Noctilux 50/1.2 AA replica

[David Murphy]

Personally I find these LLL products, to the extent they actually appear (like the rumored Leica III copy), to be every exciting and positive developments - especially for film users. I welcome them all.

 

[David Murphy]

The Leica "ASPH" lenses (rather than "aspherical') are made with pressed aspheres, according to Leica. The reason for the "ASPH" name is to distinguish them from the ground ones, as used in the 35mm Aspherical Summilux.

Interesting distinction, thanks for clarifying that. However I still cannot see how a pressed surface can hold a figure to tolerances less than a wavelength of light. Perhaps designs that use pressed surfaces these don't require that level of precision (doubtful), or maybe a post polishing is involved.

 

[Freakscene]

Interesting distinction, thanks for clarifying that. However I still cannot see how a pressed surface can hold a figure to tolerances less than a wavelength of light. Perhaps designs that use pressed surfaces these don't require that level of precision (doubtful), or maybe a post polishing is involved.

Almost all camera lens aspherical elements are produced by precision moulding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_glass_moulding
Most elements are made by processes that do not use polishing or post-moulding finishing. The much discussed onion ring bokeh is a result of residual ridges on the glass of aspherical elements from the mould. Panasonic and Sony have advertised that they have manufacturing processes that avoid this. Ways to remedy that pre-date precision moulding, but are hard to implement.

Marty

 

[David Murphy]

Almost all camera lens aspherical elements are produced by precision moulding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_glass_moulding
Most elements are made by processes that do not use polishing or post-moulding finishing. The much discussed onion ring bokeh is a result of residual ridges on the glass of aspherical elements from the mould. Panasonic and Sony have advertised that they have manufacturing processes that avoid this. Ways to remedy that pre-date precision moulding, but are hard to implement.

Marty

According to that article, the wavefront tolerances are (PV): < 1 µm, very impressive (to me at least). I wonder how much it costs to tool up a manufacturing facility like this. But I am wondering off topic...!

 

[weihsuan]

Leica has already "revived" this lens. Barrel design notwithstanding, unless the LLL optical formula is completely reworked compared to the original 50mm AA f/1.2, they could/should find themselves in a legal battle over patent rights.

Besides, unless the LLL lens turns out to be really cheap, I believe the CV 50mm f/1.2 is likely a better bet on all counts.

The patent system in most countries are set up as a quid pro quo (exchange) between an inventor and the government to encourage innovation. The quid pro quo being a technical disclosure to the public by the inventor in exchange for a limited time monopoly (typically 20 years) granted by the government, this instead of perpetual protection over the disclosed technical solution / lens product.

Assuming Leica had patents in the 60s covering aspects of the 50AA1.2 (expired for perhaps 40yrs?), allowing anyone in the public (which includes LLL) to remake the previously patented solution is precisely what the patent system was designed to do.

 

[Bille]

About time. Always wondered why the Chinese werent quicker in simply copying classic designs.

 

[Duofold RF]

It is a reversed engineering, no blue print, only by dismantling products to guess material, design et al, the end products like most fake/Shan Zhai (crudely copied goods),they are just look like products, nothing to do with the concept of “replica”. The Leica 50mmf1.2 is a replica, The LLL is not, it is a Shan Zhai goods to fulfill the needs of these people who use to buy fake Rolex or bag.

 

[raid]

It is a reversed engineering, no blue print, only by dismantling products to guess material, design et al, the end products like most fake/Shan Zhai (crudely copied goods),they are just look like products, nothing to do with the concept of “replica”. The Leica 50mmf1.2 is a replica, The LLL is not, it is a Shan Zhai goods to fulfill the needs of these people who use to buy fake Rolex or bag.

Isn't the Leica lens an "original"?

The Leica 50mmf1.2 is a replica

 

[Duofold RF]

Isn't the Leica lens an "original"?

The Leica 50mmf1.2 is a replica

Definition of replica
1: an exact reproduction (as of a painting) executed by the original artists
2: a copy exact in all details

the re-run of 50mmf1.2 by Leica is a replica of original Leica 50mmf1,2 by definition, LLL lens is not a replica, you can call it Leica Lens wannabe or Shan Zhai Leica lens

 

[David Murphy]

Sorry to nit-pick this concept, but isn't the Leica 50mm F1.2 really simply a re-issue of the early 60's version? This seems very similar (to me) to the Nikon S3 and SP re-issues in the early 2000's replete with re-issued prime lenses.

 

[Duofold RF]

In the case of Leica 50mmf1.2 use reissue or replica are both fine. But not for LLL

 

[MaZo]

One Reddit user published samples from the prototype:

https://imgur.com/gallery/PnZj739

https://imgur.com/gallery/OCDUruA

 

[Erik van Straten]

I like the test shots, I'd love to see a comparison with Leitz's original 1966 50mm f1.2 and Leica's new one from 2022!

Erik.

 

[sebastel]

I like the test shots, I'd love to see a comparison with Leitz's original 1966 50mm f1.2 and Leica's new one from 2022!

Erik.

I'd like to add the Nokton 50mm f/1.2 to the list

 

[MaZo]

The test photos poster who, as I understand , is connected to LLL, gave some interesting remarks about the AA replica in a Reddit discussion. Main points:

1. The reference for the lens is – obviously – a 1966 version. Yet he mentions that the new Leica version isn't the same as the original version (chemical components in the glass and coating)

2. Replica's aspherical elements are all hand polished. As he claims, they don't use machine polish at all.

„Currently failure rate for ASPH elements is about 70% (which is a lot if this is to be in production). So far the lens in the post is the only successful lens that we made! There is A LOT of refinement that needs to be done to be done before production.”

„We specialize in making vintage glass down to the exact same chemical components of glass (lead/lanthanide elements) coating, and similar quality tolerance (all hand made).”

3. About the bokeh:

„Bokeh characteristics are our major concern at the moment and we also see the difference [compared to the 1966 lens] as well. More work will be done.”

4. I asked specifically about the price and availability. The answer was that the price is supposed to be similar to 1/50 Nokton.

5. As for the availability, in other reply he mentioned 2023.

 

[maddoc]

I think it is almost impossible to copy some of the original glasses developed in the Leitz glass laboratory. Interesting article here: https://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-leitz-leica-glass-research.html

1. The reference for the lens is – obviously – a 1966 version. Yet he mentions that the new Leica version isn't the same as the original version (chemical components in the glass and coating)

 

[Duofold RF]

I think it is almost impossible to copy some of the original glasses developed in the Leitz glass laboratory. Interesting article here: https://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-leitz-leica-glass-research.html

Only Leitz/Leica has the information

 

[MaZo]

Comparison: original '66 Noctilux 1.2/50 AA - current Leica Noctilux 1.2/50 - prototype 1.2/50 AA

The poster added: "Please don't use the light lens lab one as a comparison. The prototype lens that was used was deemed a failure."

Anyway, interesting to look at the differences:

https://imgur.com/a/cYW1qG9

 

[zuiko85]

Way back, about 1977 when I was working at a small camera store the 50 f1 Noctilux came out. The owner bought one copy to play around with and then sell. He loaded up some Kodak color film and shot a roll of night shots around the Loop (downtown Chicago). I very well remember the coma around streetlights in the corners when shot wide open. Stopping down to f2 really helped. The coma was barely worse than my lowly 50 f1.8 Zuiko wide open. Now I have that super cheap TTArtisan 50 f1.2 (the fastest lens I’ve ever owned in my 73 years). Wide open it has a wonderful glow…or is it just low contrast, when used on a 4:3 mirrorless. How about that! Don’t even need a fog filter to get that.

 

[Bille]

Way back, about 1977 when I was working at a small camera store the 50 f1 Noctilux came out. The owner bought one copy to play around with and then sell. He loaded up some Kodak color film and shot a roll of night shots around the Loop (downtown Chicago). I very well remember the coma around streetlights in the corners when shot wide open. Stopping down to f2 really helped. The coma was barely worse than my lowly 50 f1.8 Zuiko wide open. Now I have that super cheap TTArtisan 50 f1.2 (the fastest lens I’ve ever owned in my 73 years). Wide open it has a wonderful glow…or is it just low contrast, when used on a 4:3 mirrorless. How about that! Don’t even need a fog filter to get that.

Try the Meike 50mm 0.95 for APS-C. Its "foggy" wide open (but cool for portraits) and sharp as expected stopped down.