Photar
Well-known
That's what I did, stating my personal opinion. Did not want to offend you.
The Mandler 35mm f2
- Thread starter Archiver
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 25
- Views 2K
Freakscene
Obscure member
I’m not offended at all.
Out to Lunch
Veteran
At least within the EU, not an issue of copyright protection. Trademark protection could come into play but only if at some point in time the name Mandler was registered as a trademark.
Duofold RF
Well-known
Asked Grok who is not a lawyer
Yes, a Chinese manufacturer using “Mandler” as a brand name and “Summicron” on the packaging for their lenses would likely constitute trademark infringement (not copyright infringement, which applies to creative works like designs or writings rather than brand identifiers). Here’s a breakdown of why, based on the context of the Mandler 35mm f/2 lens and similar replicas:
Trademark Issues with “Summicron”
• Leica’s Ownership: “Summicron” is a registered trademark of Leica Camera AG, specifically for their f/2 lenses (a naming convention dating back to the 1950s). It’s protected in major jurisdictions, including the EU, US, and China, to prevent consumer confusion. Using it on non-Leica products implies affiliation or endorsement, which dilutes Leica’s brand and misleads buyers into thinking it’s an official or compatible Leica product.
• Infringement Risk: Third-party manufacturers cannot use Leica’s trademarks on their goods without permission. While copying the optical formula (e.g., the 7-element design of the 1979 Summicron 35mm f/2) isn’t infringement—lens designs aren’t copyrightable in most cases and are often reverse-engineered legally—the branding crosses the line. Packaging with “Summicron” could lead to cease-and-desist letters, lawsuits, or seizures, as seen in past Leica disputes over knockoffs (e.g., fake Leica-branded accessories).
• Real-World Examples: Chinese replicas like the Polar Solaron-M 35mm f/2 or Light Lens Lab’s versions avoid “Summicron” entirely, calling them “inspired by” or “replicas of the 7-element 35mm f/2” to skirt issues. If “Summicron” appears on the box, it’s a red flag for infringement.
Trademark Issues with “Mandler”
• Walter Mandler’s Legacy: Dr. Walter Mandler (1922–2005) was Leica’s legendary optical designer, credited with over 45 iconic lenses, including multiple Summicrons. His name isn’t a Leica trademark per se, but using it as a brand (e.g., “Mandler Lenses”) exploits his association with Leica, potentially violating right of publicity laws (if his estate controls his name) or causing “passing off” (falsely suggesting Leica endorsement).
• Ethical and Legal Concerns: Reviewers and photographers have called this “cheeky” or “appropriation,” noting it feels like hijacking Mandler’s reputation without permission from his family or Leica. No evidence exists of licensing, and Leica has a history of protecting its heritage (e.g., suing over “Leica-look” fakes). In China, where the Mandler lens originates, enforcement is laxer, but international sales could trigger disputes.
• Company Background: The Mandler brand emerged in 2025 as a rebrand of Polar Optics (after quality complaints), selling the same Summicron replica with a new logo. This opacity raises further red flags for IP issues.
Broader Context and Advice
• No Active Lawsuits (Yet): As of November 2025, there’s no public record of Leica suing over the Mandler lens specifically, but the product’s low profile (no official website, limited US launch) suggests it’s flying under the radar. Leica often targets blatant copies aggressively.
• Buyer Beware: These lenses (~$600–$1,000) appeal to Leica M users seeking affordable “vintage” optics, but quality varies (e.g., inconsistent coatings, build). If you’re considering one, verify the packaging—avoid anything with “Summicron” to steer clear of fakes or legal headaches.
• Alternatives: Opt for established third-parties like 7Artisans 35mm f/2 (~$300, no branding issues) or Voigtländer Nokton, which homage designs without infringing.
In short, this isn’t just ethically dubious—it’s legally risky for the manufacturer and confusing for consumers. Leica’s trademarks are fiercely guarded to maintain their premium status. If you’re the manufacturer or a reseller, consult an IP lawyer; if you’re a buyer, stick to reputable sources.
Yes, a Chinese manufacturer using “Mandler” as a brand name and “Summicron” on the packaging for their lenses would likely constitute trademark infringement (not copyright infringement, which applies to creative works like designs or writings rather than brand identifiers). Here’s a breakdown of why, based on the context of the Mandler 35mm f/2 lens and similar replicas:
Trademark Issues with “Summicron”
• Leica’s Ownership: “Summicron” is a registered trademark of Leica Camera AG, specifically for their f/2 lenses (a naming convention dating back to the 1950s). It’s protected in major jurisdictions, including the EU, US, and China, to prevent consumer confusion. Using it on non-Leica products implies affiliation or endorsement, which dilutes Leica’s brand and misleads buyers into thinking it’s an official or compatible Leica product.
• Infringement Risk: Third-party manufacturers cannot use Leica’s trademarks on their goods without permission. While copying the optical formula (e.g., the 7-element design of the 1979 Summicron 35mm f/2) isn’t infringement—lens designs aren’t copyrightable in most cases and are often reverse-engineered legally—the branding crosses the line. Packaging with “Summicron” could lead to cease-and-desist letters, lawsuits, or seizures, as seen in past Leica disputes over knockoffs (e.g., fake Leica-branded accessories).
• Real-World Examples: Chinese replicas like the Polar Solaron-M 35mm f/2 or Light Lens Lab’s versions avoid “Summicron” entirely, calling them “inspired by” or “replicas of the 7-element 35mm f/2” to skirt issues. If “Summicron” appears on the box, it’s a red flag for infringement.
Trademark Issues with “Mandler”
• Walter Mandler’s Legacy: Dr. Walter Mandler (1922–2005) was Leica’s legendary optical designer, credited with over 45 iconic lenses, including multiple Summicrons. His name isn’t a Leica trademark per se, but using it as a brand (e.g., “Mandler Lenses”) exploits his association with Leica, potentially violating right of publicity laws (if his estate controls his name) or causing “passing off” (falsely suggesting Leica endorsement).
• Ethical and Legal Concerns: Reviewers and photographers have called this “cheeky” or “appropriation,” noting it feels like hijacking Mandler’s reputation without permission from his family or Leica. No evidence exists of licensing, and Leica has a history of protecting its heritage (e.g., suing over “Leica-look” fakes). In China, where the Mandler lens originates, enforcement is laxer, but international sales could trigger disputes.
• Company Background: The Mandler brand emerged in 2025 as a rebrand of Polar Optics (after quality complaints), selling the same Summicron replica with a new logo. This opacity raises further red flags for IP issues.
Broader Context and Advice
• No Active Lawsuits (Yet): As of November 2025, there’s no public record of Leica suing over the Mandler lens specifically, but the product’s low profile (no official website, limited US launch) suggests it’s flying under the radar. Leica often targets blatant copies aggressively.
• Buyer Beware: These lenses (~$600–$1,000) appeal to Leica M users seeking affordable “vintage” optics, but quality varies (e.g., inconsistent coatings, build). If you’re considering one, verify the packaging—avoid anything with “Summicron” to steer clear of fakes or legal headaches.
• Alternatives: Opt for established third-parties like 7Artisans 35mm f/2 (~$300, no branding issues) or Voigtländer Nokton, which homage designs without infringing.
In short, this isn’t just ethically dubious—it’s legally risky for the manufacturer and confusing for consumers. Leica’s trademarks are fiercely guarded to maintain their premium status. If you’re the manufacturer or a reseller, consult an IP lawyer; if you’re a buyer, stick to reputable sources.
Last edited:
Duofold RF
Well-known
Then Grok give this:
Fake, knockoff, replica, or wannabe products have a market because people buy them for self-satisfaction.
Most buyers don’t want to fool experts—they want to fool themselves (and casual observers) just enough to feel the fantasy. The replica isn’t about deception; it’s emotional compensation for what they can’t (yet) afford.
Quote from a replica buyer (Reddit, 2025):
“I know it’s not real Leica glass. But when I mount it on my M10, I feel like I belong in that world. That’s worth $600 to me.”
Fake, knockoff, replica, or wannabe products have a market because people buy them for self-satisfaction.
Most buyers don’t want to fool experts—they want to fool themselves (and casual observers) just enough to feel the fantasy. The replica isn’t about deception; it’s emotional compensation for what they can’t (yet) afford.
Quote from a replica buyer (Reddit, 2025):
“I know it’s not real Leica glass. But when I mount it on my M10, I feel like I belong in that world. That’s worth $600 to me.”
Duofold RF
Well-known
Per LLL info, they are using moulded methods different from the original. You got a knockoff, not even a true replica.
Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 "Aspherical" in Production
Hello Everyone, After two years of continuous development and refinement, we are pleased to announce that production of the Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical "11873" has officially begun. The lens will be available for order in the last quarter of 2025. A prototype of the 35mm f/1.4...
lightlenslab.com
Last edited:
