Jump to content
biswasg

Wish the Q2 came with a 35mm lens

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 28mm summilux on Q2 is great, but too wide for my usage. I am not a fan of electronic zoom.

Wondering how many would have preferred a 35mm on the Q2. if Leica considering an option with a 35mm lens?

Gautam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jaapv said:

It is called the M10 and comes with any lens you like ;)

Yes indeed it does, but without an EVF, auto focusing, shutter priority mode and full auto mode.

There is also a difference in price.

In an ideal world, one where I owned a small oil field, I would have both cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Viv said:

Yes indeed it does, but without an EVF, auto focusing, shutter priority mode and full auto mode.

There is also a difference in price.

In an ideal world, one where I owned a small oil field, I would have both cameras.

On a more serious note, I recently acquired a CL and passed my Q on to my daughter, who is a better photographer than me. I must confess that the 35 mm on the CL is fine, but its 50 mm equivalent FOV is sometimes too narrow for me. I need to consider a wider lens for the CL. But which one??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont`t understand your problem. It`s only your decission to take the Q2 or any orther Leica (or others). As to the 47 MP is cropping a possibility to immitate a lot of other sizes in adequate qualities. 35 mm = about 24 MP is a very fine solution for a landscape photographer like me in order to save weight and volume on tour.

Greatings Hans, some years ago on the run with R9 + DMR + 5 lenses ++++++++

Edited by Hans-Dieter Gülicher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the Q2 does come with a 35mm lens, although it is manual and is separate from the camera itself. 

To find this feature, hold the Q2 at arm's length and look straight down - there is the 35mm f/1.7 lens, cleverly disguised as a pair of feet.  Find your scene, frame it as you like and take one step of 24 in./61 cm. (+ or -) forward.  There is the 35mm f/1.7 lens.  😊

Quote

"...In an ideal world, one where I owned a small oil field, I would have both cameras."

You'll need a set of lenses for the M10.  Better make that a medium oil field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

But the Q2 does come with a 35mm lens, although it is manual and is separate from the camera itself. 

To find this feature, hold the Q2 at arm's length and look straight down - there is the 35mm f/1.7 lens, cleverly disguised as a pair of feet.  Find your scene, frame it as you like and take one step of 24 in./61 cm. (+ or -) forward.  There is the 35mm f/1.7 lens.  😊

 

Oh! so all focal lengths are redundant to stepping forward and backwards- i just hope it was so practical.

Friends, I had a simple question, asking for your preferred focal length on the Q. I am pretty confident on how to make the best use of fixed focal length by walking, cropping, etc. However, from my record, I know I have used the 35mm focal length more often than the 28mm focal length. And i know based on our style of photography, we may have different preferences, which is absolutely fine and expected.

From the above responses, I sense that, even though not explicitly mentioned, you prefer the 28mm instead of the 35mm focal length on the Q.

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, biswasg said:

The 28mm summilux on Q2 is great, but too wide for my usage. I am not a fan of electronic zoom.

Wondering how many would have preferred a 35mm on the Q2. if Leica considering an option with a 35mm lens?

Gautam 

The designers chose 28mm as a compromise between specification and size. They decided that a 35mm lens would have been too big, so it is very unlikely that there will be anything else offered - I'm sure they'd have done that already with the Q2. 

Other solutions are available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Viv said:

On a more serious note, I recently acquired a CL and passed my Q on to my daughter, who is a better photographer than me. I must confess that the 35 mm on the CL is fine, but its 50 mm equivalent FOV is sometimes too narrow for me. I need to consider a wider lens for the CL. But which one??????

Thank you so much, Viv, for this thread drift! There are now quite literally hundreds of threads on the web about what focal length the Q should be, rather than what it is.

I, too, bought a CL, and, as a result, I am likely to sell my Q. Briefly, for something wider, the 11-23 is a brilliant tele. If you want something less expensive and more photographically challenging, Voitlander makes a couple of very wide linear primes that pair well also. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q-X! With frameline for 35mm and with manual focus scale which isn't just gimmick. 28 1.7 takes too much of the real estate, IMO. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wish the frame line implementation was changed to a zoomed display to whatever zoom is selected. It would more simulate if a 28, 35, 50 or 75 mm lens was actually on the camera. Purely a simulation, but I tend to think it would be a better user experience. Not a big deal to me though. The current frame line view works. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am new to Leica and to the Q.  I've had it 10 days at this point.  My primary cameras are Fuji and I have a lot of experience with the X100F.  While there are differences between the Q and X100F, the biggest one for me is the 28mm vs 35mm focal length.

I'm most used to 50mm and 35mm lenses.  The 28mm as a standard lens is new to me.  To be fair to the Leica, I've decided to use only the Q for a month.  To be honest, the first week's images were terrible.  I've since learned to get closer than my normal; pics are getting better.  I still have another two and a half weeks to decide if it's a keeper for me or not.

Regarding using the Q (or Q2) as a 35mm, 50mm or 75mm, it's not the same.  While you can "zoom with your feet", all that does is make the subject the same size.  It does not affect the relationship between the subject and foreground/background.  There is no way you can get the compression of a 75mm lens with a crop from a 28mm image.

To answer the OP's question, if the camera came with a 50mm (or even a 35mm) lens, I'd have a Q2 in my hands right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Viv said:

On a more serious note, I recently acquired a CL and passed my Q on to my daughter, who is a better photographer than me. I must confess that the 35 mm on the CL is fine, but its 50 mm equivalent FOV is sometimes too narrow for me. I need to consider a wider lens for the CL. But which one??????

The 23mm is excellent and compact.  The wide angle zoom is also excellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, biswasg said:

Oh! so all focal lengths are redundant to stepping forward and backwards- i just hope it was so practical.

Friends, I had a simple question, asking for your preferred focal length on the Q. I am pretty confident on how to make the best use of fixed focal length by walking, cropping, etc. However, from my record, I know I have used the 35mm focal length more often than the 28mm focal length. And i know based on our style of photography, we may have different preferences, which is absolutely fine and expected.

From the above responses, I sense that, even though not explicitly mentioned, you prefer the 28mm instead of the 35mm focal length on the Q.

Cheers!

I generally prefer the 35mm focal length.  With the original Q I really wished for a 35mm version instead.  But with 47 megapixels?  I can actually make a pretty strong case for the Q2 as being the better solution.  

You mentioned you are not a fan of digital cropping.  Until recently I would have agreed with you.  But when you reach the point that even the cropped image has as much resolution as you need for literally all likely uses?  What is your opposition then? 

If  Leica released a 35mm version of the Q2 that was 30 megapixels, f/2.1, in APS-H (just a bit smaller than full frame) that was just as compact as the current Q2 and had the same or slightly better lens quality, would you prefer that to the current Q2?  Because that is, exactly, what the Q2 in 35mm crop mode is.  The exact same.  Literally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, biswasg said:

Oh! so all focal lengths are redundant to stepping forward and backwards- i just hope it was so practical.

Friends, I had a simple question, asking for your preferred focal length on the Q. I am pretty confident on how to make the best use of fixed focal length by walking, cropping, etc. However, from my record, I know I have used the 35mm focal length more often than the 28mm focal length. And i know based on our style of photography, we may have different preferences, which is absolutely fine and expected.

From the above responses, I sense that, even though not explicitly mentioned, you prefer the 28mm instead of the 35mm focal length on the Q.

Cheers!

1:  No, not "all" - but some are close enough in angle of view that you can zoom with your feet.

2:  JMHO but there is nothing wrong with either the 28mm or 35mm focal length; I use both. 

3:  Not sure what every one else thinks, but I'm okay with the Q2 having a 28mm fixed lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LeonD said:

Regarding using the Q (or Q2) as a 35mm, 50mm or 75mm, it's not the same.  While you can "zoom with your feet", all that does is make the subject the same size.  It does not affect the relationship between the subject and foreground/background.  There is no way you can get the compression of a 75mm lens with a crop from a 28mm image.

It is the same. If you crop your sensor you reduce pixel count and increase depth of focus, that is all. In this case you are changing the 28/1.7 to a 35/2. No big deal IMO.

The perspective is given by the distance from the subject. If you take a portrait with 28mm filling the entire frame you get a horrible perspective, large nose, etc. because you are so close to the subject. If you now crop to 50mm, you will have to move away from your subject and voila the perspective is exactly the same as if you had changed to a 50mm lens. The only downsides are the obvious reduction in pixel count and that the depth of field is that of a 50mm/2.8 (on full frame), which is still not bad. 

The other advantage of the 28mm is that you see the surrounding when you use the 35mm frame (a bit like a rangefinder) although I like the idea of Leica Guy to have an optional zoomed view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, sfphoto said:

It is the same. If you crop your sensor you reduce pixel count and increase depth of focus, that is all. In this case you are changing the 28/1.7 to a 35/2. No big deal IMO.

The perspective is given by the distance from the subject. If you take a portrait with 28mm filling the entire frame you get a horrible perspective, large nose, etc. because you are so close to the subject. If you now crop to 50mm, you will have to move away from your subject and voila the perspective is exactly the same as if you had changed to a 50mm lens. The only downsides are the obvious reduction in pixel count and that the depth of field is that of a 50mm/2.8 (on full frame), which is still not bad. 

The other advantage of the 28mm is that you see the surrounding when you use the 35mm frame (a bit like a rangefinder) although I like the idea of Leica Guy to have an optional zoomed view.

1st post? Congratulations for your intelligent contribution, and....welcome!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, earleygallery said:

The designers chose 28mm as a compromise between specification and size. They decided that a 35mm lens would have been too big, so it is very unlikely that there will be anything else offered - I'm sure they'd have done that already with the Q2. 

Other solutions are available.

This.

Spoke with the Leica rep about this, and there are a couple things: a 35mm lens would have been too big if it were also an f/1.7 or f/2 lens, which is what Q fans would expect, as it is a camera with a fixed, fast lens. The other way to achieve a 35mm or even 50mm Q (according to Leica rep, they considered both) would have been to make the lens without as wide of a max aperture value (i.e. somewhere in the f/3.4-4.5 range). The Q is able to focus quickly in part because of the focal length -- because the wider the lens, the wider the depth of field (at a given aperture and focal distance when compared to a longer lens at the same aperture and same focal distance). The lesser need for the elements to move long distances within the lens assembly (because at a certain point from focal distance to infinity will be in focus, and that point will occur closer to the focal plane than when using a longer focal length lens), the quicker it is able to focus without using extra motors (like the SL lenses). It just isn't moving as much on the inside as it would have to if it were a longer focal length.

If you've played with a Sony RX1Rii, their fixed-full-frame 35mm f/2 camera, you've noticed it doesn't focus as quickly as the Q. Apparently (I'm not an engineer), that's exactly why Leica won't make a 35mm or 50mm Q. In order to keep the Q size, a compromise must be made. And that compromise would either be the size of the lens (would have to be bigger) or the aperture (would have to be slower). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not me, while I love my Fuji X100F, I really dislike the 35mm equivalent. Causes way more problems than it solves. I fell out of love with it standing on a corner in Milan and trying desperately to frame a row of Roman columns and realizing that I would have to step out into traffic to get it. 

IMO, the beauty of a decent camera with a wider lens is that crops work out nicely. I'd be happy if there was a fixed lens offering at 24mm.

Edited by terry b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy