The 28mm f/2.8 9E — nine-element — was Leica’s first 28mm Elmarit. And I have had the good fortune to evaluate a brand-new version of this historic optic made by Light Lens Lab. The new lens references Leica’s first Elmarit, the lens perhaps best known for not being able to meter correctly on film Leicas of the time because its rear elements protruded too far backwards.
I never owned the 28mm f/2.8 9E but was aware that it was quite average optically — however, those were not the days when fast wide-angles excelled. Because of its ergonomics, this lens was superseded by other Leitz 28mm Elmarits that were built with retro-focus designs — much smaller and without the need to have the rear element near the focal plane. Eventually, Leitz developed very fine 28 Elmarits due to Walter Mandler’s designs.
The 28mm story
The story of Leitz’s 28mm focal length lenses is well known, but here is a précis: In the 1930s, Zeiss with its Contax and Leitz raced to develop 28mm lenses for the 35mm format. Zeiss came out with a 28/8 Tessar in 1933, and Leitz had to catch up and surpass them with its 28/6.3 Hektor in 1935. Both lenses could only be used in bright light, or tripod-mounted. Dr. Paul Wolff used the Hektor this way, tightly closed down for many of his magnificent portraits of workers at their workstations.
Postwar, in 1955, Leitz introduced its 28/5.6 Summaron, a lens with fine performance despite its modest aperture; and of course now we have a re-introduced version of the Summaron which works admirably with the extended ISO of modern digital cameras. Nikon introduced a 28/3.5 in 1952, and it was available in LSM; its optical diagram looks a lot like the Summaron, and it was a decent performer. Canon had a 28/3.5 Serenar from 1951, and a 28/2.8 Canon Lens from 1956. I have never tried either, unlike with the Nikkor.
Leitz knew it needed a faster and more modern 28mm focal length. From the earlier work with Schneider on the two 21mm Super Angulons, Wetzlar developed its own similar nine-element optical layout for a 28/2.8, the update of which I just received. The performance of this lens is described as having medium contrast but good centre sharpness wide open, with lesser performance in the outer zones. Opinion had it that this 1960s lens, and the following (retrofocus) Elmarit were both fairly similar performance-wise, the latter because Leitz was still a relative newbie at retrofocus designs. Dr. Mandler was not involved until the next (third) version, in which performance was at SOTA level going forward many years.
Why has Light Lens Lab decided to make this lens?
LLL is currently working on several lens designs, including perfecting the 35/1.4 AA which I tested a while ago, as well as at least one very advanced original lens that I know of. Here is what I have heard from Mr. Zhou, via David Yu-Heng Chen the company’s North American representative. Mr. Zhou felt in the interim that because his firm had not marketed a 28mm focal length lens, that they would try to emulate the nine-element 28mm f/2.8 9E. They chose this lens because of its relative rarity, its beautiful appearance, and possible collector status.
Mr Zhou, adds:
“However, this lens will be our first time not following the original design in terms of the chemical composition of the optical elements. The reason behind this change is that the quality of the original 28mm f/2.8 “Nine Element,” was deemed unsatisfactory in terms of rendering and performance upon our testing. So, we have worked upon it to improve it.
“The Nine Element has unique rendering characteristics within the Double-Gauss family. We have closely followed the original design and its MTF information from a field of view starting at zero degrees and upwards to the full field of view. However, while we have followed the form and the scale of the MTF original’s curves, by our changes we made improvements upon all contrast transfer ranges in terms of lp/mm1Line Pairs per Millimetre. For example, the 40 lp/mm of the New Nine Element shares approximately the same data information as the contrast transfer of the 20 lp/mm of the original’s MTF information.
“This improvement in the contrast transfer also applies to all ranges of lines/mm throughout all fields of view (with the most importance regarding rendering performance in the corners). We have made only marginal improvements in the centre because we wish to retain the classic good rendering characteristics in this area.
28mm f/2.8 9E: Retained or changed
“Again, I will have to re-iterate the things that we have changed and those we retained — we have retained the classical exterior aesthetics, the original nine-elements-in-six-group design. Speaking of which, during the design phase of this 28mm f/2.8 9E, we concluded that this group design must be retained; while it is an old design in terms of optical technology and challenging to produce, it benefits by keeping the physical size of the lens within its original limits. However, while we are retaining the same optical configuration, we have had to change the type of some optical elements.
“The original lens had poor performance; we changed one of the elements inside to an Extra-Low Dispersion (ED) glass (specifically, the sixth inner element). The result of the change was a marginal increase in resolution in the centre, a drastic increase in resolution in the corners and edges, and drastically minimised distortion and chromatic aberration. Out-of-focus characteristics are now more rounded, with a pleasant circular out-of-focus bokeh. We eliminated the red-fringing that occurred with digital camera sensors with the original lens.
“With our focus on specialised glass-element development and manufacturing, we discovered that to make the improvements that we aimed for during our development phase, we had to replace an element. We used our own entirely new fluorite-like glass designed specifically for the task. Such proprietary development is an entirely new endeavour for us.
“In production and construction, we have used brass alloy as our body material. Be aware that the original Nine Element exterior body is made with aluminium, which means the Light Lens Lab version will be slightly heavier. The lens will come in two different finishes — Brass Black Paint and Brass Silver Chrome.
Patina
“The black paint finish will develop a nice patina from regular use, while the chrome will have a very clean and new aesthetic even after long-term use. The original 12501 lens hood was expensive back in the day, and it is now a collector item with a high price. The lens hood has a unique shape, resulting in complicated production and a high failure rate. To allow more manageable production, it was made of plastic and rubber.
“We use all-metal (more specifically aluminium) construction for our lens hood (which is included within the package). Upon our testing, the metal construction of our lens hood caused a reflection which created some distortion (especially with the Silver Chrome lens hood). We have taken the initiative to have our lens hood undergo a chroming process for both finishes, so this will not happen.
“We have not changed the lens coating from the original 28mm f/2.8 9E so that any flaring from this will have the same characteristics as the original. This is something that we had to retain. And we followed the challenging construction method of the original infinity lock. All in all, it is a show of appreciation by us for the quality of lenses made in the 1960s.”
So, what I was given for testing is NOT the original lens as an exact copy, but a lens which should be viewed as an upgrade which references the original. LLL did the same thing, much less drastically perhaps, when they reproduced the 50/1.2 Noctilux. I felt this was all for the better: tweaking things for improvement but keeping the design. Leica, on the other hand, when it issued its own modern copy of the 50/1.2, reconfigured the design fairly markedly, but with the aim of matching the “look” of the older lens, which it did.
Curves
Here are the MTF curves of the original 28mm f/2.8 9E Leitz lens.
One can readily see the performance issues from these curves — the falloff in definition towards the edges and the medium contrast wide open.
Here are the curves of the new lens, as supplied by Mr. Zhou. Contrast and sharpness are good wide open, and into the corners, and the performance at f/5.6 is also better.
Yet some of the general shape of the curves remains similar, likely preserving the way the new lens draws compared to its predecessor.
Here are the focus and distortion curves: they confirm for me the presence of some positive field curvature inward towards the lens, and minimal pincushion distortion.
Here is what LLL has to say about the field curvature:
“Yes, there is a slight positive field curvature wide open, inherent in the lens design. The change of glass type and the use of ED elements improved upon the original rendering. The only option to eliminate field curvature would be to use ASPH elements. One noticeable thing regarding both this lens and the original, however, is the smooth transition between each level of the subject in the foreground and background wide open; this was done by Leitz’s design.
I would add here that Leitz had, at times, different thoughts about field curvature, striving at times for a flat field, or allowing some positive curvature to offset other aberrations at other times. We are not privy to their thinking here.
I have always considered 28mm on the 35mm format to be a “utilitarian” focal length, good for pictures of groups; or for close-in shots where a fair amount of information needs to be in the frame, visually belying the distortion nonetheless inherent in that focal length used that way. I have never considered a 28 as a “carry around” lens on a camera for street shooting, nor do I think of it aesthetically for “fine art” work, whatever and however that is defined.
With this LLL lens, I may change my opinion. It delivers a rich colour palette, great centre sharpness even wide open, seems to have some positive field curvature at f/2.8 which tends to enhance the almost 3D effect of the images. It has some flare with specular or open highlights, but all my 28s trend that way; that does not bother me greatly. Distortion appears low. Shots I made, including of a blank white wall, showed modest-to-moderate vignetting wide open; I am unable to quantify this. I could easily see using this lens as my prime 28. I love the way it draws. The 28mm f/2.8 9E is a SERIOUS lens. It meters correctly on both my M10s and my M6. But I have not tried it on my M5.
Compatibility
Here is what Mr. Zhou has to say about compatibility:
“The Original Version is incompatible with many M cameras, including some digital Ms, due to the recessed element being longer than the lens flange distance. Users will require external metering, as the camera internal meter on most digital/analogue cameras will be blocked from metering due to the said recessed element.
“And with some digital/analogue Ms, exposure compensation inside the cameras is required to expose the image correctly. We took steps to recess the rear element by 1~2mm into the lens compared with the original version so that the camera’s internal meter (that is, if the M-camera has internal metering) functions correctly. Thus, the New 9-Element is compatible with 99% of the digital and analogue M cameras. (But both the LLL and Leica versions cannot be compatible with the M5/CL since these have a different metering mechanism and the rear protruding element will be in contact with their metering arm).”
The images
Here are some images. Almost all are wide open at f/2.8. One is cropped slightly. Mostly no post-processing has been done except levels and perhaps highlights / shadows and very minor PS’ing removal of artefacts.
First is the image I always take first, RF-focused and wide open with any new lens, sitting in a chair opposite. Generally, it is a disappointment, and I do not show it in reviews. Here it shows how nicely the lens draws, and the clock at the centre (where I focused) is very sharp. Some flare through the window curtains. No post-processing.
And here is the second shot I always make, of my brother-in-law in his chair. And a crop from this to show how sharp the lens draws centrally wide open. Minor photo-shopping of a distracting article in the lower left was done. Again, flare in the (quite intense) highlights in this rather darkened room.
Next, a car trip to a local ice cream establishment, in the Vermont hills. First, a shot of my filling my Audi with fuel for the trip. Full frame, no post-processing. F/2.8. Focus on the stickers to the right of the screen on the pump. This is a typical close-in shot with a 28, with an optically busy field, with everything looking natural and undistorted nonetheless.
At the shop, which also had a gift section. You can see some flare around the lights. The slight field curvature helps here.
Three images outside the shop. All wide open. The one with the boys in it had slight cropping. There was a distracting small element removed via PS in the one with the goat. The goat image is another example of the 28 being used close-in, looking natural.
Here are two images made with the M10 Monochrom. The first, taken at f/2.8, has clouds added, but no other manipulation. This last is taken at f/4. No post-processing.
Conclusion
So, what to say about this lens? I already mentioned how much I like what it does. I could see this as my 28 of choice. Despite being a bit large, much of the bulk of the lens is inside the camera, so its external protrusion does not feel marked. It did not feel bulky in use. My prototype had a stiff focus, and it took me a while to notice that there was a focus lock, as with the 8-element 35 Summicron. Focus through the RF was spot-on.
I have now tested prototypes of six Light Lens Lab lenses. Some prototypes had minor issues, but optically and mechanically they felt like they were Leitz / Leica lenses, a philosophy based on Mr. Zhou’s reported love and respect for the company. I sense a progression of the LLL company from mere lens copies, skilfully done, then to tweaked and improved versions of classic lenses, fully capable on the most modern cameras but mostly hewing to the design parameters of the originals.
With this 28/2.8 we have something different: a new/old design, using the lens-element layout of the older lens, but considerably improving on this with more modern glass. And I am aware that LLL is working on their own designs, still with an eye to keeping the Leica look, feel, and reference. So, David suggested that I not label the recent LLL lenses as “replicas” but as something else. “Updates” or “upgrades” perhaps. Maybe “revisioned” if I may coin a word.
Other companies producing lenses that fit Leica have used and modified older Leitz/Leica lens formulas to produce quite capable lenses that are faster, wider, or perform somewhat better than their older cousins. Or they have mixed and matched lens formulas from other marques and put them in a Leica-compatible mount. And, of course, today’s computerised lens designs are mostly excellent in quality across the board, in Leica mount or not. So, we have many nice lenses that we use happily, and a few truly wonderful original designs to place on our Leicas.
Light Lens Lab, in my opinion, is doing something slightly different. They are hewing closely to the Leica lineage and Leica build-quality in their products. There is a sense of respect here, even as they show off what they can do. I said above that I considered this 28mm f/2.8 9E “a serious lens”. LLL wanted to re-make the earlier Leitz lens but found it deficient. Yet, it was the best Leitz could do in the 1960s, so LLL kept the design look and the optical layout but improved significantly on the performance.
They sensed excellence in the concept, if not in what 1960s glass could do. They don’t call this lens something new but consider it a reference to the earlier landmark lens. I am sure they would be happy to sell as many examples of this lens as possible, but their thinking is what my old friend and earlier LHSA/LSI president Roy Moss would have called “Leica-centric”. It is all about how you think.
David has this to say about pricing and availability: “The lens is now available (from September 11, 2024) at $899 and $999, respectively.”
Read more from Ed Schwartzreich
A cup of coffee works wonders in supporting Macfilos
Did you know that Macfilos is run by a dedicated team of volunteers? We rely on donations to help pay our running costs. And even the cost of a cup of coffee will do wonders for our energy levels.
I just received my production lens, and used it to take pictures yesterday of a work party. In this case, I was mostly using it on an M10M as I would use the 28/1.7 on a Q; a few times everything in the picture, but often only selecting crops. It served particularly well, as I knew it would, and the results were sharp, contrasty. and smooth-rendering. Mostly at f/4 – f/5.6. I love this lens.
Ed
Those are some lovely pictures, Ed. Thanks for sharing the history behind this lens! It would indeed be cool if LLL were to start giving new life to some of these old 1960’s lens designs. I’ve become enamored to the 28mm focal length over the last year, and so I hope it opens new possibilities for you?
The new 28mm Summicron CF, while not cheap (and not advertised as one of Leica’s banner lenses like the 35 APO), has some interesting rendering as well (especially for a modern lens). It very definitely has a glow to it that remains until you’ve stopped down to f/4, and is quite fun for artistic work. But that’s if you’re in want of a lens with modern rendering.
Thank you for the comment.
LLL plans to introduce their upgrade of the 2nd version rigid 8-element 50/2 Summcron from the 1950s. Many of us used that lenses extensively, and it has an interesting history. LLL’s remake will undoubtedly improve performance. I am eager to receive and test it!
I own a 28/2 Summicron first version. I use it when I am making images that need not to have flaws, but otherwise it is really utilitarian for me. It serves it purpose admirable. I also own several older 28s. The LLL 9E will be my first choice I think once I receive a copy.
Ed
Very fine, thorough, and entirely interesting review, Ed. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Art. Their lenses seem to be better and better, and this one is a great user.
I have to wait at times many weeks to get Mr. Zhou’s commentary, because it has to be requested as to content, then received and translated by David, then edited and at times corrected. Without that commentary, the reviews would be much less interesting. There is both a product, a man who has a guiding light, and clearly a skilled bunch of engineers and production staff here.
When Tom Abrahamsson was still with us, he would go to Japan and meet with Kobiashi-san, and they would dream up Cosina lenses for the Leica. An engineer present would say — we can do that — and they would be off to the races. With Mr. Zhou (about whom I know very little), the philosophy seems to be further perfecting prior Leica perfection, while at the same time growing their brand. I am happy to have got in here on the ground floor, reviewing their products and watching their successes. I usually know little of what I may received in the mail next, but it is almost invariably interesting!
Ed