Tortuga

I would have thought that the same would apply to the APO lens. Do you find that it has a gentler focus falloff?

Totally different lens. The Q lens plays with distortion to achieve its performance; the M lens doesn’t have that luxury.

I think that the main advantage will be to make sure you have enough image to do the correction in post. Without it you have to guess.

That could be the case, but then why are film era AF lenses smaller than current ones?

Thanks for all the replies, they are very helpful. I thought the electronic shutter would be used for faster than 1/8000 sec., I didn’t realize it could be used for normal shutter speeds. That’s good to know. M lenses using only the central part of the field in the CL is a good point too. Comparing M and TL lenses should be interesting, being two completely different design philosophies. Smaller sensors promised smaller lenses, but it turns out they require higher resolutions and thus bigger lenses. From an M shooter perspective it is disheartening to see the size of the SL lens

My main camera is an M240, with a Summicron 35mm ASPH. As a backup, and for those occasions where I want to travel light I have an X2. Lately I’ve been thinking of upgrading the X2, but all options I see are suboptimal: • CL + Elmarit TL 18mm: good size and weight, but too wide • CL + Summicron-TL 23mm: good weight, slightly too big, more expensive • Q2: great lens, crops to 35mm-e, 30MP, APS-C, but heavy, big (almost the same size as the M), even more expensive • Q: cheapest option, great lens, but crops to 35mm-e, 15MP, APS-C, heavy and big I visited the Leica Stor

Also, this Nikon lens doesn’t have an internal focusing motor if I am not mistaken. These days AF lenses all have internal focusing motors and must be made bigger.