Ozkar Posted June 18, 2015 Share #61 Posted June 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Because geometric distortion can be dealt with rather easily in software without leaving behind artifacts. To my eye the Leica Q blows the Sony 28/2 out of the water. It is not noticeably worse in the center (if you can even call it that), but is way better by country miles in the edges. And it's got a faster starting aperture to boot. A 1.7 lens is much harder to design than a f2 lens because aberrations grow faster than linearly in the size of the aperture. Can you please provide a link to the comparison between the Q and the Sony 28/2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 Hi Ozkar, Take a look here Q 28mm lens design. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hiepphotog Posted June 19, 2015 Share #62 Posted June 19, 2015 I don't know, from the few test shots I have seen, this Q 28 is plenty sharp for me. It does show signs of astigmatism and LCA, but not enough to bother me. The good thing is that no mid-field drop that would bother the heck out of me. However, I do question the QC of the first shipment. We have seen early reports going from very weak corners to very sharp corners. I might chalk it up to the sample variation. If I'm not so dead-set on getting an interchangeable 28, I would settle with this camera. Actually, my wife even nudged me toward the Lux 28 direction . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted June 19, 2015 Share #63 Posted June 19, 2015 Maybe not the best lens combination available but it works well 35mm fixed converted to 28 mm no visable loss in IQ. This is the original x100 and all works efficiently when taking photos ( having a pocket is handy) http://www.etrouko.com/xcv.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted June 19, 2015 Share #64 Posted June 19, 2015 For those who haven't seen the test: http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-2372/compact-leica-q-typ-116-precision-colorimetrie-11.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted June 19, 2015 Share #65 Posted June 19, 2015 Can you please provide a link to the comparison between the Q and the Sony 28/2. I have the A7II and FE28/f2 and will try to take some shots that people can download Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 19, 2015 Share #66 Posted June 19, 2015 For those who haven't seen the test: http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-2372/compact-leica-q-typ-116-precision-colorimetrie-11.html Let's translate the conclusion: Leica presents one of the best cameras they ever built. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted June 19, 2015 Share #67 Posted June 19, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Let's translate the conclusion: Leica presents one of the best cameras they ever built. Certainly but I cannot disregard the resolution comparison with the FE 28, a budget lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 19, 2015 Share #68 Posted June 19, 2015 Hmmm.. That is not exactly what they say. They say that the Sony may be sharper overall but lacks "cruelly" in homogeneity and constancy. It does not bode well for the rendering of the Sony lens, I fear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted June 19, 2015 Share #69 Posted June 19, 2015 Hmmm.. That is not exactly what they say. They say that the Sony may be sharper overall but lacks "cruelly" in homogeneity and constancy. It does not bode well for the rendering of the Sony lens, I fear. They also said they were a bit underwhelmed, even disappointed with the Q lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 19, 2015 Share #70 Posted June 19, 2015 Yes - because it is not extraordinary as they say. ( my translation - not a Summicron) They call it good and they appreciate the constancy across the apertures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted June 19, 2015 Share #71 Posted June 19, 2015 But I think we already know that, Jaap Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted June 19, 2015 Share #72 Posted June 19, 2015 Hmmm.. That is not exactly what they say. They say that the Sony may be sharper overall but lacks "cruelly" in homogeneity and constancy. It does not bode well for the rendering of the Sony lens, I fear. I can only say for what it costs the Sony FE28 is a real eye opener. It is now almost permnantly attached to my A7s where I love it's rendering wide open and sharpness stopped down. That mis not to say that I won't be getting the Q as the Leica outperforms the Sony in certain functional ways that I really need Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent M10 Posted June 19, 2015 Share #73 Posted June 19, 2015 I'm not a lens techie, but wouldn't you expect some compromises with the image stabilization? I understand that the IS is in the lens, and not the body with the Q. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted June 19, 2015 Share #74 Posted June 19, 2015 I'm not a lens techie, but wouldn't you expect some compromises with the image stabilization? I understand that the IS is in the lens, and not the body with the Q. Could you please explain somewhat more what's on your mind? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 19, 2015 Share #75 Posted June 19, 2015 I can only say for what it costs the Sony FE28 is a real eye opener. It is now almost permnantly attached to my A7s where I love it's rendering wide open and sharpness stopped down. That mis not to say that I won't be getting the Q as the Leica outperforms the Sony in certain functional ways that I really need Given the graphs and comments on this French site I would say that it depends entirely on your subject matter whether the Sony lens performs well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey James Posted June 19, 2015 Share #76 Posted June 19, 2015 I am usually at a loss when looking at lens charts, but the French one is well designed and revealing. The Sony is visibly soft in the corners, while the Q looks decent overall. At great magnification I can read the Paris Metro map easily, even if it is not something I am going to photograph mysefl. Only the French could use the adverb "cruellement" in a lens test. Love 'em. At least they didn't say vachement, which is really my favourite French adverb. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 19, 2015 Share #77 Posted June 19, 2015 But I think we already know that, Jaap If we do I think it got lost in your part-quote. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted June 19, 2015 Share #78 Posted June 19, 2015 So was this french test undertaken with IS on or off as Leica themselves say to turn it off to get the best possible IQ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 19, 2015 Share #79 Posted June 19, 2015 They don't say, but if they were using Imatest, I would suppose -hope it was turned off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent M10 Posted June 19, 2015 Share #80 Posted June 19, 2015 Could you please explain somewhat more what's on your mind? Sure. It seems like people are having a cow about how much distortion, blurry corners, etc. this lens has. But wouldn't IS be part of this equation? Leica has said that the corners are softer when you have it turned on. I'd assume that there'd be some IQ compromises for just incorporating IS into the design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.