical difference, they share the exact same formula. Where they differ is purely aesthetic and functional. The v2 is about 2mm wider, the aperture ring is positioned closer to the focusing ring, it has 11 aperture blades instead of 9 (which only matters when stopping down, not shooting wide open), and it focuses closer when using live view.
Personally, I prefer the rectangular hood design of the v1 and even the look when using the provided ring instead of the hood. I mostly shoot wide open or way stopped down and never use live view on a Leica M, so the v1 makes more sense for me. It's cheaper, lighter, thinner, and just feels like the better choice for how I shoot.
Fred Miranda wrote
RomanMF wrote
Look at you trying to bankrupt me! IDK… you think the performance of the V1 is much better than the LLL or is it more of a rendering feel thing?Fred Miranda wrote
RomanMF wrote
Yeah, I'll have 3-4 35mm for M mount by year's end, but it's my favorite focal length for EDC.1. Voigtlander 35mm F1/.5 (super small, very light, and sharp-ish but boring)
2. Mandler 35 F/2 (more like an F/2.5, but small with a quirky output due to extreme field curvature)
3. LLL 35 APO F/2 (a super corrected lens for landscape shooting)
4. LLL 35mm AA F/1.4 (will replacement the Voigtlander)
And if I hit the lotto I may own a 35 Noctilux one day because I do love the images out of that thing.
Performance: The Leica is better corrected for spherical aberration at the focus plane, which translates to higher resolution and contrast wide open.
Rendering: This is purely subjective. I love the 35/1.4 FLE for its rendering. It's more classical, like the original double aspherical, showing more structure in the bokeh and highlight outlining. I think that's its charm, as it's not chasing a modern, smooth aesthetic. The LLL leans toward that modern look with smooth transitions and much less outlining, which is why many prefer it.
Other Aberrations: Both lenses show noticeable coma, but the LLL exhibits more extreme field curvature. Both show axial chromatic aberration.
Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH. FLE
Yes, that's the one. Version I or II won't make any optical difference, they share the exact same formula. Where they differ is purely aesthetic and functional. The v2 is about 2mm wider, the aperture ring is positioned closer to the focusing ring, it has 11 aperture blades instead of 9 (which only matters when stopping down, not shooting wide open), and it focuses closer when using live view.
Personally, I prefer the rectangular hood design of the v1 and even the look when using the provided ring instead of the hood. I mostly shoot wide open or way stopped down and never use live view on a Leica M, so the v1 makes more sense for me. It's cheaper, lighter, thinner, and just feels like the better choice for how I shoot.
Sep 01, 2026 at 08:57 AM
p.2 #10Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
Fred Miranda wrote:
1. Voigtlander 35mm F1/.5 (super small, very light, and sharp-ish but boring)
2. Mandler 35 F/2 (more like an F/2.5, but small with a quirky output due to extreme field curvature)
3. LLL 35 APO F/2 (a super corrected lens for landscape shooting)
4. LLL 35mm AA F/1.4 (will replacement the Voigtlander)
And if I hit the lotto I may own a 35 Noctilux one day because I do love the images out of that thing.Consider a used Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH FLE v1. It will cost more than the lenses on your list, but by Leica standards it's a good buy because it isn't the current v2. I don't prefer the v2's looks or features anyway, and the optical design is the same. It's my favorite 35mm of all time. If you want even more character, look at the Canadian 35mm f/1.4 pre-ASPH.I've tried many 35mm f/1.4 lenses, and if I could only have one, it would be the Leica 35/1.4 FLE.
Performance: The Leica is better corrected for spherical aberration at the focus plane, which translates to higher resolution and contrast wide open.
Rendering: This is purely subjective. I love the 35/1.4 FLE for its rendering. It's more classical, like the original double aspherical, showing more structure in the bokeh and highlight outlining. I think that's its charm, as it's not chasing a modern, smooth aesthetic. The LLL leans toward that modern look with smooth transitions and much less outlining, which is why many prefer it.
Other Aberrations: Both lenses show noticeable coma, but the LLL exhibits more extreme field curvature. Both show axial chromatic aberration.Are you talking about this one Fred? Version l ll?
Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH. FLEYes, that's the one. Version I or II won't make any optical difference, they share the exact same formula. Where they differ is purely aesthetic and functional. The v2 is about 2mm wider, the aperture ring is positioned closer to the focusing ring, it has 11 aperture blades instead of 9 (which only matters when stopping down, not shooting wide open), and it focuses closer when using live view.
Personally, I prefer the rectangular hood design of the v1 and even the look when using the provided ring instead of the hood. I mostly shoot wide open or way stopped...Show more →
Thanks Fred. I have been looking at a version l for some time now. I might have to just bite the bullet and get it😬
fotografur wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
RomanMF wrote
Look at you trying to bankrupt me! IDK… you think the performance of the V1 is much better than the LLL or is it more of a rendering feel thing?Fred Miranda wrote
RomanMF wrote
Yeah, I'll have 3-4 35mm for M mount by year's end, but it's my favorite focal length for EDC.1. Voigtlander 35mm F1/.5 (super small, very light, and sharp-ish but boring)
2. Mandler 35 F/2 (more like an F/2.5, but small with a quirky output due to extreme field curvature)
3. LLL 35 APO F/2 (a super corrected lens for landscape shooting)
4. LLL 35mm AA F/1.4 (will replacement the Voigtlander)
And if I hit the lotto I may own a 35 Noctilux one day because I do love the images out of that thing.
Performance: The Leica is better corrected for spherical aberration at the focus plane, which translates to higher resolution and contrast wide open.
Rendering: This is purely subjective. I love the 35/1.4 FLE for its rendering. It's more classical, like the original double aspherical, showing more structure in the bokeh and highlight outlining. I think that's its charm, as it's not chasing a modern, smooth aesthetic. The LLL leans toward that modern look with smooth transitions and much less outlining, which is why many prefer it.
Other Aberrations: Both lenses show noticeable coma, but the LLL exhibits more extreme field curvature. Both show axial chromatic aberration.
Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH. FLE
Personally, I prefer the rectangular hood design of the v1 and even the look when using the provided ring instead of the hood. I mostly shoot wide open or way stopped...Show more →
Thanks Fred. I have been looking at a version l for some time now. I might have to just bite the bullet and get it😬
Sep 01, 2026 at 09:21 AM
|
p.2 #11Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
As someone who may own an EV 2 or M12/Viso combo down the line, the close focus abilities of the new V2 Leica lenses is appealing.
Sep 01, 2026 at 10:10 AM
p.2 #12Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
RomanMF wrote:
As someone who may own an EV 2 or M12/Viso combo down the line, the close focus abilities of the new V2 Leica lenses is appealing.
Absolutely. If you want a Leica M with EVF, go for the v2. That said, I can still adapt my v1 to mirrorless bodies like the Nikon ZF or SL using a close-focus adapter, so I haven't lost that capability entirely.
As someone who may own an EV 2 or M12/Viso combo down the line, the close focus abilities of the new V2 Leica lenses is appealing.
Absolutely. If you want a Leica M with EVF, go for the v2. That said, I can still adapt my v1 to mirrorless bodies like the Nikon ZF or SL using a close-focus adapter, so I haven't lost that capability entirely.
Sep 01, 2026 at 10:15 AM
p.2 #13Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
Has Leica ever explained their rationale in transitioning from the metal square hoods to retractable ones?
Wonder why they didn't adopt it on the 35 apo (to my relief).
Wonder why they didn't adopt it on the 35 apo (to my relief).
Sep 01, 2026 at 11:25 AM
p.2 #14Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
RomanMF wrote:
As someone who may own an EV 2 or M12/Viso combo down the line, the close focus abilities of the new V2 Leica lenses is appealing.
My only 'issue' with the lux 35 FLE 1 is the minimum focus distance, but aside from trying to photograph food on a table, its not too much of an issue. And in that very particular use case, I just back chair up a bit, shoot from ~2 feet out and crop in post. 60mp on tap gives plenty of headroom.
As someone who may own an EV 2 or M12/Viso combo down the line, the close focus abilities of the new V2 Leica lenses is appealing.
My only 'issue' with the lux 35 FLE 1 is the minimum focus distance, but aside from trying to photograph food on a table, its not too much of an issue. And in that very particular use case, I just back chair up a bit, shoot from ~2 feet out and crop in post. 60mp on tap gives plenty of headroom.
Sep 01, 2026 at 12:22 PM
p.2 #15Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
teaaaa wrote:
Has Leica ever explained their rationale in transitioning from the metal square hoods to retractable ones?
Wonder why they didn't adopt it on the 35 apo (to my relief).
It's curious that the 35 APO doesn't have a retractable hood like the 50 APO and the 35 FLE 2.
Has Leica ever explained their rationale in transitioning from the metal square hoods to retractable ones?
Wonder why they didn't adopt it on the 35 apo (to my relief).
It's curious that the 35 APO doesn't have a retractable hood like the 50 APO and the 35 FLE 2.
Sep 01, 2026 at 12:30 PM
p.2 #16Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
Here's a quick example of the more structured outlining from the FLE, which I prefer over the other options. It's the closest to the double aspherical version in this regard. The Voigtlander 35/2 Ultron renders similarly with less blur, but in a more compact lens, while also being sharp.
 |
||
 |
||
|
LEICA M-D (Typ 262) Summilux-M 1:1.4/35 ASPH. lens 35mm f/1.4 1/2000s 200 ISO 0.0 EV
|
||
 |
||
|
LEICA M-D (Typ 262) Summilux-M 1:1.4/35 ASPH. lens 35mm f/2.0 1/3000s 200 ISO 0.0 EV
Sep 01, 2026 at 12:32 PM
p.2 #17Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here's a quick example of the more structured outlining from the FLE, which I prefer over the other options. It's the closest to the double aspherical version in this regard.
Fred, have you ever checked out the 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH pre-FLE (11874)?
On paper, one would think that would be closest to the Double Aspherical (11873) in terms of image quality. Of course there are other issues like focus-shift, copy variations, and living with the chunky hood.
I remember lifeandmylens had a quick comparison of the two: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1822408/
Here's a quick example of the more structured outlining from the FLE, which I prefer over the other options. It's the closest to the double aspherical version in this regard.
Fred, have you ever checked out the 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH pre-FLE (11874)?
On paper, one would think that would be closest to the Double Aspherical (11873) in terms of image quality. Of course there are other issues like focus-shift, copy variations, and living with the chunky hood.
I remember lifeandmylens had a quick comparison of the two: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1822408/
Sep 01, 2026 at 01:09 PM
p.2 #18Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
weatherproof wrote:
Fred, have you ever checked out the 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH pre-FLE (11874)?
On paper, one would think that would be closest to the Double Aspherical (11873) in terms of image quality. Of course there are other issues like focus-shift, copy variations, and living with the chunky hood.
I remember lifeandmylens had a quick comparison of the two: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1822408/
Good question. The pre-FLE is a lens I never tried, since I know the focus shift would bother me, as I mostly focus via rangefinder. I've seen many tests and sample images though.
I don't think it's closer to the Leica double aspherical in rendering, but the Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical made enough tweaks to the design that it actually behaves like the pre-FLE.
There's very slight glow at the plane of focus, and the focus transition is less corrected, with more spherical aberration, giving smoother transitions like the samples I've seen from the pre-FLE, right down to a similar field-curvature shape. It's almost as if the LLL optical design team set out to replicate the double aspherical, but secretly loved the pre-FLE look and couldn't help nudging the design that way.
The bonus with the LLL is that it's distortion-free and has negligible focus shift.. I'm not sure how they pulled that off. So if I were in the market for a pre-FLE, I'd take the LLL immediately. The FLE, by comparison, has more structure in the rendering, is sharper with more micro-contrast, and has less intense field curvature.
Fred Miranda wrote
Here's a quick example of the more structured outlining from the FLE, which I prefer over the other options. It's the closest to the double aspherical version in this regard.On paper, one would think that would be closest to the Double Aspherical (11873) in terms of image quality. Of course there are other issues like focus-shift, copy variations, and living with the chunky hood.
I remember lifeandmylens had a quick comparison of the two: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1822408/
Good question. The pre-FLE is a lens I never tried, since I know the focus shift would bother me, as I mostly focus via rangefinder. I've seen many tests and sample images though.
I don't think it's closer to the Leica double aspherical in rendering, but the Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical made enough tweaks to the design that it actually behaves like the pre-FLE.
There's very slight glow at the plane of focus, and the focus transition is less corrected, with more spherical aberration, giving smoother transitions like the samples I've seen from the pre-FLE, right down to a similar field-curvature shape. It's almost as if the LLL optical design team set out to replicate the double aspherical, but secretly loved the pre-FLE look and couldn't help nudging the design that way.
The bonus with the LLL is that it's distortion-free and has negligible focus shift.. I'm not sure how they pulled that off. So if I were in the market for a pre-FLE, I'd take the LLL immediately. The FLE, by comparison, has more structure in the rendering, is sharper with more micro-contrast, and has less intense field curvature.
Sep 01, 2026 at 01:46 PM
p.2 #19Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
freaklikeme wrote:
If I were you, I'd pump the breaks on the spending. You've got one of the best 28's available winging its way to you. I would use it a little before you decide to buy two of the same focal length.
when someone asks "should i buy X (and Y)?" most of the time, they are not really seeking for guidance or advice as their mind is already set; they are merely seeking validation/approval.
(source: me
)
If I were you, I'd pump the breaks on the spending. You've got one of the best 28's available winging its way to you. I would use it a little before you decide to buy two of the same focal length.
when someone asks "should i buy X (and Y)?" most of the time, they are not really seeking for guidance or advice as their mind is already set; they are merely seeking validation/approval.
(source: me
)Sep 01, 2026 at 01:56 PM
p.2 #20Any reason to own LLL 35mm f1.4 and f2.0 APO ?
RomanMF wrote:
As someone who may own an EV 2 or M12/Viso combo down the line, the close focus abilities of the new V2 Leica lenses is appealing.
The close focus abilities of the latest version are worth the price difference to me since I like to shoot close or at infinity, rarely in between. I ended up selling mine, though. It felt like a 35mm version of the Voigtlander 50mm f/1 in wide open rendering — not from a background blur perspective, but because the monochrome shots wide open felt “lonely” or “sad/cold”. I think it has something to do with the subject isolation plus vignetting profile that give me those heeby-jeebie feels (I never/rarely correct lens vignetting). I was shooting only the M11M at the time. The current and previous 50 Lux have a completely different feel to me. I can’t prove any of this, it’s just a very personal thing. And if I were going to spend 35 Lux close focus money on a lens, I would just go straight for the 35 Noct.
As someone who may own an EV 2 or M12/Viso combo down the line, the close focus abilities of the new V2 Leica lenses is appealing.
The close focus abilities of the latest version are worth the price difference to me since I like to shoot close or at infinity, rarely in between. I ended up selling mine, though. It felt like a 35mm version of the Voigtlander 50mm f/1 in wide open rendering — not from a background blur perspective, but because the monochrome shots wide open felt “lonely” or “sad/cold”. I think it has something to do with the subject isolation plus vignetting profile that give me those heeby-jeebie feels (I never/rarely correct lens vignetting). I was shooting only the M11M at the time. The current and previous 50 Lux have a completely different feel to me. I can’t prove any of this, it’s just a very personal thing. And if I were going to spend 35 Lux close focus money on a lens, I would just go straight for the 35 Noct.
Sep 01, 2026 at 03:31 PM