LLL 35/2 Replica - One year later, how do you feel about your lens?

[raid]

My copy turned out to be an excellent lens. I decided to turn to CV lenses after getting this LLL lens, though. There is a solid warranty and we know who is doing what in the lens. With LLL we could get lucky or we get something that has QC issues, as many people here have experienced. They had a good start.

 

[Mark C]

I still think the original Leitz lens is better in term of images and build quality. These images are from Leitz Summincron 35mm f2 version 1, not from LLL knock off copy

As far as image quality, it probably depends on the particular Leica V1 you are comparing to, and of course the particular LLL. Some of the comparisons at the time seemed remarkably similar to nearly identical.

I'm not normally a person that thinks lens variations are that big a deal, but when I was picking out my Summicron V1 I had a handful to try out and was a bit surprised at the variation in wide open performance. Edge sharpness and vignetting in particular varied more than I would have expected. I wish I'd kept better notes of serial numbers and country of manufacture to see if there was any pattern, but all I really cared about was picking a 35 to use. All were fine, but I kept the one I thought was best of course. I imagine differences stopped down were insignificant.

I've forgotten whether the LLL tried to duplicate the coatings; I seem to remember some variation in the originals.

 

[Duofold RF]

LLL from the beginning as a Leica enthusiasts project has become a mission to profit on Leica's or Zeiss's name. It is a one man operation contract to unknown manufacture - like many luxury brand fake watches came from there, they might keep good time, but still not a real one. LLL has difficulty to manufacture Zeiss knock off clone 15mmf8, and unable to make a gradient gray filter, LLL lenses is like a box of chocolate you do not know what do you get.

 

[splitimageview]

Someone doesn't like LLL but for no real technical reason. 😛

They are now coming out with a collapsible 35/2.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I am not the OP, but find the reactions to this lens interesting. Seems like about an 80-20 split in favor of the new offering. About 10 years ago, something burned out in me in terms of desire for new stuff. Lord knows, I have more equipment than I will ever wear out at this point. I will say though that after a period in the 90's and 2000's when I could afford what Leica was making and selling, we turned some kind of unholy Veblen-good corner in the last 10 years in terms of Leica pricing. It is a common-enough complaint. I mainly mention it here because it seems like a lot of Chinese manufacturers have stepped into the market void created by Leica's ascendancy to the stratosphere. More power to 'em, I say. We have a lot of choices, and that is a fine thing.

 

[bluesun267]

The strange thing about lenses is once you throw out the obviously faulty ones and start comparing the others side by side (staying within the same family/focal length and format/sensor size) differences seem so minor/negligible you start to question your sanity in preferring a specific lens at all. I don't mean extreme magnification, where certainly resolution differences can be made obvious (esp. wide open) but the overall signature of a lens.

For lack of a better excuse, it seems to me like a quantum effect: where the act of observation (or in this case comparison) actually changes the behavior of the thing(s) being observed.

So one could rigorously compare a Summicron V1 with the LLL side-by-side on every film/sensor imaginable until the end of time and the only conclusion could be that the LLL is a very faithful reproduction of the original. But this would never explain why one or the other just works for any individual photographer in everyday use.

And I'm not trying to create some new Leica quantum entanglement myth either. I could easily do this same test with the Summicron Rigid 50 vs. the newer Summicron V3, 4 or 5 and while I might not even be able to distinguish 2 identically exposed/composed comparison shots made at the same time; let me take each lens out alone for a shooting session and it would be the Rigid that wins for me every time.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I could easily do this same test with the Summicron Rigid 50 vs. the newer Summicron V3, 4 or 5 and while I might not even be able to distinguish 2 identically exposed/composed comparison shots made at the same time; let me take each lens out alone for a shooting session and it would be the Rigid that wins for me every time.

I agree, the Rigid is a seven element lens that is extremely sharp altough its contrast is slightly lower than that of the later Summicrons. The later lenses have more contrast, but do not show more detail than the Rigid. The Rigid gives a finer and more atmospheric image in which more extremely fine details are visible. The high contrast of the later lenses blows the fine details away, as it were. That is how I see it.

gelatin silver print (summicron 50mm f2 rigid) leica m3

Erik.

 

[das]

We went from too few Leica M and M39 lenses to too many from 1999 to the present. What does the LL lens bring to the table exactly?

 

[Bill Blackwell]

... What does the LL lens bring to the table exactly?

They're Chinese-made low-cost alternatives to rare collectible high-cost classic Leica lenses. In other words - "Cheap"!

Even so (setting aside barrel design), LLL lenses are more expensive than better-made and higher QC Voigtlander lenses - viable alternatives without the original "classic" barrel design. IMHO, if LLL prices were lower (I'd say by half), they'd more than make it up with higher sales volumes.

 

[raid]

I agree, the Rigid is a seven element lens that is extremely sharp altough its contrast is slightly lower than that of the later Summicrons. The later lenses have more contrast, but do not show more detail than the Rigid. The Rigid gives a finer and more atmospheric image in which more extremely fine details are visible. The high contrast of the later lenses blows the fine details away, as it were. That is how I see it.

gelatin silver print (summicron 50mm f2 rigid) leica m3

Erik.

This why I have two rigid Summicron 50/2 lenses, plus a DR version. This lens is so special to me. I once compared over 20 50mm lenses, and the rigid Cron did very well there.

 

[bluesun267]

I was recently comparing a 1957 DR Cron to my Topcor-S 50/2 LTM (Black version) and the only tangible difference in rendering I could identify is the Cron appears to have slightly shallower depth-of-field at identical f-stops. I'm not sure if this is even the right term. Let's just say there seemed to be an impression of increased separation between the focus point and the out-of-focus elements on an identical picture taken with both lenses. Extremely subtle though! I had to scrutinize each set of identical images many dozens of times in about 30 different shots to come to this conclusion! (Thinking back, it may be what I'm seeing is a slight difference in true focal length--the DR is a 51.9mm lens and the Topcor perhaps is closer to an exact 50 though they don't mark this either on the barrel or inside the lens from what I've seen).

The sharpness at infinity, at least on B/W film, was nearly identical at most f-stops for these two lenses. A real score for the Topcor! Wide-open the Summicron had more even rendering across the frame, but less apparent sharpness. Topcor appeared to retain more detail in the center due to quite a bit higher contrast at F2 (but if you zoom way in, the same details are present in the Cron shots.) Topcor had obvious smearing at the extremes of the frame at f2 (Cron also, but to a lesser degree). Contrast though was slightly higher at all f-stops on the Topcor but at F2 the difference was dramatic in favor of the Topcor. (I think this is why I like the colors from the Topcor so much on slide film--it's a punchy, saturated lens). At f4 and up, contrast was very close between the two.

I was just trying to identify what exactly it is about the Cron that I love so much (particularly on B/W film); neither the sharpness or depth-of-field/bokeh quality really nails it down for me though.

I just keep thinking there is something more "cohesive" or "unified" about the images from the Cron.

 

[coogee]

I hope LLL someday make a replica of the 50 Rigid Summicron, I was surprised they focused on the obscure Elcan and esoteric Noctilux lenses.

Like the 35 8-element, so many 50 Rigids now have haze and other serious signs of deterioration from age, hardly surprising given they are 60+ year old lenses.

I expect like the 8 element, their cost will continue to climb and become increasingly unaffordable.

I like my LLL 35mm lens. It continues to be what I'd consider a good enough for me replica of the 35mm Summicron lens. To call it a 'knock off copy' seems pretty churlish. It's not like there are a lot of manufacturers in business in this niche sector. I support them all!

 

[raid]

A DR Summicron that fits a Leica M would be a good replica as the DR cannot be used on a Leica without removing the close up goggles.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Like the 35 8-element, so many 50 Rigids now have haze and other serious signs of deterioration from age, hardly surprising given they are 60+ year old lenses.

One sad morning, maybe ten years or longer ago, I looked through my rigid and what did I see? It was almost completely fogged. It was as if it had frozen inside the lens. White circular spots were visible, which were glued to the lens elements on both sides of the aperture. My very experienced repairman said he wanted to try to remove the deposit, but he couldn't guarantee that it could be done completely without causing damage. It is extremely difficult to reach the inner lens elements of a rigid. He succeeded, but not without leaving traces of opening the lens. The lens is now very clear and works well, but somehow the image reproduction is no longer 100% as it was before the fog appeared.

After the cleaning:

gelatin silver print (summicron 50mm f2 rigid) leica m3

Erik.

 

[james.liam]

I would rather see Leica resurrect the 35 Summaron and 50 Rigid as part of their historical series. They’d make perfect additions to the 28 Summaron.

 

[coogee]

One sad morning, maybe ten years or longer ago, I looked through my rigid and what did I see? It was almost completely fogged. It was as if it had frozen inside the lens. White circular spots were visible, which were glued to the lens elements on both sides of the aperture. My very experienced repairman said he wanted to try to remove the deposit, but he couldn't guarantee that it could be done completely without causing damage. It is extremely difficult to reach the inner lens elements of a rigid. He succeeded, but not without leaving traces of opening the lens. The lens is now very clear and works well, but somehow the image reproduction is no longer 100% as it was before the fog appeared.

After the cleaning:

gelatin silver print (summicron 50mm f2 rigid) leica m3

Erik.

A sad sight to see when these lenses do fog suddenly or elements separate etc. No real going back in time I suppose, only forwards, so the more the merrier and if you have a classic lens in good condition then use it to expose film to light - today!

 

[Duofold RF]

I hope LLL someday make a replica of the 50 Rigid Summicron, I was surprised they focused on the obscure Elcan and esoteric Noctilux lenses…..l

It’s coming…..

 

[bluesun267]

It’s coming…..

Wow, seriously? Cool. I hope they have the sense to make it focus to .7m and .7m ONLY (not less & not more!)

But this lens In LTM with .7m would be like dying and going to heaven for me.

 

[james.liam]

Cool? Seriously? More lenses without QC. More zero customer support. More mythical stories of exotic glass and their mystical Maker.

More brazen knockoff-ism. And you all encourage this theft by celebrating it.

 

[raid]

With a price of a LLL replica around $1000, it is not a bargain at all. Get a clean used Rigid Summicron instead if you like this lens so much (as I do).