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

[jaeger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 11/26/2019 at 8:51 PM, gotium said:

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

can you further elaborate what's "no match", I am curious....

[Advertisement]

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

[gotium]

On 11/28/2019 at 10:24 AM, jaeger said:

can you further elaborate what's "no match", I am curious....

The Q/Q2 lens is super-sharp in the center of the frame, but gets smudgy as you go away from center, presumably with software correction. While the images look really good, I don't see a whole lot of 'pop'. The bokeh is nice, but I think a little nervous. 

I think the 28 lux for M is a pretty much perfect lens - it has more microcontrast, the images get a 'glow' that I don't see from the Q, and it's just as good all the way to the corners. Super-smooth bokeh and a lovely transition from in-focus to out-of-focus that I again don't see with the Q/Q2. 

I love the Q and Q2, though. 

 

 

[Herr Barnack]

I have had my Q2 for two weeks now and am loving this little masterpiece.  One unexpected result of shooting with the Q2 is that it has rekindled my desire to acquire the 28 Summilux for my M kit to go along with my 28/2.8 Elmarit.

There's just something special about the 28mm focal length on a full frame camera...

Edited November 30, 2019 by Herr Barnack

[Phatcat]

Diglloyd also didn’t think highly of the Q lens, not for the price anyway.  The problem with the Q lens is high sharpness is limited to central 1/3 or so, declining steadily towards the outer zones. The style/rendition is beautiful he stated, but if you are a pixel peeper (which obviously he is, it’s how he makes money), then the performance is not worth the price tag, especially the Q is now up to 47M pixels. 

As for the Summilux, the problem was field curvature, which he said all Leica Summilux suffer this problem. It is not up to Otus quality in terms of absolute performance, but given the small size and speed, which meant Leica have to make compromises, it is a outstanding lens. 

[jaeger]

On 11/30/2019 at 9:49 AM, Herr Barnack said:

I have had my Q2 for two weeks now and am loving this little masterpiece.  One unexpected result of shooting with the Q2 is that it has rekindled my desire to acquire the 28 Summilux for my M kit to go along with my 28/2.8 Elmarit.

There's just something special about the 28mm focal length on a full frame camera...

The macro comes handy as well, that you don't have in any summilux-M. 

 

11 hours ago, Phatcat said:

Q lens is high sharpness is limited to central 1/3 or so

Are you talking close up/marco wide open?  I've never heard about Q2 is only 1/3 sharp really.

[M11 for me]

vor einer Stunde schrieb jaeger:

. . . I've never heard about Q2 is only 1/3 sharp really.

how can I understand this? Do you listen in lightroom and then you hear if a photograph is sharp?

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 hours ago, Phatcat said:

Diglloyd also didn’t think highly of the Q lens, not for the price anyway.  The problem with the Q lens is high sharpness is limited to central 1/3 or so, declining steadily towards the outer zones. The style/rendition is beautiful he stated, but if you are a pixel peeper (which obviously he is, it’s how he makes money), then the performance is not worth the price tag, especially the Q is now up to 47M pixels. 

As for the Summilux, the problem was field curvature, which he said all Leica Summilux suffer this problem. It is not up to Otus quality in terms of absolute performance, but given the small size and speed, which meant Leica have to make compromises, it is a outstanding lens. 

That may be the case at f/1.7 with the Q2.

Many M lenses are not 100% razor sharp at maximum aperture.  At midrange apertures such as f/5.6 and f/8.0, sharpness extends into the corners and to the edges of the frame.  This has been accepted by Leica users for decades as a necessary arrangement in order to maximize overall lens performance and image quality.

Even with a whiff of softness in the outer regions of the frame at maximum aperture, I'll still take M lenses over any other lens maker's offerings. 

Regarding Diglloyd and other commentators, their opinions are nothing but opinions; they are not the immutable laws of the universe. 

[M11 for me]

As the speed of the Q lens is just in the middle of a 28mm Summilux or Summicron, should one not consider to compare all 3 lenses?

[Phatcat]

11 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

That may be the case at f/1.7 with the Q2.

Many M lenses are not 100% razor sharp at maximum aperture.  At midrange apertures such as f/5.6 and f/8.0, sharpness extends into the corners and to the edges of the frame.  This has been accepted by Leica users for decades as a necessary arrangement in order to maximize overall lens performance and image quality.

Even with a whiff of softness in the outer regions of the frame at maximum aperture, I'll still take M lenses over any other lens maker's offerings. 

Regarding Diglloyd and other commentators, their opinions are nothing but opinions; they are not the immutable laws of the universe. 

Well, first of all Diglloyd did say given the size constraints, Leica lens are outstanding. As for opinions, yes they are opinions but Diglloyd have lots of pictures at different apertures for comparison, at least he has stuff to back up his opinion, compare to many here that are really, just opinions, has nothing to substantiate them.

As for me personally I also will take M lenses over Otus any day. The point of me moving from DSLR to M is size reduction. And I also have a Q, it’s great for point and shoot, although admittedly with iPhone 11 Pro I don’t take out Q much anymore. 

15 hours ago, jaeger said:

The macro comes handy as well, that you don't have in any summilux-M. 

 

Are you talking close up/marco wide open?  I've never heard about Q2 is only 1/3 sharp really.

 

You can easily see it on at his subscription site at different enlargement, even at f8. But this is why I said it’s for pixel peepers, without blowing the image up I can’t tell, all pictures looked sharp to me, all the way around. And Diglloyd did also say the Q’s image rendering is great, he can see why people like it. 

Again, there is character of the lens and there is absolute performance of the lens. Diglloyd’s paying job is to find the absolute performance of the lens, for those who cares. I don’t really care about outer zone sharpness at 200% enlargement, I like my M lens’s rendering and size. 

 

[Herr Barnack]

Quote

"... Diglloyd did say given the size constraints, Leica lens are outstanding. As for opinions, yes they are opinions but Diglloyd have lots of pictures at different apertures for comparison, at least he has stuff to back up his opinion..."

True - he does present more than just the usual jibberjabber proffered by some online "experts."  I will take a closer look at his evaluations in the future. 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Herr Barnack

[caissa]

A new point in favor of the Summilux M 28mm (1.4) is that it can be used on the SL2 with IBIS. While the Q2 only has some sort of OIS. It's not related to the optics, but still important for me (or other users that take better pictures with a stabilized lens/camera).   I actually like the size of the Q lens, and would really like to have a clone of similar size with an SL mount (after all it is a AF lens).

In this time of recycling, you could also argue that a M lens has a longer life, than a Q camera. But the Q can also be sold and reused by others. But the idea that you need to buy another lens with each new generation of sensor is a point against the Q/Q2  (and maybe Q3 and Q4 etc.) .

Edited January 17, 2020 by caissa

[caissa]

I found another point in favor of the Q or Q2 lens. You can actually add a monoscope, which makes it very versatile.  (I don't know if there is also a M lens that allows the use of a monoscope. Would be interesting. Any hints ?)

[zupfgeiger]

I purchased the 28mm Lux some weeks ago and I love the lens although being a bit heavy on my M bodies. Sold my Q a while ago because it just did not transmit the creative feeling of a rangerfinder. And  the cleaning problems with the sensor. Obviously I am not a Q shooter. Some people might sell their 28mm Lux to get the new 35mm Apo. But I am very happy with the 28 choice which perfectly fits into the line with my 21mm SEM, the 50mm Apo and the 90mm Apo.

[strohscw]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb zupfgeiger:

I purchased the 28mm Lux some weeks ago and I love the lens although being a bit heavy on my M bodies. Sold my Q a while ago because it just did not transmit the creative feeling of a rangerfinder. And  the cleaning problems with the sensor. Obviously I am not a Q shooter. Some people might sell their 28mm Lux to get the new 35mm Apo. But I am very happy with the 28 choice which perfectly fits into the line with my 21mm SEM, the 50mm Apo and the 90mm Apo.

+1

[jrp]

On 12/14/2019 at 7:18 AM, Phatcat said:

Diglloyd also didn’t think highly of the Q lens, not for the price anyway.   ....

As for the Summilux, the problem was field curvature, which he said all Leica Summilux suffer this problem. ...

Diglloyd is either the unluckiest guy in the world -- accident prone -- or he spends too much time trying to find faults which are not visible on the samples that he provides at the size that he provides them.  It's a business model. Just look at his MacBook reviews for an indication of his style.  If you just read his histrionic reviews, you wouldn't buy anything, yet a lot of people seem to get stuff done on Macintoshes.

[Guest]

Digilloyd is at times critical of leica lenses so he must be a useless reviewer.

Jomo slack is almost never critical of leica lenses so he must be a top notch reviewer.

Thats how it goes on a leica forum i suppose?

[IkarusJohn]

3 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

Digilloyd is at times critical of leica lenses so he must be a useless reviewer.

Jomo slack is almost never critical of leica lenses so he must be a top notch reviewer.

Thats how it goes on a leica forum i suppose?

Sure.

But then, this is a Leica forum; members do tend to own Leica equipment here; many are very good photographers; some just like the gear.  Is there a problem?  The reason Diggylloyd isn’t so popular here is that his reviews don’t really tend to reflect people’s experience.  If Diggylloyd was accurate in his assessments, then people would sell their expensive and useless equipment and move on to Sonys with excellent Zeiss lenses, or Fujis or whatever else.

But some stick around, which must mean they are just collectors, snobs and groupies, unable to tell a good image from a bad one.  I guess that’s what you’re saying.  So … why are you here?

[rtai]

The images out of the Q2M is extraordinary especially at 1.7 and the camera will default to f1.7 if you leave it on auto. I was very pleased with the images from the Q2M but unfortunately decided to get rid of it after using it extensively for 3 months. As good as the lens, it is permanently attached to the Q2M body a camera incompatible with my style of photography. I bought it for the AF because I wanted to at times shoot street at max aperture for the thin dof but found the AF to be slow and unreliable akin to an early 90’s Nikon. If you shoot slow and look through the EVF for every shot then it is the perfect camera. It’s the usual routine of looking through the finder, press shutter half way, see where the little rectangle or rectangles are focused on and then snap away.  If this is what you need then I can’t recommend the Q2 or Q2M enough.

Edited June 19, 2021 by rtai

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jrp]

5 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Sure.

.  If Diggylloyd was accurate in his assessments, then people would sell their expensive and useless equipment and move on to Sonys with excellent Zeiss lenses, or Fujis or whatever else.

He generally finds flaws with those too. His basic business model is to create anxiety, as you can see from the material on the public facing parts of his site.

I never found his reviews useful, in the sense of offering a balanced summary of the features and characteristics of the equipment, its strengths and weaknesses, what it could be used for, where it would struggle.  So for Leica lenses he wouldn’t give credit for size, eg. 

[IkarusJohn]

I have to admit that I don’t pore over reviews when I’m selecting equipment.  And I certainly don’t invest my time in people who have an agenda.

I read the fruit and vege man for a bit, and found that there was a level of similarity in the reviews and lots of information that was irrelevant to my photography. I’d read the conclusion and, frankly not really be that informed.  More critically, he’d test lenses I either didn’t have (Voightlanders etc), or simply wasn’t that interested in.  But, he was useful at a point in time.

Steve Huff, once you filtered out the “Oh, my gosh, this is the BEST LENS EVEr” hyperbole, did have some useful information.  Similarly, Thorsten Overpriced had interesting information, in the jazz music, coffee drinking, Stetson wearing, oh so cool kind of way.  Each review has to be considered in context.  I like Jono, and I like his reviews.  I also like the comments and observations on this forum.  I have no doubt they have all made me a better photographer, in a very limited way.  Scanning my photos of old, I can see a similarity in framing, subject matter and approach which I like.  So the impact of this increase in information has probably been in understanding what I do and why I do it (distilling my technique) and improving my understanding of my equipment and why I use it.  And the equipment is oh so much better that what I used to use.

But hyperventilating over some esoteric, and actually mostly misleading point is of zero interest.  A long post to say, I don’t read Digilloyd, or any other photographic review I have to pay for.