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

[raid]

They changed the leaded glass (which is also in the original 8-elements Summicron) to something else for the later production runs as far as I know.
I do not know if that constitutes "better" as one would have to bench test them against another, but I guess more authentic would be a way to put it.

Mine is a first run one.

I also received an early first run lens.it was sent back to LLL by Kevin to correct some aspect of cosmetics.

 

[yossi]

Just look at the color of the "red" dot and you'll see the difference.

Erik.

Haha Erik,

I have looked at mine and found another difference!
The LLL lens said "MADE IN MIDDLE KINGDOM". So it must be an authentic "knockoff" 😀


Joke aside, the LLL is a good performer, 8E Summicron it is NOT. (user's experience. )

Found this interesting definition from Google: "Knockoff: A product that resembles another item, but isn't exactly identical. Can be found online and in stores, often at reputable retailers or brands, usually at a cheaper price than the original items that inspired them. Not illegal, but can be challenged in court by the brand that inspired the design.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Arhha, prototype, like my friend Roy Moss who passed away long time ago was interesting in prototype, special serial numbers et al, the mysteries that surrounded Leica.

It doesn't have a name ring, the font of the lettering is different, the F-stops are not evenly placed (like on very old Leica lenses) and the coating is blue. No serial number.

Erik.

 

[raydm6]

^^^ OMG Erik, what a beautiful M2! And that patina!!

 

[Erik van Straten]

This is shot with a "real" 8 elements. I've had two of them for many years - one with goggles - but hardly used them as I prefer 50mm lenses. I bought them in the '80s for next to nothing. I sold them some time ago for a small fortune. Note the typical "dark (and unsharp) corners". The LLL-shots don't have those.

gelatin silver print (summicron 35mm f2 8 elements) leica m2

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

^^^ OMG Erik, what a beautiful M2! And that patina!!

Thank you, Rayd, yes, it is a black button rewind.

Erik.

 

[raid]

Your M2 and lens look great, Erik.
I also used to own two Leica 35/2 V1 Summicrons; one without goggles I traded + money, and I kept the one with goggles. Adding the LLL is like getting a similar lens back without goggles. I placed the LLL lens on my M9 a few days ago.

 

[Duofold RF]

Found this interesting definition from Google: "Knockoff: A product that resembles another item, but isn't exactly identical. Can be found online and in stores, often at reputable retailers or brands, usually at a cheaper price than the original items that inspired them. Not illegal, but can be challenged in court by the brand that inspired the design.

Prof Raid, is this the right definition for LLL lens?

 

[raid]

I don't know. All I know is that my LLL 35/2 worked out well for me. I do not know if Leica could challenge LLL in court these days. Haven't the patents for the original lens expired?

 

[Duofold RF]

I don't know. All I know is that my LLL 35/2 worked out well for me. I do not know if Leica could challenge LLL in court these days. Haven't the patents for the original lens expired?

Yes, the optical and barrel design patent expired, but the Leitz, Leica, Summicron trade names are not, so if LLL promote their lenses use Leica Summicron replica will infringe Leica's copy right, Leica can challenge LLL in court. But if Leica decided to go after LLL, good luck to find LLL/Mr. Zhou's business address to deliver the court documents. I guess Leica can summons Erik, he holds the prototype.

 

[Mark C]

This is shot with a "real" 8 elements. I've had two of them for many years - one with goggles - but hardly used them as I prefer 50mm lenses. I bought them in the '80s for next to nothing. I sold them some time ago for a small fortune. Note the typical "dark (and unsharp) corners". The LLL-shots don't have those.

gelatin silver print (summicron 35mm f2 8 elements) leica m2

Erik.

They were cheap when I got mine. I probably would have chosen the newer 6 element at the same price at that time. But the 8 element stayed my favorite for years for the available light work I did then; I had a couple of 6 elements pass through but just didn't like them as well. Now I use my current 6 element more than the 8, but I imagine that is just a change in what I do. I like the 6 element fine except at f2.8 where the corners look unpleasant to me.

Erik, do you recall if yours were Canada or Wetzlar? I know it is an unpopular idea, but I still wonder if there is a difference. Do you have a guess what aperture you shot was taken at? All these lenses had some vignetting at full aperture, but gone on mine by f4 or 5.6? I saw a surprising amount of variation in full aperture vignetting on the ones I tried and that trend may have continued stopped down though I don't recall. I really should have bought the black copy I tried even if my chrome one seemed slightly better; that would have been better for my wallet.

 

[Erik van Straten]

They were cheap when I got mine. I probably would have chosen the newer 6 element at the same price at that time. But the 8 element stayed my favorite for years for the available light work I did then; I had a couple of 6 elements pass through but just didn't like them as well. Now I use my current 6 element more than the 8, but I imagine that is just a change in what I do. I like the 6 element fine except at f2.8 where the corners look unpleasant to me.

Erik, do you recall if yours were Canada or Wetzlar? I know it is an unpopular idea, but I still wonder if there is a difference. Do you have a guess what aperture you shot was taken at? All these lenses had some vignetting at full aperture, but gone on mine by f4 or 5.6? I saw a surprising amount of variation in full aperture vignetting on the ones I tried and that trend may have continued stopped down though I don't recall. I really should have bought the black copy I tried even if my chrome one seemed slightly better; that would have been better for my wallet.

Mine were both Wetzlar. The shot I took was at f5.6.

The six element lenses were black. The eight element were almost alll chrome (silver aluminium, just as the Summarons), only a very few were black, Cartier-Bresson had a black one with a rather special infinity lock.
When I got my first steel rim (Summilux 35) I was blown away by its quality. These lenses are great for portraits. I found the steel rims with serial numbers beginning with "204" or "214" at full aperture much better than the ones with a number beginning with "17", but later I started to love the "17's", like this one:

gelatin silver print (steel rim summilux 35mm f1.4 no.177...) leica m2

Erik.

 

[Dustfinder]

Yes, the optical and barrel design patent expired, but the Leitz, Leica, Summicron trade names are not, so if LLL promote their lenses use Leica Summicron replica will infringe Leica's copy right, Leica can challenge LLL in court. But if Leica decided to go after LLL, good luck to find LLL/Mr. Zhou's business address to deliver the court documents. I guess Leica can summons Erik, he holds the prototype.

That's an interesting point, and I think this article shed some light on the subject.

https://www.gfrlaw.com/what-we-do/i...fectly acceptable and,owner of the other mark.

 

[Mark C]

Mine were both Wetzlar. The shot I took was at f5.6.

The six element lenses were black. The eight element were almost alll chrome, only a very few were black, Cartier-Bresson had a black one with a rather special infinity lock.
When I got my first steel rim I was blown away by its quality. These lenses are great for portraits. I found the steel rims with serial numbers beginning with "204" or "214" at full aperture much better than the ones with a number beginning with "17", but later I started to love the "17's", like this one:

gelatin silver print (steel rim summilux 35mm f1.4 no.177...) leica m2

Erik.

That is interesting. My impression was that the variation was not related to country of manufacture, but really wasn't sure. I didn't really pay any attention to that at the time I had 4 or 5 here.

The black lens I mentioned is an 8 element; I've had it apart for cleaning. This design seems prone to slight haze that is easily cleaned. I'll probably see the lens again in the next couple months and will get the serial number and take a picture of it. I think they are part black paint and part anodized due to the materials used. I was with a friend when he got the lens on an M2, plus there was an M4mot with the set so possibly a connection to that. The M2 had an interesting backstory that I'll share somewhere more appropriate one day.

I also later compared my 8 element to the V4 7 element lens when that was all the rage. I found the 8 element sharper across the field and was surprised there did not seem to be all that much contrast difference. The 8 element is still a lovely lens design and I'm glad the LLL replica made it more generally available. A believe the glass for one of the elements was sort of a break through at the time for Leitz and for Mandler.

 

[raid]

My V1 35/2 is a German made lens (chrome). It is a sharp lens overall. When I review some of my images on a large monitor, I am always pleasantly surprised by the details shown from this lens.
By the way, my first ever Leica M was a M4-MOT. I quickly sold it so that I would not get addicted to Leica cameras!

 

[Duofold RF]

That's an interesting point, and I think this article shed some light on the subject.

Thanks.

From the site "It is perfectly acceptable and within the bounds of the law to use another’s trademark in advertising, provided certain standards are met. The advertisement must be truthful and the use of another’s trademark must not give a false impression of connection, approval or sponsorship by the owner of the other mark. Further, the use must not tarnish the reputation of the mark being used. While this test may sound simple, its application has confounded lawyers and advertising executives. Whether the issue is comparative advertising, use of a parody, tarnishment or fair use, these same trademark principles are applied."

Not sure about Chinese law, does poor QC tarnish Leica reputation?

 

[Duofold RF]

Also I am not sure the recent re-issue Leica 50mmf1.2 can prevent LLL market/sell its knock off copy of 50mmf1.2.

 

[raid]

They could add "not an exact replica" to their ads, and they would be fine.

 

[Duofold RF]

They could add "not an exact replica" to their ads, and they would be fine.

Ohhh, should be like “Chinese made Leica Simmicron 35mm f2 eight elements replica - not an exact copy” does this description fits knock off perfectly?

 

[Erik van Straten]

In 112, above, I wrote "The eight element were almost alll chrome", but that is wrong, it was not chrome, but silver aluminium, just as the Summarons. The steel rims were chrome and their front piece - to mount the shade - was stainless steel.

Erik.