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

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having had the original Q Titanium, Q-P, and Q2M, I thought I'd offer my observations on the IQ of the 28 Lux of the Q. At any aperture at infinity, the far corners will never be sharp, but everything else is sharp. The Q2M at 47mp is searingly unforgivable, so it's very easy to see what the software distortion correction affects and what it doesn't. At infinity, the Q lens is effectively a 35mm APS-H lens if you must have perfection to the far corners.

At any other distance closer than infinity, the Q 28 Lux is sharp into the far corners wide open at f/1.7.

So for the original Q at 24mp, the differences between infinity and closer distance were not so great, but on the Q2M, they are stark.

As for the distortion correction required by the Q Lux: Any distortion correction reduces microcontrast, but I find this more theoretical than practical. I have never seen visual proof showing the Q loses enough microcontrast to affect the final image, only the statement that somehow it could have been better. We have to remember that the Q lens has the advantage of being permanently attached and designed specifically for the sensor, so it's conceivable that the loss of microcontrast still leaves it on par with a non-corrected M lens that is not a fixed design.

In summary, the original Q is a stellar camera/lens combo, but the Q2M at 47mp is like nothing I have ever seen, even from the GFX100.

[Casey Jefferson]

i stumbled across this thread when I researched about the lens between the two discussed here. Then someone pointed out the diffraction at f11 and beyond that caught my attention. I then searched a lot of landscape shot on Q2 and the diffraction effect was readily visible on many. Does the M 28lux behaved that way?

 

[Advertisement]

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

[pedaes]

26 minutes ago, Casey Jefferson said:

Does the M 28lux behaved that way?

All lens have diffraction beyond f8.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

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?

Maybe its just me but i see no merit in lapping up good reviews but dismissing indifferent reviews of leica lenses/products.

Just to be clear you seem to be saying that because "very good photographers" use leica equipment there is no point in reviewing leica gear? good,average and bad photographers use any camera manufacturer,s products so that point is just drivel.

The last part of your post is just some made up fantasy in your head.

I am on here because i am a leica m user but i am not precious or defensive about reviews pointing out a possible weak area of for example a leica lens,i only read the free bits of digilloyd but i like him and he says plenty of positive things about leica gear as well as some negative stuff.

[IkarusJohn]

Quote

Maybe its just me but i see no merit in lapping up good reviews but dismissing indifferent reviews of leica lenses/products.

There would be no point in reading reviews (if that’s your thing) if you ignored good reviewers who had less positive things to say about equipment you were considering; similarly, not much point in reading a dud reviewer, whatever he/she has to say.

Quote

Just to be clear you seem to be saying that because "very good photographers" use leica equipment there is no point in reviewing leica gear? good,average and bad photographers use any camera manufacturer,s products so that point is just drivel..

Just to be clear, I’m not.

Quote

I am on here because i am a leica m user but i am not precious or defensive about reviews pointing out a possible weak area of for example a leica lens,i only read the free bits of digilloyd but i like him and he says plenty of positive things about leica gear as well as some negative stuff.

I’m very happy for you.  I don’t rate him, so I don’t read him; as I don’t read a lot of other reviewers, who may be very good but actually have nothing to say which interests me.  I should add that I don’t read reviews of equipment I already have. I don’t see the point.  If I find that I want or need something, I read here (useful comments), and I look around for useful and relevant comment on the product, then I buy it (or not).  If it suits my needs, I keep it.  If not, I sell it.

I don’t go pixel peeping for flaws, and frankly anything “reviewers” have to say is largely dancing on the head of a pin.  But, in relation to Lloyd, I did read his reviews at one stage, and found them not very helpful.  I‘m not at all defensive about what I do, and I have had Leica gear which has not worked for me and I’ve sold.  I think I’ve been quite open about that.

Edited June 19, 2021 by IkarusJohn

[Guest]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

There would be no point in reading reviews (if that’s your thing) if you ignored good reviewers who had less positive things to say about equipment you were considering; similarly, not much point in reading a dud reviewer, whatever he/she has to say.

Just to be clear, I’m not.

I’m very happy for you.  I don’t rate him, so I don’t read him; as I don’t read a lot of other reviewers, who may be very good but actually have nothing to say which interests me.  I should add that I don’t read reviews of equipment I already have. I don’t see the point.  If I find that I want or need something, I read here (useful comments), and I look around for useful and relevant comment on the product, then I buy it (or not).  If it suits my needs, I keep it.  If not, I sell it.

I don’t go pixel peeping for flaws, and frankly anything “reviewers” have to say is largely dancing on the head of a pin.  But, in relation to Lloyd, I did read his reviews at one stage, and found them not very helpful.  I‘m not at all defensive about what I do, and I have had Leica gear which has not worked for me and I’ve sold.  I think I’ve been quite open about that.

I do agree with your "dancing on a pin" comment ,so at least we are on the same page on that.

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 6/19/2021 at 11:09 AM, Casey Jefferson said:

i stumbled across this thread when I researched about the lens between the two discussed here. Then someone pointed out the diffraction at f11 and beyond that caught my attention. I then searched a lot of landscape shot on Q2 and the diffraction effect was readily visible on many. Does the M 28lux behaved that way?

 

 

On 6/19/2021 at 11:37 AM, pedaes said:

All lens have diffraction beyond f8.

There really is no need for shooting either 28 Lux beyond f/8 since f/8 + infinity focus gives massive depth of field. That said, I have tried the M10-R with 28 Lux at f/16 and it is still incredibly sharp. Perhaps the higher resolution sensor of the Q2 (or M Lux on the SL2) will show diffraction sooner when viewed at 100% magnification.

[Casey Jefferson]

1 minute ago, hdmesa said:

 

There really is no need for shooting either 28 Lux beyond f/8 since f/8 + infinity focus gives massive depth of field. That said, I have tried the M10-R with 28 Lux at f/16 and it is still incredibly sharp. Perhaps the higher resolution sensor of the Q2 (or M Lux on the SL2) will show diffraction sooner when viewed at 100% magnification.

Sometimes you just want a large sun star...

[hdmesa]

Just now, Casey Jefferson said:

Sometimes you just want a large sun star...

Neither 28 Lux generates large nor perfect sunstars even at f/16.

[Steven]

2 hours ago, hdmesa said:

 

There really is no need for shooting either 28 Lux beyond f/8 since f/8 + infinity focus gives massive depth of field. That said, I have tried the M10-R with 28 Lux at f/16 and it is still incredibly sharp. Perhaps the higher resolution sensor of the Q2 (or M Lux on the SL2) will show diffraction sooner when viewed at 100% magnification.

I shoot it at F16 a lot. DOF is about 0.8 to infinity, therefore turning the camera into a point and shoot. I know some people have told me this is ridiculous, but I love shooting it conspicuously this way from the hip. I get some really fun shots without anyone knowing ! 

[hdmesa]

13 minutes ago, Steven said:

I shoot it at F16 a lot. DOF is about 0.8 to infinity, therefore turning the camera into a point and shoot. I know some people have told me this is ridiculous, but I love shooting it conspicuously this way from the hip. I get some really fun shots without anyone knowing ! 

I can see that being a viable way to shoot, especially since IQ doesn't seem to suffer at current resolutions. I'm assuming you use it that way on the SL2-S? Off topic, but while I have you on the line so to speak: I'm sending my M10-R in for trade to re-acquire a Q2M, then I plan to wait for the M11 to use my M lenses on a rangefinder. Currently I can use the M lenses on my R5, but I don't quite trust the Kipon macro helicoid adapter to not get stuck on a lens at some point. Do you still recommend the SL2-S for M glass? It's tempting with the current promotion for a free M adapter with SL2/SL2-S purchase.

[Steven]

4 hours ago, hdmesa said:

I can see that being a viable way to shoot, especially since IQ doesn't seem to suffer at current resolutions. I'm assuming you use it that way on the SL2-S? Off topic, but while I have you on the line so to speak: I'm sending my M10-R in for trade to re-acquire a Q2M, then I plan to wait for the M11 to use my M lenses on a rangefinder. Currently I can use the M lenses on my R5, but I don't quite trust the Kipon macro helicoid adapter to not get stuck on a lens at some point. Do you still recommend the SL2-S for M glass? It's tempting with the current promotion for a free M adapter with SL2/SL2-S purchase.

On my SL2-S, yes, but also on my M (film and digital). It's actually more fun to shoot this way on an M. 

About the SL2-S, yes. It's the best camera I have ever tried in my life, and the only one I would keep if had to chose one. It's very close to perfection. It's flaws are not a deal breaker for me. 

I use it 95% with M glass, and it is a pure joy. I don't care what charts and science say, I prefer the results I get with M lenses with the SL2S than with an M10R/P. I think that the SL2-S can take out more from the M lenses than an M. DR, unbelievable low light capabilities, fast shooting... and I absolutely love the sensor in the SL2S. It's just gorgeous. 

Not to forget, the SL2S is a video beast, and M lenses are unbelievable for video. 

I highly recommend you to get one. You can only love it. 

[Mahesh]

The only thing is SL line of cameras are soo heavy compared with an M. That is the deal-breaker for me. 

[Steven]

Of course, that it the only issue. But with an M adapter and a small lens, they are lighter than most cameras in the same category, and quite compact too. 

I forgot to mention another thing I love about this camera. I talked about its low light capability, and didn't say anything about its bright light capability. At 1/16000 of a second, I easily shoot my Noctilux wide open in the middle of the say in the summer. Another thing my M can't do (without a filter)

 

[tom0511]

I would not expect either lens to be the limiting factor. If you like a small AF camera with 28mm - Q(2), if you like a lens for the M (or / and SL2) the 28/1.4 is great.

My subjective impression: Summilux 28 M renders different. Some call it cinematic, (whatever this means).

[Jeff S]

55 minutes ago, Steven said:

….I easily shoot my Noctilux wide open in the middle of the say in the summer. Another thing my M can't do (without a filter)

 

So, a plus for the M. 😉

Jeff

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Steven said:

........"It's the best camera I have ever tried in my life"

I wish I had a Dollar, a Quid or a Euro for every time I've said that myself for any camera I've used / owned over the past 50 odd years I've been smudging..............

[Steven]

56 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

Some call it cinematic, (whatever this means).

It means that photos taken with it look like they're straight out of a movie film.

[hdmesa]

2 hours ago, tom0511 said:

I would not expect either lens to be the limiting factor. If you like a small AF camera with 28mm - Q(2), if you like a lens for the M (or / and SL2) the 28/1.4 is great.

My subjective impression: Summilux 28 M renders different. Some call it cinematic, (whatever this means).

 

1 hour ago, Steven said:

It means that photos taken with it look like they're straight out of a movie film.

 

Cinematic in the cinema world is about lighting and color grading aesthetic (flatter contrast with wide dynamic range). To photographers, they often think of cinematic in terms of widest aperture plus natural lens vignetting, which is a parlor trick to overcome the biggest separator between cinema and stills, which is motion. The only way in which cinematic overlaps for cinema and stills – outside of some Netflix show where a director is enamored with vintage lenses shot wide open – is in the color grading.

With that as background, one downside to the Q/Q2/Q2M is the automatic lens corrections. Vignetting applied in post never looks as natural or organic as true lens vignetting, and the 28 Lux-M may have one of the most beautiful vignetting profiles of any lens I have ever used.

Edited July 7, 2021 by hdmesa

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest Nowhereman]

@Steven - I thought that you might be interested in the examples and the discussion of the Summilux 28 and some other lenses in this thread on the Fred Miranda forum, especially the posts by Ron Scheffler, who has extensively tested a good number of wide-angle lenses.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook