Light Lens Lab 50mm f/1.2 ASPH "1966" 2024

Cosina should release a limited edition 50mm F1.2 Nokton in LTM. Or a 50/1.5 Nokton v2- the small size would be nice for an LTM camera. The M-Mount version, at home on a Leica CL.

I am very happy with the 50/1.5 Nokton LTM and 35/1.7 Ultron LTM, like the handling much better than the "retro-Styled" M-Mount versions.

I posted this on the other thread as well:



Shows the problem of the aspherical design having non-uniform performance across the field. This, and sample-to-sample variation, was among the reasons that Leica replaced it with an all-spherical 50/1 in the 1970s. Somewhere I have the article about the 50/1 replacing the 50/1.2. The 50/1.2 is a classic 6 element in 4 group design, following the TTH Opic of 1920. The use of the aspherical optics allowed an aperture to F1.2 without adding more elements. Most manufacturers added an extra element, split an element of the 6/4 to 2 of lesser power. The latter is what Canon did in 1956 for the 50/1.2.
 
Last edited:
I love the Nokton 50/1.5 LTM but never warmed to the Ultron 35/1.7 LTM (this is a discussion Brian and I have had). Not sure why, may just have been an issue with me and that specific lens. I also like 28 better than 35 so that may have contributed it to it. Perhaps I need to find a fast asph 28 that I can actually afford!
 
www.macfilos.com

LLL 50mm f/1.2 review: The march of the Nocticlones

A prototype of the LLL 50mm f/1.2 lens, closely following the design of the 1966 Noctilux f/1.2 is reviewed by Ed Schwartzreich
www.macfilos.com www.macfilos.com

The above review has an interesting interview with Mr. Zhou, where he talks about aspherical surfaces, methods used, "grooves" made, and how this affects the rendering.
 
I once tried out the LLL ELCAN that Ed Schwartzreich received from LLL, and Ed mentioned me in his report on that lens. Thanks Ed.
It seems like a good lens if you like the 50/1.2 by Leica. I am content with the CV 50/1.0.
 
Duofold RF said:
Here is a post from a Chinese photographer regarding chinese made lens. It matched some Sonnar Brain's impression.
Click to expand...
In essence, the Chinese industry is in the same position as the Japanese about forty- to thirty-something years ago, has understood the task at hand and with the increased speed in lens-development will probably catch up within a much shorter timespan.
 
skahde said:
In essence, the Chinese industry is in the same position as the Japanese about forty- to thirty-something years ago, has understood the task at hand and with the increased speed in lens-development will probably catch up within a much shorter timespan.
Click to expand...
However, to be in the PC gray zone territory, Japanese and Cheese has different approach to craftsmanship, these are built into gene. I am hoping the Chinese lens makers will follow the Japanese trajectory from junk to well respect.
 
Chinese manufacturers are producing lenses aimed at enthusiasts in a fringe market, also considered a luxury market. They've designed the lenses with a price/performance that makes them affordable by enthusiasts. The lenses are priced much less than similar featured lenses on the used market. The current lenses are not be as good as the top-tier Leica and Voigtlander lenses, but are a fraction of the price. They are not junk. At some point a Chinese company will bring out a top-tier lens - it will not be cheap, and is questionable how many would be sold if priced the same as a Voigtlander lens.

Post-war Japan produced goods that were high-price, required small amounts of raw material, and was labor intensive. This basically was to rebuild the economy.

I would have preferred LLL bring out an original design rather than the 50/1.2 "1966". Leica discontinued that lens long ago due to sample-to-sample variation. It's just not that good of a design. One of those lenses best left to collectors. Which is why LLL is producing it. The effort would have been better spent bringing out a top-notch 50/1.2 with aspheric optics and a floating element.
 
Last edited:
NedBojic said:
Why buy this when you can buy a fine summarit f1.5 and enjoy true, genuine, optical mastery?
Click to expand...
Because Summarit 1.5 was not even an original Leitz's design 🤣
The optical design was originated in England, Taylor-Hobson - then licensed to Schneider (Xenon) - sub-licensed to Leitz
Summarit is probably the least convincing lens to sway people...not that it is a bad lens. 😉
 
yossi said:
Because Summarit 1.5 was not even an original Leitz's design 🤣
The optical design was originated in England, Taylor-Hobson - then licensed to Schneider (Xenon) - sub-licensed to Leitz
Summarit is probably the least convincing lens to sway people...not that it is a bad lens. 😉
Click to expand...

Yes exactly: an original master design.
Can’t get any more original than that. Precedes Leica.

It is the big Papi.

The Originator.

The first.

All the rest stem from this one.

You want THE original, the main Baby? You want the summarit f1.5.
 
NedBojic said:
Yes exactly: an original master design.
Can’t get any more original than that. Precedes Leica.

It is the big Papi.

The Originator.

The first.

All the rest stem from this one.

You want THE original, the main Baby? You want the summarit f1.5.
Click to expand...
Taylor-Hobson sub-licensed product = Original master design by Leitz.
Yeah, right! 🤣

Even the famous Elmar 5cm lens used in the earliest Leica camera is not an original design. It was derived from the the classic Tessar formula from Zeiss. Talking about Originator.
 
Last edited:
yossi said:
Taylor-Hobson sub-licensed product = Original master design by Leitz.
Yeah, right! 🤣

Even the famous Elmar 5cm lens used in the earliest Leica camera is not an original design. It was derived from the the classic Tessar formula from Zeiss. Talking about Originator.
Click to expand...

Who said “by Leitz”?

Taylor Hobson, Zeiss, the true originators
Anyone into collecting and acknowledging optics mastery will recognize T&H, Zeiss, as true pioneers and must-haves.

No chinese 7LLL salads.

I’m not sure what you are trying to prove…
 
Duofold RF said:
I am hoping the Chinese lens makers will follow the Japanese trajectory from junk to well respect.
Click to expand...
I see what they are doing in all things electronics, optics and mechanics and it's a steep learning-curve in many places with some lack in overall consistency. Decades (centuries?) of stagnation and not to forget Maoism has hit China hard in the quality of manufacturing which may have never had the same level of fanatism with respect to detail as Japan, but I'm optimistic they are very close to making the last steps to excellence even with such niche-market products.
 
I like the Summarit- the optical formula is revised from the Xenon, I seem to remember the 4th element has a different curvature.
The Xenon is optimized for F1.5 from close-up to infinity. A Hex shaped aperture is used to reduce the effects of spherical aberration on focus shift.
The Summarit is a 51.1mm lens, at least the 5 that I took apart were all scribed 51.1. The Summarit is optimized for ~F2 close up, front-focuses at F1.5, and is in focus using F1.5 at infinity. Their way of dealing with focus shift. After all- who is crazy enough to use a lens wide-open and close-up. If you are, just use a shim under the rear groups to move them back slightly. This increases the focal length and reduces the distance between the image plane and lens, optimizes for close-up and wide-open, good enough for infinity. About 0.08mm. A Shim from a J-8 works.

The 50/1 Noctilux and 50/1.1 Nokton are closer to the Ultron design, the rear element of an Ultron design split into two of lesser power. Similar to the Xenon/Summarit compared to the Opic: rear element split into two of lesser power.
 
Last edited:
AFAIK, Leitz's 50mm Summilux V1 is based on Summarit f1.5, which is a TTH design. The 50 Summilux V2 is a complete new design by Leitz though. I think no one would dispute that the V2 Lux is a great Leitz lens, not Summarit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom