DandA123 wrote: nehemiahphoto wrote:
I have posted this several times over the years, but I think it is pretty definitive and it matches up with my experience of owning both the FLE and Pre-FLE ASPH’s:
I also found the Pre-FLE to have more fringing than the FLE in my experience (the FLE already has quite a bit) but did not test them side by side.
My take from reading the Pebble Place review you provided the link for, comparing the Leica 35mm f1.4 ASPH pre FLE vs the Leica 35mm f1.4 FLE (Ver 1) is that there are notable differences in how these two lenses render (among other things), especially at the wider apertures and its mirrors what I had suggested about these two lenses in my previous posts, having used both these lenses.
It's also why based on the preliminary images Fred posted, comparing the new LLL 35mm f1.4 vs the Leica 35mm f1.4 FLE, especially the sharpness differences seen at the wider apertures, (both centrally and at the edges), the results seem to emulate to a degree what the Pebble Place article found when comparing the ASPH Pre FLE vs the ASPH FLE. My thoughts at this early stage, is that the LLL lens and Leica's ASPH Pre FLE are more similar than either of these lenses are to the Leica ASPH FLE.
Personally, I had always preferred the Leica 35mm f1.4 ASPH Pre FLE to the FLE versions for it having somewhat more character (even when focus shift is taken out of the equation) and having some desirable traits for my particular use, even though the FLE can clearly outperform it and appears to be much more modern.
Of course, I and I'm sure many would love the original Leica AA be thrown into the mix for comparative testing.
Dave
@DandA123 I have the same experience and thoughts as you largely. Except 2 distinctions:
1) I have been under the impression that the FLE and Pre-FLE ASPH drew much more similarly to each other than the either of them draws to the original AA that this LLL replica is based on. I hope that's true. But I am not firm on this thought--it's been several years since I researched it. While there were comps, they were not of the exhaustive quality that we have come to expect in 2025. Does anyone have comps/links of the original ASPH to the Pre-FLE?
2) I never bonded with the 35 pre-FLE. For my tastes, and it's all about tastes with 30 year old fast glass, I just thought it was too boring--not enough character to be a character lens, and not enough modern juice to be special like the FLE. That's why I ultimately settled into a 35 pre-asph v2 for character, and something like a ZM 35/1.4, 35 Lux FLE or CV 35/1.7 for modern. Though I realize that's a non-preferred for many two lens solution though it's actually cheaper with a ZM or CV 35/1.7 than one pre-FLE.
Very curious to see Fred's rendering tests. I hope someone, cause I don't think Fred will, compare this LLL to a Pre-FLE and Simera 35/1.4. Then we'd have a very strong understanding of just where this LLL lands.
@_jim_ I am open minded too--just trying to understand the differences. It has always been my impression that the lens structurally draw closer to each other than is often said (oversold on bokeh differences), while the contrast and overall feel of the images differs appreciably (undersold on this front). That was my experience from shooting them.
