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

[WoodallP]

That's cool. For the record I really like my LLL 8ele collapsible, but something a stop faster would be appreciated. It's a fantastic lens and I think they improved the optics of the collapsible version over the original rigid copy and the original. There seems to be less coma and glow. It still retains the character of the original though.

One note about the 35/2 collapsible is that due to the size they had to use a sloped RF cam. So, there might be slight discrepancies in RF coupling depending on the body used. In my experience it works well with 4 out of my 5 bodies. The 5th does not work as well - it's usable but the RF is visibly off, just a something to note if such things annoy you.

Out of interest, what are the bodies? Is there any pattern? Does that one camera have different positioning for the index mark when the same lens (any lens) is screwed on. I would like an 8E (indeed the 40mm Voightlander too) but sloped cams scare me a bit.

 

[TenEleven]

Well it's only the collapsible version that has the sloped cam. The LTM one modeled after the original has a proper secondary helicoid.
Since they made it a collapsible Elmar type design something had to give. Nikon got around this by making their tiny LTM 35mm lenses not collapsible.

The lens always screws in the same amount for all bodies as far as I can see. I assume that where the rangefinder pick-up roller is exactly was never specified closely for LTM.

The bodies that worked are - (my Friends) IIIc, my II (since sold), a Canon L1, VI-L and P.

The one that didn't was the Canon 7. I found the Canon 7 picky with some other lenses too. I have tried 3 Canon 7 bodies from various people and it seems to be more or less consistent. So I assume Canon did something to the LTM specification there - perhaps to make allowances for their 50/.95 - who knows!

 

[WoodallP]

Well it's only the collapsible version that has the sloped cam. The LTM one modeled after the original has a proper secondary helicoid.
Since they made it a collapsible Elmar type design something had to give. Nikon got around this by making their tiny LTM 35mm lenses not collapsible.

The lens always screws in the same amount for all bodies as far as I can see. I assume that where the rangefinder pick-up roller is exactly was never specified closely for LTM.

The bodies that worked are - (my Friends) IIIc, my II (since sold), a Canon L1, VI-L and P.

The one that didn't was the Canon 7. I found the Canon 7 picky with some other lenses too. I have tried 3 Canon 7 bodies from various people and it seems to be more or less consistent. So I assume Canon did something to the LTM specification there - perhaps to make allowances for their 50/.95 - who knows!

Good point, RF position is as important as mounting. As the owner of (too many) Barnacks and a VI-L I feel a bit more confident now.

 

[TenEleven]

Also size wise - I assume this is going to follow the original 90ies ASPH design with some improvements optically as indicated.
In that case it would be large for an LTM lens, yes. But not absurdly so

 

[Freakscene]

Also size wise - I assume this is going to follow the original 90ies ASPH design with some improvements optically as indicated.
In that case it would be large for an LTM lens, yes. But not absurdly so

The Aspherical is optucally very different to the ASPH. That’s the point. Size wise, they are about the same.

 

[Tears]

Maybe, but without a floating element it will be worse than the FLE.

There is already a Chinese copy of Leica 35/1.4 ASPH, with FLE and even have 0.45m close focus function!
The Thypoch Simera 35/1.4.

 

[Freakscene]

There is already a Chinese copy of Leica 35/1.4 ASPH, with FLE and even have 0.45m close focus function!
The Thypoch Simera 35/1.4.

Yes, and yet it is also much less good than the Leica FLE. I understand that the Aspherical is a rare collector’s item so reproducing it is attractive. I just don’t think that there is much practical reason to do so. None of the copy lenses that I have tried (lots) have been really properly collimated, and a design with two aspherical elements really needs accurate collimation. This lens is mostly for having not for using.

 

[Slumgullion]

Yes, and yet it is also much less good than the Leica FLE. I understand that the Aspherical is a rare collector’s item so reproducing it is attractive. I just don’t think that there is much practical reason to do so. None of the copy lenses that I have tried (lots) have been really properly collimated, and a design with two aspherical elements really needs accurate collimation. This lens is mostly for having not for using.

Marty, do you have any example photos from your archives of images taken with the 35/1.4 aa?

 

[Erik van Straten]

I think I'd always prefer a steel rim, but who knows.

gelatin silver print (summilux 35mm f1.4 steel rim) leica m5

Amstelveen, 2017

 

[Slumgullion]

I think I'd always prefer a steel rim, but who knows.

gelatin silver print (summilux 35mm f1.4 steel rim) leica m5

Amstelveen, 2017

View attachment 4881636

Your images from your steel rim are always lovely, Erik.

The images that I've seen from the current/modern reissue look nothing what you've posted - they're glowy (to the point of being gimmicky) and that lens seems like a bad value for money (which is to say nothing of the going price of an original steel rim).

I assume you bought your steel rim waaaay back when. It was probably expensive at the time, but nothing like what it sells for now.

Similarly, as Marty stated above, the going price of an original AA is stratospheric. Mere mortals aren't throwing down $15-20k for a lens (and not expecting to get murdered by their spouse). I'm curious about what images from that lens look like. It's so rare that there are very few examples online (especially ones comparing it to the ASPH and FLE).

 

[Erik van Straten]

Your images from your steel rim are always lovely, Erik.

The images that I've seen from the current/modern reissue look nothing what you've posted - they're glowy (to the point of being gimmicky) and that lens seems like a bad value for money (which is to say nothing of the going price of an original steel rim).

I assume you bought your steel rim waaaay back when. It was probably expensive at the time, but nothing like what it sells for now.

Similarly, as Marty stated above, the going price of an original AA is stratospheric. Mere mortals aren't throwing down $15-20k for a lens (and not expecting to get murdered by their spouse). I'm curious about what images from that lens look like. It's so rare that there are very few examples online (especially ones comparing it to the ASPH and FLE).

Yes, vision and fantasy are not for sale, but like you I am interested in what these lenses can do.

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (summilux 35mm f1.4 steel rim (17772XX) leica m5

Amsterdam, KNSM 2017

 

[Freakscene]

Marty, do you have any example photos from your archives of images taken with the 35/1.4 aa?

Yes, but maybe not scanned. I’ll take a look; I think I have some taken with the M8 and maybe M9 too.

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (summilux 35mm f1.4 steel rim v1) leica m5

Amsterdam, KNSM, 2016

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (steel rim 35mm f1.4 v1) leica m5

Amsterdam, 2017

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (summicron 50mm f2 v4) leica mp

Amsterdam, 2017

 

[Freakscene]

Marty, do you have any example photos from your archives of images taken with the 35/1.4 aa?

Here is one on the M9.

 

[Slumgullion]

View attachment 4882077
Here is one on the M9.

Cool! That has a nice rendering with good off center sharpness.

 

[Freakscene]

Cool! That has a nice rendering with good off center sharpness.

I was lucky with that one. I have an awful lot of photos from the M8, M9 and MM where I missed focus by just enough to annoy me. The M10 is much better.

 

[Ororaro]

What’s the main selling point of this lens again?