Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I opt for a FISON, personally. The FOOKH is a bit too short, and flare comes in too often. I have a SOOMP clone, and it's just too boxy. The FISON works a treat. The only catch is if you want to use a filter and a hood - the FISON is too long for that, and vignetting becomes a problem.
But yeah, a real dual-character lens, and using it on the M240, I'm actually really impressed with its colour rendering, too. Coatings? Who needs 'em, eh?
But yeah, a real dual-character lens, and using it on the M240, I'm actually really impressed with its colour rendering, too. Coatings? Who needs 'em, eh?
This thread is about a lens.
Let's keep it to that. It is getting way off topic.
Let's keep it to that. It is getting way off topic.
Miles.
Beamsplitter
Looks like further specifications and pricing for the Z21 will be published on May 21st.
They also allude to the possibility of releasing further focal lengths with similar characteristics/rendering -- perhaps they're looking at the other Angeniuex LTM lenses from the 1950s?
In the sample gallery LLL shared some side-by-side comparisons with the original S21. Very impressive to my eye.
They also allude to the possibility of releasing further focal lengths with similar characteristics/rendering -- perhaps they're looking at the other Angeniuex LTM lenses from the 1950s?
In the sample gallery LLL shared some side-by-side comparisons with the original S21. Very impressive to my eye.
BernardL
Well-known
Angenieux
Hmm..coverage for the Fuji GFX sensor…interesting…
Miles.
Beamsplitter
I noticed that.. I wonder if that's true of the original, and if not, what changes in the design accommodated that (but kept the rendering similar)?
It’s possible the original covers that area. Anyone who owns this lens want to test? 😀
The images shown demonstrate "swirly Footballs" from astigmatism, over-correction for spherical aberration, and coma. It is not possible to duplicate the original out-of-focus performance and increase the size of the image circle of the optics. The optical aberrations would increase with distance from the center. It's possible that the original covered a larger image circle, but mechanical issues clipped the image. This would happen with an RF cam that was not a "tongue" type, but was full circumference of the mount. The new LLL lens uses a tongue type RF cam, which allows a larger image circle to be projected.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
44 x 33 coverage means it covers the X2D as all the Sonnars do. IIRC the GFX and the X2D are using the same Sony sensor. Please correct me if I am wrong. I just tried the LLL Elcan and it does not cover the entire X2D 44 x 33 sensor.
Philosophically strange and interesting that the PRC, a totalitarian state, is democratizing lenses for photographers.
Philosophically strange and interesting that the PRC, a totalitarian state, is democratizing lenses for photographers.
pseudobreccia
Member
I can't wait to get my hands on one!
The images shown on the LLL website remind me of the Summarit. These are with a perfect-glass LTM Summarit that I optimized for F1.5 by moving the rear group out farther, increasing the focal length. The Summarit is 51.1mm focal length, probably to deal with focus shift. Up close, uses between f2 and F2.8 for best focus, front focus at F1.5. Infinity is good wide-open. Except the two that I modified. This one ended up half-way around the world, in a trade. I have another.
The LLL lens is low-contrast, judging from the images. Swirly Bokeh from a double-Gauss with excellent flatness of field, and is over-corrected for Spherical Aberration.
Like the Summarit. The LLL lens seems to have more coma.
LTM Summari, wide-open, on the M9.
The LLL lens is low-contrast, judging from the images. Swirly Bokeh from a double-Gauss with excellent flatness of field, and is over-corrected for Spherical Aberration.
Like the Summarit. The LLL lens seems to have more coma.
LTM Summari, wide-open, on the M9.
Yes I think this is correct
I'm beginning to think there are categories of lenses in ascending order-
Historical Lenses; Obscure Lenses; Collectible Lenses; Legendary Lenses; Cult Lenses; and Mythical Lenses. Not sure where to put production numbers as a divider.
Lenses with production numbers under 1000 is probably a good dividing line for rarity. Production numbers of 500, 100, 50, 10, 5- more dividing lines. I have some in each category.
Then there are lenses that were produced in large numbers that time did not treat well, many of the older lenses with soft glass, coatings, and other factors that renders most sub-par. You might go through several to get a good one.
Some of these lenses- best left to collectors, there are others that perform much better that are available at a reasonable price, a few percent of the cost of the very rare lens. I think LLL is aiming at making rare lenses available at a competitive cost. Might not be as low as the $400 Summarit with perfect glass, but will be enticing for those wanting to experience a mythical lens.
Historical Lenses; Obscure Lenses; Collectible Lenses; Legendary Lenses; Cult Lenses; and Mythical Lenses. Not sure where to put production numbers as a divider.
Lenses with production numbers under 1000 is probably a good dividing line for rarity. Production numbers of 500, 100, 50, 10, 5- more dividing lines. I have some in each category.
Then there are lenses that were produced in large numbers that time did not treat well, many of the older lenses with soft glass, coatings, and other factors that renders most sub-par. You might go through several to get a good one.
Some of these lenses- best left to collectors, there are others that perform much better that are available at a reasonable price, a few percent of the cost of the very rare lens. I think LLL is aiming at making rare lenses available at a competitive cost. Might not be as low as the $400 Summarit with perfect glass, but will be enticing for those wanting to experience a mythical lens.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Agreed, what are the right buckets for lenses? I have some mass produced lenses like the KMZ Jupiter-8. The '57 is quite tasty. At the other end of the scale is the nearly unicorn Skyllaney Bertele Sonnar which I can drag out when I want a Sonnar that turns it up to 11. And some nice Canons, on your guidance, and a lovely Amotal and some CV's. That sneaky old CZJ 1.5. But these "in praise of" retros made in PRC enable ordinary folks to go out and buy what would only have been seen in catalogs and at auctions.
An example is the LLL Elcan. It is a nice lens. And while it is a good copy of a famous and expensive retro lens I favor more the Thypoch Eureka and Simera 50; they are kinder, warmer, more romantic. Both repros of sweet old Brit lenses. The point is the PRC is making copies/reproductions of lenses we would likely not otherwise be able to have. I prefer to take advantage of the opportunity.
Never been a fan of the Summarit. 
Some of these lenses are pretty obscure, it's one thing to do a retro 8 Element Summicron, or Elcan or Noct. But this Angenieux isn't exactly a common internet topic. Will they get enough interest to justify the production?
Some of these lenses are pretty obscure, it's one thing to do a retro 8 Element Summicron, or Elcan or Noct. But this Angenieux isn't exactly a common internet topic. Will they get enough interest to justify the production?
What the Summarit does well- preserve shadow detail, and does not blow out highlights.
I find that useful for the M Monochrom.
Here- on C-41 B&W, on the M3.
I find that useful for the M Monochrom.
Here- on C-41 B&W, on the M3.
Miles.
Beamsplitter
These French made LTM lenses are incredibly popular in Japan, Hong Kong, and mainland China.Never been a fan of the Summarit.
Some of these lenses are pretty obscure, it's one thing to do a retro 8 Element Summicron, or Elcan or Noct. But this Angenieux isn't exactly a common internet topic. Will they get enough interest to justify the production?
I talked to Gilbert recently, who runs Fotopia in Hong Kong, and he says he sells these with one phone call a few times a year for $25,000-$50,000 USD. They don't even get listed on his site.
Probably due to the rarity of the lens, there are not many French made lenses in LTM at all, and that some people can drop money on a 1950s lens what most people spend on a car.
The lens will last longer and does not take up as much space.
The lens will last longer and does not take up as much space.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Dunning-Kruger alert.
I have this theory about lenses. To me it seems the cinema lens makers make lenses with more "glow" and "romance" to them. I take this from the Eureka, Simera, Amotal lenses that I have. And if we look at what a cinema lens is required to do: blow up an enlargement to fit on a barnside from a half-frame image, phew. So, OK, detail is not going to happen. Sharpness is not something to be developed from this half-frame image to be super-enlarged. No, it is not possible. Or is it even desirable? In the flow of a movie we are watching a story unfold, we are not in a biology class examining people or their parts, likewise with plants or anything for that matter. The cinema lens just wants to help the story along. Softness and aberration can be friends. Look at what has happened to the retro lenses in the last few years. They have been bought and adapted to cinema cameras as a relief of the critical clinical look of digital. And possible cure for that and a limning of analog.
I have been drawn into this camp with the Amotal which has that "Cooke Look" of glow and softness. And Thypoch, too, is a cinema lens manufacturer. They may be adding some cinema pixie dust to their still lenses in order to compete. Especially now that the non-computer designed style lenses seem in favor, aberrations and all. I do not doubt that computers are used to design in the "flaws" of old. The only lens I have that is retro with the old charm but still modern in coatings and accuracy is the Skyllaney which has some of that Sonnar warmth while still returning very well saturated color.
So there you are, full tilt Dunning-Kruger. Content in my folly. ;o)
I have this theory about lenses. To me it seems the cinema lens makers make lenses with more "glow" and "romance" to them. I take this from the Eureka, Simera, Amotal lenses that I have. And if we look at what a cinema lens is required to do: blow up an enlargement to fit on a barnside from a half-frame image, phew. So, OK, detail is not going to happen. Sharpness is not something to be developed from this half-frame image to be super-enlarged. No, it is not possible. Or is it even desirable? In the flow of a movie we are watching a story unfold, we are not in a biology class examining people or their parts, likewise with plants or anything for that matter. The cinema lens just wants to help the story along. Softness and aberration can be friends. Look at what has happened to the retro lenses in the last few years. They have been bought and adapted to cinema cameras as a relief of the critical clinical look of digital. And possible cure for that and a limning of analog.
I have been drawn into this camp with the Amotal which has that "Cooke Look" of glow and softness. And Thypoch, too, is a cinema lens manufacturer. They may be adding some cinema pixie dust to their still lenses in order to compete. Especially now that the non-computer designed style lenses seem in favor, aberrations and all. I do not doubt that computers are used to design in the "flaws" of old. The only lens I have that is retro with the old charm but still modern in coatings and accuracy is the Skyllaney which has some of that Sonnar warmth while still returning very well saturated color.
So there you are, full tilt Dunning-Kruger. Content in my folly. ;o)
I've packed the camera bag with the M9, M Monochrom, 5cm F1.5 Nikkor-SC on the M9, 5005 series 5cm F1.4 Nikkor-SC with Nikkor Y48 filter on the M Monochrom, extra filters to swap the lenses, and a 255xxxx CZJ 5cm F1.5 Sonnar T (a v3) converted to Leica mount for a day at the Museum tomorrow. Steady lighting and subjects that know how to stay still. Compare the Nikkor 5cm F1.5 with the pre-war Sonnar that I believe it is based on, and try to figure out why DDD liked the F1.5 Nikkor more than the F1.4. Walz vented hoods for all. I was going to bring a later Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4 with the same optical formula but improved coatings but... I have the bag packed with My Three Sonnars already...
What I can state- the 5005 series Nikkor 5cm F1.4 goes for a premium because it is a first batch lens. Nikon revised the coatings after that batch, based on feedback from DDD. The optics- it was not until the 340xxx lenses that the optics underwent a major revision.
Money spent on all lenses in my bag= 1/10th what the French 6/4 5cm F1.5 goes for. I would not trade the Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 for any other lens.
What I can state- the 5005 series Nikkor 5cm F1.4 goes for a premium because it is a first batch lens. Nikon revised the coatings after that batch, based on feedback from DDD. The optics- it was not until the 340xxx lenses that the optics underwent a major revision.
Money spent on all lenses in my bag= 1/10th what the French 6/4 5cm F1.5 goes for. I would not trade the Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 for any other lens.