Light Lens Lab 50mm f1.5 "Z21" - Angenieux S21 redux

Miles. said:
These French made LTM lenses are incredibly popular in Japan, Hong Kong, and mainland China.

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.
Click to expand...

Well that certainly explains LLL's decision!

I sold a few Angenieux lenses for various mounts when I was "in the business", they were definitely easy sales, but nothing I had was anywhere near that price level. 😳 A few times a year!!??
 
boojum said:
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)
Click to expand...
As for cinema lenses produced recently to look like older lenses: I read somewhere recently that part of the appeal for cinematographers was the ability to make their images look the way they wanted in a way that couldn't be "cleaned up" in further digital editing after the photography was completed. As for sharpness, back before digital photography had become the norm I did some copy work for an academic (with full copyright permission) who needed images to go with an article he was publishing. Images from the Laurence Olivier Othello from the 1960's held up surprisingly well, especially since I had to borrow an anamorphic converter from a local university movie projector to do the work. The imperfections in Olivier's make up were quite apparent in the stills that I took from a print that had been shown in theaters.

There is no question that newer lenses are generally better corrected and have higher contrast than the classics from 60 or 90 years ago. And that modern production methods and newer glass types and even molded plastic lenses have spread that high quality down the food chain so that even inexpensive P/S cameras and cellphones have surprisingly decent lenses. But the Zeiss, Angenieux and B&L Baltars from long ago were expensive when new and were the best that designers and manufacturers could come up with at the time, and they generally were quite sharp. In fact, if you look at some old movies from the 1930's and 1940's, you will frequently see that close ups of women will have obvious softening filters applied to these lenses lest the audience discover that an actress doesn't actually look like she's 16 any more.
 
Cascadilla said:
As for cinema lenses produced recently to look like older lenses: I read somewhere recently that part of the appeal for cinematographers was the ability to make their images look the way they wanted in a way that couldn't be "cleaned up" in further digital editing after the photography was completed. As for sharpness, back before digital photography had become the norm I did some copy work for an academic (with full copyright permission) who needed images to go with an article he was publishing. Images from the Laurence Olivier Othello from the 1960's held up surprisingly well, especially since I had to borrow an anamorphic converter from a local university movie projector to do the work. The imperfections in Olivier's make up were quite apparent in the stills that I took from a print that had been shown in theaters.

There is no question that newer lenses are generally better corrected and have higher contrast than the classics from 60 or 90 years ago. And that modern production methods and newer glass types and even molded plastic lenses have spread that high quality down the food chain so that even inexpensive P/S cameras and cellphones have surprisingly decent lenses. But the Zeiss, Angenieux and B&L Baltars from long ago were expensive when new and were the best that designers and manufacturers could come up with at the time, and they generally were quite sharp. In fact, if you look at some old movies from the 1930's and 1940's, you will frequently see that close ups of women will have obvious softening filters applied to these lenses lest the audience discover that an actress doesn't actually look like she's 16 any more.
Click to expand...

Interesting. You are less on the Dunning-Kruger scale than I. ;o)

I was thinking more of old still camera lenses which had been pulled off the market and used on current cinema cameras. I have some old lenses which are really nice and compared to the current CV they are, to use a non-technical term, more "poetic". The few CV lenses I have are quite sharp, do color quite well and render well but they are lacking in charm. The Q3 43 has a great lens but lacks charm. True, this may be my in-built bias. But a nice retro or a current Thypoch on an M9 is nicer to my sensibilities. They may be just awful for others. And Thypoch is a cinema lens company. The Amotal is very accurate while still having a glow, the "Cooke Look" which I enjoy for its effect. And not to the same degree Sonnars seem nice.

In a nutshell I prefer the older lenses and the current retro versions and Thypoch has my attention and I attribute that to them being a cinema lens company, as with Cooke. I do not deny that there are old lenses which are sharp. But there are a bunch of old lennses with a glow. The current redux of these retro lenses is wonderful. The prospect of a remake of the old Kern-Switar with an M-body bayonet mount is appealing.

The Chinese see a market in the retro lenses and are cherry-picking some good ones. How nice. And if they can cover a 33 x 44 sensor, better.
 
I'm right there with you in being pleased to see so many alternatives for lenses becoming widely available, both new aberration free designs and older, charming ones. It is a good thing for photographers to have choices, especially ones that don't involve an investment equivalent to the price of a new car. When I first got into 4x5 about 40 years ago I went for current designs (mostly Rodenstock Sironar-N and Grandagon-N) since I needed those lenses for high quality commercial work. Old lenses, especially lenses in old shutters didn't interest me in the slightest since I needed quality and reliability for professional work. But after digital came in and swept away film as a commercial medium for almost everything, I got into Contax RF from the 1930's and 50's and have come to appreciate the look of those lenses for my personal work. Those Zeiss lenses are certainly sharp enough, but there is definitely a different character to the images that they produce. I can't comment on color rendering since I have only shot B&W film with them and I haven't splurged on a mirrorless yet to try them on a digital body.

It is Capitalism 101 to notice that there are scarce products selling for premium prices and then coming into the market with equivalents for less money if it can be done. It will be interesting to see if the Chinese photo industry does to the Japanese what the Japanese did to the Germans in the 1960's. If they do, photographers will be the winners in the form of wider choices and lower prices.
 
Cascadilla said:
I'm right there with you in being pleased to see so many alternatives for lenses becoming widely available, both new aberration free designs and older, charming ones. It is a good thing for photographers to have choices, especially ones that don't involve an investment equivalent to the price of a new car. When I first got into 4x5 about 40 years ago I went for current designs (mostly Rodenstock Sironar-N and Grandagon-N) since I needed those lenses for high quality commercial work. Old lenses, especially lenses in old shutters didn't interest me in the slightest since I needed quality and reliability for professional work. But after digital came in and swept away film as a commercial medium for almost everything, I got into Contax RF from the 1930's and 50's and have come to appreciate the look of those lenses for my personal work. Those Zeiss lenses are certainly sharp enough, but there is definitely a different character to the images that they produce. I can't comment on color rendering since I have only shot B&W film with them and I haven't splurged on a mirrorless yet to try them on a digital body.

It is Capitalism 101 to notice that there are scarce products selling for premium prices and then coming into the market with equivalents for less money if it can be done. It will be interesting to see if the Chinese photo industry does to the Japanese what the Japanese did to the Germans in the 1960's. If they do, photographers will be the winners in the form of wider choices and lower prices.
Click to expand...


I am with you on Zeiss in particular and Sonnar in general. I have some nice M body CZJ's, one an old 5cm f/1.5 that is strong, it does color very well. And a sweet '57 KMZ J8 that is very good. The Skyllaney Bertele Sonnar is, I guess, a high point in the 5cm Sonnars. It is the old design with the wrinkles ironed out and current coatings. I count the colors as edible and at the same time skin tones look "right". I pestered Matt Osborne about the lens and he tested it and was not as impressed with it in mono. He is thorough. I should shoot it on the M9 in mono JPG and on the Pixii in mono RAW just to see how it does. It is a great lens and I am grateful to have one of the five or seven so far made. Luck follows me closely. A fellow sent me a sweet '36 Contax with a 5cm f/2.0 CZJ Sonnar, same year. Luck follows me closely. ;o)

As for Zeiss vs other lenses, I prefer them to other lenses with the exception of the HB lenses. But I can only shoot those lenses on the HB body. The SBS sings on the X2D as do the other Sonnars and the Sonnar design covers the 33 x 44 sensor completely. Very nice. The downside is that my gear has far outstripped my talent. Oh, well. I have the Leica lens on the Q3 43 and while it is color accurate and all that it is not as tasty as a Sonnar. I may have conditioned myself through use to the Sonnars. But I prefer them. Plus Brian has been putting some stuff in my coffee. ;o)

Brian is more than a wizard, he is a necromancer. Be watchful if he gets near your coffee cup. ;o)

Quality affordable lenses now seem at the confluence of technical ability and low wages. I think that China will be dominant for a while. Thypoch has lenses I like. There is that new LLL Angenieux redux coming out and they know the business well enough to develop lenses. It looks good. For other shooters. I have plenty of gear. Sheesh, two pre-war Contax's. Older than me for crying out loud!
 
Ororaro said:
It is a philosophical question with philosophical answers.

I could never be contempt by lusting for a Original Steel Rim and ending up with a chinese lens called “Peace lens optics atelier”, and somehow (even remotely) feel satisfied.

There are indeed people who would gladly eat a porc Chop disguised as Japanese A7 Wagyu, and finding immense joy into believing it is indeed an A7 wagyu for the low sum of 1.99$… so…
Click to expand...
"content"......
 
I have the LLL SP 50mm because I own several Cooke lenses in other formats and love that look. The SP feels like it was carved from a block of metal. I was not interested in the other LLL offerings particularly the Leica copies but this S21 if not too expensive will be mine. 🙂
 
Rayt said:
I have the LLL SP 50mm because I own several Cooke lenses in other formats and love that look. The SP feels like it was carved from a block of metal. I was not interested in the other LLL offerings particularly the Leica copies but this S21 if not too expensive will be mine. 🙂
Click to expand...

I have an Amotal and understand you fondness for Cooke lenses and the "Cooke Look." I think the Thypoch Eureka is modeled off a Cooke design, too. Funny but Cooke may become more popular now than when they were making lenses for 35mm cameras. The Eureka is nice. The S21/Z21 is tempting, and the Cooke redux is interesting. So much tempting lens around. Tariffs will choke that.
 
boojum said:
I have an Amotal and understand you fondness for Cooke lenses and the "Cooke Look." I think the Thypoch Eureka is modeled off a Cooke design, too. Funny but Cooke may become more popular now than when they were making lenses for 35mm cameras. The Eureka is nice. The S21/Z21 is tempting, and the Cooke redux is interesting. So much tempting lens around. Tariffs will choke that.
Click to expand...

I had forgotten about the tariffs. Oh well.
 
Re Cooke, don't forget the original 50mm f1.5 Summarit -- some even badged "Taylor, Taylor & Hobson" and it's progeny, the first version 50mm Summilux f1.4. Lovely lenses. Summarits are very prone to haze resulting in excessively low contrast, murky images. I suspect that's why some people don't like them. Good clean copies can produce very beautiful images.
 
Last edited:
brusby said:
Re Cooke, don't forget the original 50mm f1.5 Summarit -- some even badged "Taylor, Taylor & Hobson" and it's progeny, the first version 50mm Summilux f1.4. Lovely lenses.
Click to expand...

I own the Summarit with the Xoons lens hood. Mine has clean glass having been overhauled by DAG. Day time use it flares easily. I’ll have to use it more but it needs to be stopped down. It’s a heavy lens and big with the hood thus why I don’t reach for it but I should.
 
Summarit after cleaning a couple of weeks ago. Shooting without a hood, wide open towards the setting sun and even including it in some shots. I love the way it handles backgrounds. Gives me a bit of a van Gogh Starry Night feel at times.

S1010689 by Brusby, on Flickr



S1010690 by Brusby, on Flickr




S1010696 by Brusby, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Robin Harrison
Camera Confessional
Replies
14
Views
3K
Robin Harrison
Robin Harrison
D
Bessa Body and Lens Purchase Advice Requested
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
david.elliott
D
JFH
35mm lens for specific project...
Replies
18
Views
2K
venchka
venchka
Avotius
Finally, The Carl Zeiss 28mm f2.8 Biogon Report
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
81K
redisburning
R
FrankS
50mm LTM lens: still looking
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
FrankS
FrankS
Back
Top Bottom