Light Lens Lab - 35mm f1.4 Aspherical now in production

Slumgullion said:
My 11874 is mildly decentered. It probably passed QA in 2001 because it was centered enough for film, but on high megapixel sensors it's more evident.

So we will see...
Click to expand...
My black 11874 was slightly decentered too. But my current chrome 11883 is perfect. Agree on optical QA/QC and how it has been applied through time. How all these parameters get measured has completely changed too. The stuff Elcan made for various military contracts was crazily precise.
 
Last edited:
Freakscene said:
My black 11874 was slightly decentered too. But my current chrome 11883 is perfect. Agree on optical QA/QC and how it has been applied through time. How all these parameters get measured has completely changed too. The stuff Elcan made for various military contracts was crazily precise.
Click to expand...
I'd inquired with DAG about the centering issue and he said it was most likely the aspherical element. Said it was a pain-in-the-ass to try to center it better and was not something he'd be interested in attempting (always have to remind myself that the enemy of good is perfect). I also asked Leica NJ about it. The customer service rep seemed to indictate it was something they could tackle. Not sure whether that's true or not. At any rate, in practice, it's not really an issue...but, if I could have it improved, I would.
 
Slumgullion said:
I don't totally believe that you are asking this in earnest.

There is a a lot of truth and a pinch of hyperbole in your answer to the "why the AA" question, but your passion and excitement comes through (for the record, I have no qualms with hyperbole), and excitement and passion is the core of all of this.

I'd counter by pointing out that the Leica AA (currently) exists at a price point that, unless your relationship to money is massively different than mine (and it easily might be), purchasing one would result in immediate divorce (both nuptially and from reality). For me, having a replica is a way to honor some of that design history or feel a bit of the emotion of it. I know that the replica isn't the real thing. I don't think anyone is telling themselves it is. The replica, especially in titanium, looks cool (and was never an option from Leica). You might say that none of those things matter to you and maybe they don't. You might even think my rationale is dumb (and maybe it is). But, I've liked all the LLL lenses that I have. They are fun to shoot...and taking pictures (and having fun) is ultimately the point of the photographic hobby. Your mileage may vary.

(also, you could argue the Minolta 35/1.4 of 1988 is the mother of modern design, at least in how it pertains to the industry at-large from SLR's to modern mirrorless, but that's my two cents...do you have one of those in your collection?).
Click to expand...

My reasons for owning the AA is exactly as I said, unrelated to its optical performance, as many photographs in one of my books were shot on a Vilia camera, plastic lens and all.

But of course the fact that the AA somewhat appreciated in value helps.

I personally don’t see a substantial difference between the AA Versus the 35 summilux asph. but that’s easily explained by the fact that the asph. was made to replace the AA while keeping the same high quality performance.

But I’m a bit different than the regular photo folks in the way I use my equipment. I tend to use equipment and see the results 5 to years down the road. Like right now I’m still working on negatives shot before 2019… the negatives shot in 2025 will be worked on and analyzed on darkroom prints somewhere in 2030 and beyond…
 
Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Sunnyside Vineyard by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Tyler by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Of note, for those of us that would want to use this lens on a rangefinder - there is no relevant focus shift (unlike the Leica 35mm Lux ASPH 11874).

My 11874 is a tiny bit sharper in the middle of the frame (especially at infinity), but the LLL is quite good at portrait distances. They flare differently. The polishing of the aspherical elements is kinda weird...so have to be mindful of that in scenes where out-of-focus specular highlights are present, but its overall draw is very close to the 11874.
 
Last edited:
When someone has some photos from this lens with some specular highlights, can you post them please? I am interested to see if there are onion rings, and if so how pronounced they are. My original 11873 did not produce onion rings in the specular highlights, but the spheres are generated differently in this lens.
 
Freakscene said:
When someone has some photos from this lens with some specular highlights, can you post them please? I am interested to see if there are onion rings, and if so how pronounced they are. My original 11873 did not produce onion rings in the specular highlights, but the spheres are generated differently in this lens.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. There aren't a ton of online photo samples taken with Leica 11873, but I typically see pronounced onion ring structures. The LLL, on the other hand, shows a kind of fuzzy texture in out-of-focus highlights...kinda looks like how flannel feels.
 
Slumgullion said:
Very interesting. There aren't a ton of online photo samples taken with Leica 11873, but I typically see pronounced onion ring structures. The LLL, on the other hand, shows a kind of fuzzy texture in out-of-focus highlights...kinda looks like how flannel feels.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I would have said present but not pronounced. It might vary from lens-to-lens given how the aspheres were ground. These look amazing.

But I’ve also just recalled your photos above.
 
Last edited:
I'm always curious about who buys really fast lenses (I fell in that trap for years). With digital cameras today you can bump ISO into the atmosphere. Only so many shots wide open to get Bokeh. Even an F/2.0 lens with film pushed 1 stop will get that shot in the bar. So I'll stick with my 35 & 50 Summicrons and I need to sell those 1.1 & 1.5 lenses I bought.

In my wayward youth the 35 Summilux was the only grail. But KodaChrome was an ISO 64 and Tri-X was pricey. So fast lenses made sense.
 
Beemermark said:
I'm always curious about who buys really fast lenses (I fell in that trap for years). With digital cameras today you can bump ISO into the atmosphere. Only so many shots wide open to get Bokeh. Even an F/2.0 lens with film pushed 1 stop will get that shot in the bar. So I'll stick with my 35 & 50 Summicrons and I need to sell those 1.1 & 1.5 lenses I bought.

In my wayward youth the 35 Summilux was the only grail. But KodaChrome was an ISO 64 and Tri-X was pricey. So fast lenses made sense.
Click to expand...

I often shoot at f1.4 or f1 and ISO100,000. So I buy fast lenses.
 
Yeah, it's not rocket science: shooting fast moving subjects in low light? You're going to want a fast lens.

If all you're doing is pootling around photographing trees and fences? Keep your compact 50/3.5 Elmar.

(I say this as someone who has spent far too much time in the last year pootling around photographing trees and fences.)
 
Freakscene said:
Interesting. I would gave said present but not pronounced. It might vary from lens-to-lens given how the aspheres were ground. These look amazing.

But I’ve also just recalled your photos above.
Click to expand...
You are correct - "present" is a better way of describing it.

Part of my understanding of why the Leica 11873 had hand ground aspheres was because:

1. The melting point of the glass in the elements with aspherical surfaces was high enough to make molding exceedingly difficult.

2. Walter Watz wanted a concave aspherical surface and the technology wasn't quite there in the mid/late 80's. Hence, when the tech became available for the 11874, they picked the element after the aperture to apply the aspherical surface (which coincidentally was made of glass with a lower melting point for easier molding).

Both of these might be entirely apocryphal, but if the first point is true, I wonder if LLL attempting to mold elements with very high melting points (assuming that they did their best to copy the glass composition) would put a lot of wear on tools (namely the very expensive mold). So, perhaps the mold itself is made of a harder material that was difficult to create a perfectly smooth texture on, hence the artifacts that the aspheres generate (they are unlike anything I've seen before).

Not sure if that makes sense. The coffee hasn't fully hit yet.
 
Slumgullion said:
You are correct - "present" is a better way of describing it.

Part of my understanding of why the Leica 11873 had hand ground aspheres was because:

1. The melting point of the glass in the elements with aspherical surfaces was high enough to make molding exceedingly difficult.

2. Walter Watz wanted a concave aspherical surface and the technology wasn't quite there in the mid/late 80's. Hence, when the tech became available for the 11874, they picked the element after the aperture to apply the aspherical surface (which coincidentally was made of glass with a lower melting point for easier molding).

Both of these might be entirely apocryphal, but if the first point is true, I wonder if LLL attempting to mold elements with very high melting points (assuming that they did their best to copy the glass composition) would put a lot of wear on tools (namely the very expensive mold). So, perhaps the mold itself is made of a harder material that was difficult to create a perfectly smooth texture on, hence the artifacts that the aspheres generate (they are unlike anything I've seen before).

Not sure if that makes sense. The coffee hasn't fully hit yet.
Click to expand...

That all makes sense. There are glass types available with equivalent characteristics that are easier to work with now. The methods for moulding have also improved and been refined. LLL might also be willing to make more moulds. Leica probably wanted to ensure every lens was the same and the best way to do this is to use a single mould.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Miles.
Light Lens Lab 50mm f1.5 "Z21" - Angenieux S21 redux
2 3
Replies
54
Views
7K
brusby
B
boojum
LLL "Z21" Available in a couple of weeks.
Replies
17
Views
1K
former member
F
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
12
Views
2K
rick oleson
rick oleson
J
  • Article Article
The Canon F-1 vs. the Nikon F2: Battle of the Second-Generation Titans!Both are pro-grade battleship 35mm SLRs, but they aren’t exactly equal
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
Dogman
Dogman
J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
2K
aoresteen
aoresteen
Back
Top Bottom