Summilux M 28/1.4 vs. Summilux Q 28/1.7 - which do you like better and why?

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So we have two 28mm Summilux lenses to choose from nowadays, the Summilux M and the Summilux Q.  I am curious:  For those who own and use both (and knowing this crowd, there has to be several who have both)  which image rendering do you prefer, and why?

Obviously there is way more that factors in to choosing between these two lenses, but my interest lies in the different rendering that the two lenses produce. 

Thoughts?

[Fedro]

SX M as I find it has more sparkle

[Advertisement]

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

[T00m]

SX M of course - I need to justify the price tage vs. the Q2!

[Gregm61]

You only have to buy the Summilux-M once. Expensive enough, for sure but you can use it across any M body, multiple generations of digital bodies, film or digital M’s, if you own more than one.

If you’re one of those Q upgraders, you’ve now purchased that lens twice, with more than a very good chance of multiple future purchases.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Gregm61

[Lightningstrike]

i dont have a summilux m, but a summicron m 28 and a q (1).

The q is a bit more versus a 25mm lens (or something in this direction) than a real 28mm. So you sometimes get more distortion towards the sides of the frame.

For Landscapes i love the little wider lens of the q

But for Portraits (or environmental Portraits) i prefer the real 28mm m lens.

[didier]

Sean Reid made an interesting analysis of the Q-lens. From what I remember, the SX Q is somewhat digitally corrected which results in a loss of sharpness compared to its M counterpart

 

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some reviewers say the 28/1.7 produces phenomenal image quality, some reviewers say the 28/1.7 comes up short.  Well, reviewers:  Which is it??  🙄

I am getting the impression that the reviewers who pan the Q2 just don't like Leica very much and have a jaundiced view of the company and brand as a whole, most usually due to the pricing structure.  Agenda driven rather than objective reviewing, perhaps?

 

[dkmoore]

2 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

I am getting the impression that the reviewers who pan the Q2 just don't like Leica very much and have a jaundiced view of the company and brand as a whole, most usually due to the pricing structure. 

*Didier's point is legitimate and Sean Reid is an avid Leica enthusiast/tester for Leica. *

I owned both but no longer own the Q.

Winner for me = 28 1.4 Lux-M

1. better manual focus experience
2. M mount camera body (not a huge Q fan after being used to M cameras)
3. Easier to clean sensor if needed with removable lens
4. slightly better IQ
5. Future proof - I can use it on all future M, SL, CL, and T cameras
6. repair - Easier repair should I need it. I don't have to go to Leica with the M if their lead times are long
7. I don't want to have to lug around another camera for a 28 Lux. I already have M10, M9M, and MP.

 

[jaeger]

On 10/9/2019 at 6:58 AM, Herr Barnack said:

Some reviewers say the 28/1.7 produces phenomenal image quality, some reviewers say the 28/1.7 comes up short.  Well, reviewers:  Which is it??  🙄

I am getting the impression that the reviewers who pan the Q2 just don't like Leica very much and have a jaundiced view of the company and brand as a whole, most usually due to the pricing structure.  Agenda driven rather than objective reviewing, perhaps?

 

Leica loaned me a Q2 once for 2 weeks while my MP240 was in for service.  It's amazing and convenience.  It's small, shoot with 1 hand and auto focus like a point and shoot and still have stunning images.

The Q2 stunning image is somewhat due to the new 47MP sensor.  For a fair game, if you can wait long enough for M11 + 28 Lux then you will see who is the winner.  Or you can check out SL2 + 28 Lux images.  I don't have 28 lux but 24 Lux, I use it with my Nikon Z7 and BAM!  I only use my M for personal and traveling now, all my studio and commercial are shooting with Z7.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by jaeger

[Herr Barnack]

7 hours ago, jaeger said:

Leica loaned me a Q2 once for 2 weeks while my MP240 was in for service.  It's amazing and convenience.  It's small, shoot with 1 hand and auto focus like a point and shoot and still have stunning images.

The Q2 stunning image is somewhat due to the new 47MP sensor.  For a fair game, if you can wait long enough for M11 + 28 Lux then you will see who is the winner.  Or you can check out SL2 + 28 Lux images.  I don't have 28 lux but 24 Lux, I use it with my Nikon Z7 and BAM!  I only use my M for personal and traveling now, all my studio and commercial are shooting with Z7.

 

 

 

 

you make some good points - that having been said, I have decided to get a Q2.  It will serve me well as my daily carry camera and a backup to my M system.  The Q2 offers many compelling advantages:

47mp 24x36 sensor

Leaf shutter/near silent shooting

Autofocus

Weather sealing

Image stabilization

28mm f/1.7 'lux

The list of strong points the Q2 offers is just too compelling to say no to. 

Besides that, who knows when the M11 will appear?  Nothing is guaranteed in this life, including surviving the near eternal wait list that the M11 will inevitably produce.

Edited October 12, 2019 by Herr Barnack

[jaeger]

14 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

you make some good points - that having been said, I have decided to get a Q2.  It will serve me well as my daily carry camera and a backup to my M system.  The Q2 offers many compelling advantages:

47mp 24x36 sensor

Leaf shutter/near silent shooting

Autofocus

Weather sealing

Image stabilization

28mm f/1.7 'lux

The list of strong points the Q2 offers is just too compelling to say no to. 

Besides that, who knows when the M11 will appear?  Nothing is guaranteed in this life, including surviving the near eternal wait list that the M11 will inevitably produce.

oh so you have already make up your mind, good.  Economically, the Q2 gives you some changes too.  😃

I just realize I've blogged about Q2 vs 28 Lux before lol

 

 

[Herr Barnack]

@jaeger, yes I have made up my mind:  Get the Q2 now, get the 28 'lux for my M system sometime late summer next year.  JMHO, but that's not redundant as each serves a different purpose in the photographic scheme of things. 

I could also go for a 28 'cron, as I used to have one and it was a truly outstanding lens.  The thing that nudges me toward the 28 'lux is the fact that I currently have the tiny and excellent 28 Elmarit.  I think the 28 'lux would be a better pairing with the 28 Elmarit than the 28 'cron.

[oudjunk]

I have only owned the summilux m, i liked it when mounted with my m10. 

good rendering, refer to the many reviews on the internet, there is different,

i think both of them produce the different beautiful rendering. 

however, i have to choose, i still prefer the m lens 

[RoySmith]

On 10/13/2019 at 9:53 AM, Herr Barnack said:

@jaeger, yes I have made up my mind:  Get the Q2 now, get the 28 'lux for my M system sometime late summer next year.  JMHO, but that's not redundant as each serves a different purpose in the photographic scheme of things. 

I could also go for a 28 'cron, as I used to have one and it was a truly outstanding lens.  The thing that nudges me toward the 28 'lux is the fact that I currently have the tiny and excellent 28 Elmarit.  I think the 28 'lux would be a better pairing with the 28 Elmarit than the 28 'cron.

I have the 28mm lux M and the Q2.

The 28 lux M on the SL is a fantastic combo,  but due to the size I now carry the Q2 more often. The Q2 is great for all the reasons you outline. If I want an interchangeable lens camera the SL with 2+ lenses wins. If I’m happy  with 28mm only the Q2 wins. 

I just returned from a trip to Sicily and Croatia with the Q2 alone. Found it a great travel camera. 

Roy

[Bewithabob]

On 10/15/2019 at 9:49 AM, RoySmith said:

just returned from a trip to Sicily and Croatia with the Q2 alone. Found it a great travel camera. 

I am new to Leica (after Nikon many years in studio);  Q2’d all over Europe and I’m in love with the delicious renderings SOOC and am very much enjoying the Leica experience. I need/want/have to know more about the differences in these lenses... 

[ocean2059]

On 10/12/2019 at 10:38 AM, jaeger said:

Leica loaned me a Q2 once for 2 weeks while my MP240 was in for service.  It's amazing and convenience.  It's small, shoot with 1 hand and auto focus like a point and shoot and still have stunning images.

The Q2 stunning image is somewhat due to the new 47MP sensor.  For a fair game, if you can wait long enough for M11 + 28 Lux then you will see who is the winner.  Or you can check out SL2 + 28 Lux images.  I don't have 28 lux but 24 Lux, I use it with my Nikon Z7 and BAM!  I only use my M for personal and traveling now, all my studio and commercial are shooting with Z7.

 

 

 

 

Are you happy with the performance of your 24 Lux on the Nikon Z7?

[jaeger]

6 hours ago, ocean2059 said:

Are you happy with the performance of your 24 Lux on the Nikon Z7?

A fast 24mm lux is always wonderful and no problem on a Z7.  The EVF on Z7 make it much accurate to frame.  An Interesting thing is, I use my eye glasses to frame when using my MP240 if you know what I mean.

Because I only shoot raw, I don't see much IQ difference compare with a Nikon 24mm f/1.4 (Nikon seems brighter actually).  https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-24mm-f%2f1.4g-ed.html      The Nikon uses real focusing so the length of the lens ain't change, Lux does.  However, the size of a Lux is smaller (becoz manual focus) but 4x the price tag. 

You can read this to learn more. https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2017/11/17/sensor-comparison-of-5-cameras

They have another 24mm comparison but I can't find it.  The background is Thai boxing

[ocean2059]

49 minutes ago, jaeger said:

A fast 24mm lux is always wonderful and no problem on a Z7.  The EVF on Z7 make it much accurate to frame.  An Interesting thing is, I use my eye glasses to frame when using my MP240 if you know what I mean.

Because I only shoot raw, I don't see much IQ difference compare with a Nikon 24mm f/1.4 (Nikon seems brighter actually).  https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-24mm-f%2f1.4g-ed.html      The Nikon uses real focusing so the length of the lens ain't change, Lux does.  However, the size of a Lux is smaller (becoz manual focus) but 4x the price tag. 

You can read this to learn more. https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2017/11/17/sensor-comparison-of-5-cameras

They have another 24mm comparison but I can't find it.  The background is Thai boxing

Thank you very much. I was worried about the corner and edge smear of the 24/1.4 Lux at open f stop on other mirrorless bodies (other than Leica M and SL/SL2). I have the Nikon 24/1.4 G and its size is too big for the Z7 body.  

[jaeger]

2 hours ago, ocean2059 said:

Thank you very much. I was worried about the corner and edge smear of the 24/1.4 Lux at open f stop on other mirrorless bodies (other than Leica M and SL/SL2). I have the Nikon 24/1.4 G and its size is too big for the Z7 body.  

It does have vignetting as far as I can remember.  Too bad my lens is in service now, otherwise I can test enabling the vignette control from Z body. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[gotium]

C’mon. The lens on the Q is nice, but it’s no match for the 28 lux on an M.