Real world differences in actual use f/2.8 or f/3.5?

[miatadan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In actual use of taking photos in low light condition's... is there great difference between using Leica X-Vario at 18mm ( 28mm equivalent ) f/3.5 ) compared to Leica M-E with Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 asph.

 

I purchased the Leica X-Vario because I prefer 28mm focal length over 35mm focal length.

 

Anyone here on this forum use the Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 on regular basis and been able to compare this?

 

Dan

[euston]

I use the Elmarit 28 ASPH on an M9 and I use an X Vario.

 

⅔ of a stop doesn’t make much noticeable real world difference when you take into account the much better high ISO performance of the X Vario.

 

I rarely go above ISO 800 with the M9 but routinely use ISO 3200 with the X Vario in low light with very acceptable results and no problems with AF. It's hard to judge the image quality at this size but, for what it's worth, here’s an off-the-cuff shot by way of example:

 

Leica X Vario at 18mm, 1/50 at f/3.5, -⅓ EV, ISO 3200

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

If you sold your X Vario because you couldn’t get the AF to work properly and you couldn't get decent results in low light, I think you made a mistake. There’s nothing wrong with the AF and low light results can be just fine. There's some learning to be done, as there is with any camera.

 

.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[miatadan]

I use the Elmarit 28 ASPH on an M9 and I use an X Vario.

 

⅔ of a stop doesn’t make much noticeable real world difference when you take into account the much better high ISO performance of the X Vario.

 

I rarely go above ISO 800 with the M9 but routinely use ISO 3200 with the X Vario in low light with very acceptable results and no problems with AF. It's hard to judge the image quality at this size but, for what it's worth, here’s an off-the-cuff shot by way of example:

 

Leica X Vario at 18mm, 1/50 at f/3.5, -⅓ EV, ISO 3200

[ATTACH]437964[/ATTACH]

 

 

If you sold your X Vario because you couldn’t get the AF to work properly and you couldn't get decent results in low light, I think you made a mistake. There’s nothing wrong with the AF and low light results can be just fine. There's some learning to be done, as there is with any camera.

 

.

 

The reason I sold the X-Vario is because I could not get used to taking pictures using lcd screen on back of computer. From what I read, the Leica EVF2 is not the highest resolution.

 

all digital cameras I owned in the past had some type of OVF

 

Nikon D50

Nikon D300

Nikon D5100

 

and last camera before Leica X-Vario was Nikon D610

 

Dan

[wda]

Dan, I am surprised you formed a judgement based on hearsay evidence. While I am no fan of EVF, the version twinned with the X Vario is a quite workable solution. I use mine mainly for picture composition, rather than focusing. For real-world photography I find the autofocus extremely good and accurate. So an EVF is perfect for subject alignment outdoors. I do think it is a pity you rushed to sell; but I guess your decision was more complex than just an EVF issue.

[jaapv]

It is really hearsay. Whilst the EVF2 is certainly not going to set the world afire, it is nonetheless perfectly usable.

[tredlie]

low light is one issue, here 2.8 certainly helps. But as has been said,

differences in ISO performance will make a difference and possibly level

things out.

But reduced depth of field would be my major concern with at 3.5.

Here 2.8 will make a big

difference and allow you to something that a 3.5 will not allow you to.

 

What are the luxes in all incarnations used for? certain low light.

But I, shoot wide open even in bright sunlight (need an ND filter).

That should not persuade you, but proper photographers like T. von Overgaard

seem to use wide open nearly exclusively.

 

cheers

 

Tred

[2wk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While shallow depth of field is one weakness of the Vario, the image quality makes up for it (for me). Bokehlicious photos may not be a new fad, but there are definitely a ton of them circulating these says especially with the mirrorless wave and the quest for fast lenses. So, to me...the XV is refreshing. At 35mm it has a very pleasing out of focus area, and at 70mm for head / macro shots I get all the blur i need. But mostly I enjoy the edge to edge sharpness, color, clarity etc. It is also very capable in low light. Not to mention excellent in the studio with the sync speed. Also...very good in the street with near perfect manual focusing.

[tom0511]

I wouldn't see a big difference between f2.8 and 3.5.

However at the same focal lengths the X-Vario is about f4,x vs X2 f2.8.

IMO both are not low light specialists.

 

The major difference I see is pocket size X2 vs the X-Vario you need a small bag.

Therefore the flexibility of the zoom is really nice.