Q 28mm lens design

[david strachan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has anyone done any coma tests across the field, yet??

cheers  Dave S

[IkarusJohn]

So if we examine the end result here we see a fast lens with wonderful rendering, great bokeh, fast AF, but with somewhat weak corners and borders for landscape and architecture shooting. 

 

I don't doubt what you're saying, Edward, but I haven't seen any evidence of this in what has been posted to date.  Is your comment based on the observations of our erstwhile Caledonian colleague (he of the drive-by photographic holiday in England's south-west)?  When I asked elsewhere, the comment was made that the green grocer had not established any critical weakness in his testing (I stopped subscribing to his site out of sheer frustration with Flash).

[Advertisement]

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

[Carbon111]

I shot some brick walls (just for fun mind you, I'm not usually *that* anal) and at f/5.6 found the corners to be *plenty* sharp despite the distortion correction. Kind of flabbergasted at some people's reactions. 

[david strachan]

I shot some brick walls (just for fun mind you, I'm not usually *that* anal) and at f/5.6 found the corners to be *plenty* sharp despite the distortion correction. Kind of flabbergasted at some people's reactions. 

Coma is my bugbear...funny butterflies on the lens edges and corners.  No good for open sky star pics.

 

We just need a pic 10-20 secs, f1.7, ISO 400-800 focused on stars. Can anyone do??

 

That is one of the really really critical tests of a lens.

The other good test is looking at biggest bokeh balls which can be made with the camera...shows all sorts of aberrations and over corrections. Lens faults and lens gunk galore sometimes.

 

cheers Dave S

[imants]

Back in the film days the lens was king now the little dictator Sensor has control, maybe some here are being a bit harsh on the lens

Edited June 18, 2015 by Imants

[uhoh7]

Well, my Q does not achieve sharp corners, and it shows rather weak corners. PERIOD. But the more I shoot it, the more I am engaged and enthused about my Q.

 

For me, the Q @ f/2 (seems it nicest opening) is at a large gap below the 28 Summilux @ f/2 on M. Yet, the Q is biting sharp and very good 3D...  there seems to be field curvature or something behind the curtain with the Q. It is not pleasant.

 

My hunch is that the image you posted, chrismuc, was somehow brought forward in the processing stream without in-camera distortion correction (software/ glitch). I shot a couple of tall buildings yesterday, and the lines are perfectly correctly. I not percieve any curvilinear distortion (on a monitor, as prints are a few days off).

 

IMHO, IQ at distant focus on the Q, however, does not rival the laser-etched, straight lines of the 28 Summicron (at say 10m). I have not shot at a distance with the 28 SX yet.

 

That's my download so far...

 

A very refreshing and honest report, thank you.

 

As usual lately, the early "hands on" reports by Ming and Huff and DPR missed the issue totally. No question the camera produces some gorgeous images. But the native lens distortion is noteworthy, and as you document, and I expected, this is no 28 Cron.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't doubt what you're saying, Edward, but I haven't seen any evidence of this in what has been posted to date.  Is your comment based on the observations of our erstwhile Caledonian colleague (he of the drive-by photographic holiday in England's south-west)?  When I asked elsewhere, the comment was made that the green grocer had not established any critical weakness in his testing (I stopped subscribing to his site out of sheer frustration with Flash).

No, not critical weaknesses, but one really should read the full report despite battling with the extremely irritating interface. I think the dichotomy between "perfectly fine" and "weak" (nobody called them "outstanding") that we see on the forum is based on interpretation of the results.

 

The Summicron 28 does win on all fronts, that is undisputable, but it would be very disappointing if it did not. After all, it is a 2.0 lens vs. a 1.7 one, and the lens alone costs as much as the whole Q.

 

Judge the Q in its class and the interpretation becomes different. According to reliable tests (Not just S.R.)  the compromise is indeed shifted to impressive image quality in the centre with the corners not quite reaching that  high level but still more than adequate for most purposes.

It appears to me that the intention was to produce a reportage/travel-type camera. Had it been designed with primarily landscape in mind, I am sure that the compromises would have been chosen differently. Not just the lens, but the whole camera. For instance there would not have been need for the fast AF or good AF/MF interface, the ergonomics, etc.

 

But then, which serious landscape or architectural photographer would bring a camera like this  to a real shoot?

[jaapv]

A very refreshing and honest report, thank you.

 

As usual lately, the early "hands on" reports by Ming and Huff and DPR missed the issue totally. No question the camera produces some gorgeous images. But the native lens distortion is noteworthy, and as you document, and I expected, this is no 28 Cron.

I am really truly amazed that one should take out a crucial element from the imaging chain and then slam the result. This is a lens-sensor unit that is designed as a whole.

 

How difficult is it to understand that modern designs -not just Leica, but all camera makers- of fixed lens cameras will use all available means to reach optimal image quality. That includes digital corrections, and the lens will be optimized optically with the subsequent digital corrections in mind, resulting in a better result than would have been obtained by  optical corrections alone.

 

Surprise-surprise: remove one component and the result falls apart.

This is like removing the front element from a lens and complaining it is unsharp.

 

Should Leica really leave out half the possibilities they have to obtain the best result just because some internet ***** might amputate their image forming process and start lambasting the half-product?

[Guest]

I hate to delve into a technical topic as I'm really not qualified, but I think I'm safe with a question: isn't at least some of the distortion people are seeing simply due to using a wide angle lens close up?

[viramati]

From what I cansee so far it would seem to me that the Q has a lens that follows very much in Leica roots in the world of photography which is documentary & reportage. Yes they can be used for landscape and architecture  but this was never their main area of competency so it hardly suprises me if the lens/camera have been optimised in this way

[pop]

From what I cansee so far it would seem to me that the Q has a lens that follows very much in Leica roots in the world of photography which is documentary & reportage. Yes they can be used for landscape and architecture  but this was never their main area of competency so it hardly suprises me if the lens/camera have been optimised in this way

I have a different recollection of what was in Barnack's photographs.

[edwardkaraa]

I don't doubt what you're saying, Edward, but I haven't seen any evidence of this in what has been posted to date. Is your comment based on the observations of our erstwhile Caledonian colleague (he of the drive-by photographic holiday in England's south-west)? When I asked elsewhere, the comment was made that the green grocer had not established any critical weakness in his testing (I stopped subscribing to his site out of sheer frustration with Flash).

Good guess That and the French magazine test. The weak image periphery is visible in their test shots. Edited June 18, 2015 by edwardkaraa

[IkarusJohn]

Ah, well. It won't concern me. I like the look of this camera, but if I were to buy it, it would cost me an expensive bottle of wine - drinking it with Al would be some consolation. 

 

I do do wonder if people are asking too much of this camera - pixel peeping, looking for problems. If I want to take detailed architecture shots, I'd probably go for my SWC, and for landscape, 28mm probably wouldn't be my choice either. The landscapes I've recently taken have been with a 75 Summilux and a stitched panorama with an AA Summicron 90. 

 

I like the images I've seen from this camera so far. 

[edwardkaraa]

Ah, well. It won't concern me. I like the look of this camera, but if I were to buy it, it would cost me an expensive bottle of wine - drinking it with Al would be some consolation.

 

I do do wonder if people are asking too much of this camera - pixel peeping, looking for problems. If I want to take detailed architecture shots, I'd probably go for my SWC, and for landscape, 28mm probably wouldn't be my choice either. The landscapes I've recently taken have been with a 75 Summilux and a stitched panorama with an AA Summicron 90.

 

I like the images I've seen from this camera so far.

No doubt the lens rendering is very sweet and would be great for street and people shots. I like the images too. The price is ridiculously low in Leica standards too. I would certainly buy the interchangeable lens version, if/when Leica decides to make one

[viramati]

I have a different recollection of what was in Barnack's photographs.

Maybe but wouldn't you agree that the main strength of the Leica system (especially ther M) has been in the documentary and reportage arena and that is really what this camera is designed for.

Edited June 18, 2015 by viramati

[jaapv]

I have a different recollection of what was in Barnack's photographs.

I have a recollection ( well, second hand in my case ) of early Leicas being slammed for architecture and landscape photographers by the large format brigade, nor do I recall Ansel Adams using his Contaxes for the purpose.

[Geoffrey James]

I am really looking forward to getting my hands on a Q next week. In relation to this discussion, i would like to question the notion that only cameras and lenses of the highest technical perfection are suitable for lansdscape and architectural photography.  These two genres both encompass a wide range of artistic practice.   It is interesting that an institution like the Canadian Centre for Architecture in Montreal, which has a hugeand wonderful  collection of photographs of architecture,  has tended to stay away from the work of commercial architectural photographers.  And you certainly can't use Ansel Adams to define landscape photography.  At this moment in time, Adams is a dead letter,  as guys with beards and Deardorffs head off to Yosemite to find the holes his tripod left.   At reasonable sizes, up to 24x36 (and probably larger) I am sure the Q will deliver -- to use a term by our favourite greengrocer -- jaw-dropping results.  We are in a golden age of photographic technology, and I for one am grateful for it.  I am also grateful for the simplicity of the Leica full-frame digital cameras. They have changed my life.  

[sls]

I am really looking forward to getting my hands on a Q next week. In relation to this discussion, i would like to question the notion that only cameras and lenses of the highest technical perfection are suitable for lansdscape and architectural photography.  These two genres both encompass a wide range of artistic practice.   It is interesting that an institution like the Canadian Centre for Architecture in Montreal, which has a hugeand wonderful  collection of photographs of architecture,  has tended to stay away from the work of commercial architectural photographers.  And you certainly can't use Ansel Adams to define landscape photography.  At this moment in time, Adams is a dead letter,  as guys with beards and Deardorffs head off to Yosemite to find the holes his tripod left.   At reasonable sizes, up to 24x36 (and probably larger) I am sure the Q will deliver -- to use a term by our favourite greengrocer -- jaw-dropping results.  We are in a golden age of photographic technology, and I for one am grateful for it.  I am also grateful for the simplicity of the Leica full-frame digital cameras. They have changed my life.  

 

I would agree entirely. The last trip I did with Canon kit was a month in Western USA. Fed up with lugging the kit, I moved to an M9, enjoyed it subject to its limitations for 4 years and have traded it for a Q.

 

We went to Antelope Canyon and with a 15mp Canon 60D and a fairly average lens (I forget which) I took some really great pictures, one of which is blown up to 24x36 and is hanging in my father's house, a birthday present he much appreciated. It still takes my breath when I see it. I still have a Canon S90, which I recall was the first cigarette-packet sized RAW camera, which did, and still does, produce fantastic images. 

 

I was looking this year for a more feature-rich and practical camera with as-good imaging and the simplicity of the M9. Nothing impressed me. I read about the Q last week, reserved one, got it on Tuesday and have been playing with it for a couple of days. The physical similarity to the M9 was critical, as I hate buttons everywhere. It ticks all my boxes on features, I never questioned the imaging. Based on the experience referred to above, I had no issue with the 35mm crop to a 15mp image. It is not a compromise in my book and the wider 28mm is ideal if travelling with only one camera, which is the object of my exercise.   

[uhoh7]

I have a different recollection of what was in Barnack's photographs.

Me too.

 

The Leica heritage means nothing when the goal is to apologize for and justify a current Leica product.

 

Leicas no good for landscape or architecture? Performance for these not important? Barnack and Mandler would disagree for sure.

 

This is a 4200 fixed lens camera, the first "serious" FF Leica to head back in the Ur-Leica direction of a small footprint, so it's much easier to bring along. Landscape and infinity performance should be state of the art. It is not. 

 

The camera is an instrument, like a microscope, and I expect the best in both departments if I'm going to pay the premium Leica price for either, sorry. 

 

Obviously not everyone is so picky, which I think is fine, and I've already seen very nice work with Q, but it's limits and compromises should be clear to those interested. 

 

Who cares? People who love glass and pick their lenses carefully care.

Edited June 18, 2015 by uhoh7

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jaapv]

A camera is an instrument for a given purpose like any other tool (except, of course, a Swiss Army Knife). The compromises made will be slanted to provide for that purpose. This one is a reasonably (relative to other high-end cameras) priced travel and reportage camera. From all accounts it appears that it does its intended job exceedingly well. Anything it does well outside the intended use is a bonus.

Coming back to microscopes, those are specialized as well. You cannot operate using a lab microscope, be it from Leica or any other brand