Leica Q...... M Summilux 28!

[Lins-Barroso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a Leica Q but can't stop thinking to buy the new - crazy expensive! - M Summilux 28 to use with the Leica SL and M240!

 

I have the newest M Summicron 35 and my favorite focal length is... the 28mm.

 

To buy or not to buy? That's the question.

 

If the answer is yes, Could the new M Summicron 28 a better option?

 

I need help,... PLEASE.

 

 

 

 

 

[duoenboge]

I prefered the new SCron 28. I use it with my M and MM2. It is great.

I imagine I'm more flexible with this solution.

And I can't see the anvantage of autofocus in combination with wide angle. So for me the Q was never a option. But maybe I'm wrong in this point.

My recomandation is, buy it. If the 28mm is your prefered focal lenght you will be happy with it.

Good luck! ☺

[robgo2]

I looove my Q, but there will be times when I want a more versatile camera (the SL) and still have the capacity to shoot at 28mm. Hence, I have ordered the latest version of the Summicron-M 28 f/2. It will be much easier to carry that lens in a shoulder bag than the Q. The big question is whether it will be as good as the Q.

 

Rob

[jaapv]

It is.

[Jeff S]

What are you trying to achieve, other than to satisfy GAS? Demo, rent, borrow or buy used and decide for yourself.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

I have a Leica Q but can't stop thinking to buy the new - crazy expensive! - M Summilux 28 to use with the Leica SL and M240!

 

I have the newest M Summicron 35 and my favorite focal length is... the 28mm.

 

To buy or not to buy? That's the question.

 

If the answer is yes, Could the new M Summicron 28 a better option?

 

I need help,... PLEASE.

Do you really want 1.4 on a 28 mm lens? It is only useful if you want to take (relatively) shallow-DOF images with a wide-angle perspective.

[Lins-Barroso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do you really want 1.4 on a 28 mm lens? It is only useful if you want to take (relatively) shallow-DOF images with a wide-angle perspective.

 

In my mind, M 28/1.4 will be better for me, because I've already have the 35mm with 2.0.

In the other hand, I am worried to buy the Summicron 28mm and not become satisfied with it as the lens in the Q is 1.7.

[Waterden]

Absolutely. It seems to me that, absent collectors who spoil the game for everyone else, the only justification for buying 1.4 lenses is if you want / need to shoot wide open. In the days when film was predominant, this decision was determined by the film speed, usually maxing out at 400 ASA / ISO for any practical (i.e. non-artistic) usage. Now we can quite happily go to ISO 3200 / 6400 this argument does not hold. So the only reason is for extreme differentiation between subject and background. Now, as Erwin Puts pointed out in one of his essays, almost all painters retained background and foreground detail because that is how we see. The fashion for blurring the background while keeping the foreground sharp is a recent photographic phenomenon, initiated possibly by lens ability. Since fast lenses cost a great deal more than their slower peers (1.4 = 2x 2.0 = 2 x 2.8 roughly) and since the resolving quality of the slower lenses is generally (except by comparison with the most expensive alternatives) better than their faster peers, one must conclude that the purchase of fast lenses is now a pursuit for the collector, the uncaring rich or the credulous. Egged on by the marketing departments and Overgaard et al of course.

 

That should start an argument!

[Lins-Barroso]

Absolutely. It seems to me that, absent collectors who spoil the game for everyone else, the only justification for buying 1.4 lenses is if you want / need to shoot wide open. In the days when film was predominant, this decision was determined by the film speed, usually maxing out at 400 ASA / ISO for any practical (i.e. non-artistic) usage. Now we can quite happily go to ISO 3200 / 6400 this argument does not hold. So the only reason is for extreme differentiation between subject and background. Now, as Erwin Puts pointed out in one of his essays, almost all painters retained background and foreground detail because that is how we see. The fashion for blurring the background while keeping the foreground sharp is a recent photographic phenomenon, initiated possibly by lens ability. Since fast lenses cost a great deal more than their slower peers (1.4 = 2x 2.0 = 2 x 2.8 roughly) and since the resolving quality of the slower lenses is generally (except by comparison with the most expensive alternatives) better than their faster peers, one must conclude that the purchase of fast lenses is now a pursuit for the collector, the uncaring rich or the credulous. Egged on by the marketing departments and Overgaard et al of course.

 

That should start an argument!

 

Thank you very much, Waterden!

[jaapv]

I specifically bought the Summilux 24 for use wide-open. If I had not been interested in that aspect of its use it would have been a total waste of money and a useless lens because of its weight and bulk. The same goes for the Summilux 28. The speed of your other lenses is irrelevant - you bought those lenses to use within their specifications.

[jrp]

If you have 28mm on the Q why replicate it on the SL?

[IkarusJohn]

I tend to follow Peter Karbe's advice (I can't remember who to) - chose your aperture for depth of field. I like having the option of shallow depths of field from time to time (I don't follow Thorsten's approach of always using lenses wide open), and faster lenses give this option.

 

Fast lenses have little to do with ISO limitation these days - most current Leica digitals are good to high ISO, making the constraints of the film days pretty much irrelevant.

 

For me photography is not a reflection of reality - it is my verson of what I perceive, or at least, that's what I try to portray. Fast lenses, long lenses, wide lenses, old lenses all add to this variation on what we perceive. Having an aperture of 0.95 available is, frankly, ridiculous ... but it is an option I enjoy having available.

 

It seems to me that lens selection is more about rendering and options the lenses provide - price, speed and size are only three aspects of your choice. Leica really doesn't make bad lenses, but they are different. For some reason, I never got on with the first version of the Summicron-M 28 ASPH, whereas I like the 28 Summilux, despite that some find its out of focus rendering challenging in some conditions.

 

It is worth looking at images over on flickr and seeing if you can identify which images are more pleasing to you.

[RoySmith]

For some reason, I never got on with the first version of the Summicron-M 28 ASPH, whereas I like the 28 Summilux, despite that some find its out of focus rendering challenging in some conditions.

I too have the first version of the Summicron-M 28 ASPH which I used a lot on the M9. However, on the SL, I love the Summilux-M 28mm. It feels right and the option of 1.4 to isolate the subject is really nice. I don't have a Leica Q But I imagine that the Q at 1.7 would be pretty similar - so the $ might be more productive elsewhere, like on a Noctilux.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mute-on]

Is the 1/3 stop difference in maximum aperture between the Summicron M 28/2 and the Q Summilux 1.7 actually noticeable in the image DOF?

 

If anyone has a side-by-side comparison of the same image shot wide open, that would be useful

[Lazytiger]

Absolutely. It seems to me that, absent collectors who spoil the game for everyone else, the only justification for buying 1.4 lenses is if you want / need to shoot wide open. In the days when film was predominant, this decision was determined by the film speed, usually maxing out at 400 ASA / ISO for any practical (i.e. non-artistic) usage. Now we can quite happily go to ISO 3200 / 6400 this argument does not hold. So the only reason is for extreme differentiation between subject and background. Now, as Erwin Puts pointed out in one of his essays, almost all painters retained background and foreground detail because that is how we see. The fashion for blurring the background while keeping the foreground sharp is a recent photographic phenomenon, initiated possibly by lens ability. Since fast lenses cost a great deal more than their slower peers (1.4 = 2x 2.0 = 2 x 2.8 roughly) and since the resolving quality of the slower lenses is generally (except by comparison with the most expensive alternatives) better than their faster peers, one must conclude that the purchase of fast lenses is now a pursuit for the collector, the uncaring rich or the credulous. Egged on by the marketing departments and Overgaard et al of course.

 

That should start an argument!

While this is true for naturalist painting, times have changed since this form of viewing the world was state of the art. To me the main reason for the hype for Bokeh are those trillions of iPhone pictures that are spamming the world every day. One of the few things iPhone can't is DoF. So DoF has become a sign of quality and art. And one of the few things full frame can do better than APSC is a little DoF on short lenses like 28mm. If I wouldn't shoot professionally or want DoF on short lenses, I'd save a lot money and bulk and shoot APSC. Probably TL2. No point for me in shooting an expensive full-frame Leica exclusively at f2.8 or smaller.

[lx1713]

I like the 24-90 so much that the only reason to pick another lens is if that lens did something different and better in some way.

 

Fast lenses gives me a wide range of exposure options in a way that is different from the zooming and framing capabilities of a zoom lens. It's just different enough that I would want that in an SL. But I would pick the 21f1.4, 35f1.4 and 90f2. My photography drill would then need to be different. And I would like AF   So I would probably go for the native SL prime lenses.

[robgo2]

It is.

Be still, my heart.

[robgo2]

Absolutely. It seems to me that, absent collectors who spoil the game for everyone else, the only justification for buying 1.4 lenses is if you want / need to shoot wide open. In the days when film was predominant, this decision was determined by the film speed, usually maxing out at 400 ASA / ISO for any practical (i.e. non-artistic) usage. Now we can quite happily go to ISO 3200 / 6400 this argument does not hold. So the only reason is for extreme differentiation between subject and background. Now, as Erwin Puts pointed out in one of his essays, almost all painters retained background and foreground detail because that is how we see. The fashion for blurring the background while keeping the foreground sharp is a recent photographic phenomenon, initiated possibly by lens ability. Since fast lenses cost a great deal more than their slower peers (1.4 = 2x 2.0 = 2 x 2.8 roughly) and since the resolving quality of the slower lenses is generally (except by comparison with the most expensive alternatives) better than their faster peers, one must conclude that the purchase of fast lenses is now a pursuit for the collector, the uncaring rich or the credulous. Egged on by the marketing departments and Overgaard et al of course.

That should start an argument!

There are different ways of seeing that are constantly being discovered. Painters of the past would hardly recognize the work of succeeding generations.