Wish the Q2 came with a 35mm lens

[LeonD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, sfphoto said:

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.

Will the compression and relationship between the subject and background be the same between the crop 50mm and an actual 50mm lens?

If I have enough resolution and I crop my 28mm lens in to 135mm or 200mm, can I get the same subject to background compression as using a 135mm or 200mm lens?  I'll have to give this a try.

Thanks.

[Advertisement]

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

[Herr Barnack]

13 hours ago, leicameech said:

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). 

Coming soon:  The NoctiQ2 with a 50mm f/0.95 ASPH lens. 

It will weigh 4 kg and be the size of a Mamiya 7 II, but sacrifices must be endured.  😎

Edited November 15, 2019 by Herr Barnack

[Guest]

Tragic for all lens manufacturers as they will now have to discontinue making lenses as they are redundant thanks to the q crop sensor.

[jaapv]

16 hours ago, leicameech said:

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). 

The Leica X (typ 113 lens is not THAT big, even relative to an APS body - and probably could be smaller.

[sfphoto]

7 hours ago, LeonD said:

Will the compression and relationship between the subject and background be the same between the crop 50mm and an actual 50mm lens?

If I have enough resolution and I crop my 28mm lens in to 135mm or 200mm, can I get the same subject to background compression as using a 135mm or 200mm lens?  I'll have to give this a try.

Absolutely. Maybe I can offer you another explanation: When you say compression, are you thinking of something like a picture of a giant moon behind a house? Well, imagine you take a picture of the rising moon with your Leica Q2. The moon is tiny. If you now crop to the moon and a house on the horizon you will get a giant moon at the size of the house, exactly like what you would get if you used a 600mm lens. Only the resolution will be an issue 😉 If you went up to the house and took a picture with your 28mm full frame to get the house at the same size again, the moon would be tiny. So in the end it is all about the distance to the subject and how much you are willing to move around.

More realistic is the scenario with the crop to 50mm: you have exactly the same perspective as if you changed to a 50mm lens. The wideangle perspective of the 28mm is gone. It is just not a 50mm/1.7 but a 50mm/2.8 with its larger depth of focus and only 15MP. But you did not have to change lenses and got the shot...

[leicameech]

10 hours ago, jaapv said:

The Leica X (typ 113 lens is not THAT big, even relative to an APS body - and probably could be smaller.

True, but the X 113 focuses much slower than the Q or the Q2. I wouldn't want a 35mm Q or Q2 that focuses as fast as an X 113. But, a 23mm lens (the actual focal length of the X 113 lens) has a wider depth of field than a 35mm. The crop effect is because of the sensor size, but the lens itself has a wider depth of field and therefore can focus quicker than an actual 35 would have -- which is the same reasoning behind what I mentioned earlier. 

[leicameech]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

Coming soon:  The NoctiQ2 with a 50mm f/0.95 ASPH lens. 

It will weigh 4 kg and be the size of a Mamiya 7 II, but sacrifices must be endured.  😎

lol

[TBPhoto35]

I think Leica got it right with the Q lens - to me, the 28mm lens is the best compromise for a fixed lens camera.  I like it better than I would a fixed 35mm lens because it is more conducive to landscapes.  I see the 35mm field of view as too much of a 'tweener size that is best for street shooting.  Too tight for wide shots, too wide for portraits.  I love the ability to use the 35mm crop with my Q-P!

[nicci78]

I don’t understand the problem. Don’t we get a nice 35mm crop with 30MP and out of frame view à la M ? 
The equivalent sensor 1.25x is even bigger than M8 1.33x so what’s not to like ? 
equivalent depth of field is a nice f/2.1 

 

Leica will never make 35 nor 50mm Q. 
They still have CL, TL2, M10 and SL2 to sell. 

[nicci78]

Q2 35mm crop mode is better than late X typ 113. Its aperture variable lens is disappointing. And should have been marketed as a 23mm f/1.7-2.8

Exactly as the Summicron-TL 23mm is an f/2-2.8 lens. Leica is so ashamed of this trait of character, that it let the customer figure it by itself when these two lenses close automatically their aperture to f/2.8 without notice. Distance is the culprit. But it is a bad move. 

Let’s get back to X typ 113. It is only a  35mm equivalent with 16MP and its equivalent depth of field is f/2.6-4.2

X Vario is a 28-70mm equivalent with 16MP and its eq. DoF is f/5.3-9.6 only

Compare them with Q2 which has eq. DoF 28mm f/1.7 with 47.7MP + 35mm f/2.1 with 30MP + 50mm f/3 with 14.7MP + 75mm f/4,6 with 6.6MP 

 

NB : Q2 did reduce its aperture to f/2.8 in macro mode only. Not in normal range such as X 113 and Summicron-TL

Do you really need Q 35 and Q Vario ? 
 

Edited November 18, 2019 by nicci78

[jaapv]

It is not a 23 mm lens. When corrected fully it is 28, 23 is only halfway before full correction. A completely optically corrected lens has different focal lengths if you calculate halfway between the elements as well. Those are not marked: 28-35 behind the first element-21 behind the second element, either. 

[danielmfrank]

On 11/14/2019 at 5:00 AM, 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!

Frankly, I prefer the 28mm focal length.

I used to have an M Typ 240, which came in a kit with a 35 Summicron. I shot with the 35 for a while, mainly doing travel photography, and I found that 35mm is either too narrow or two wide for me, but never quite right. I found myself repeatedly pulling out my iPhone to get 28mm and 56mm focal lengths for my pictures. So I bought a 28mm Summicron and a 50mm Summilux and left the 35 home, never missed it.

For travel and architecture photography, 35 is too narrow to work in narrow streets or photograph larger buildings and their environments, or landscapes. When I am doing street photography, I use a 50 if I want to tell only one story in a picture, or the 28 to juxtapose two stories. At the distances I shoot at, a 35 always seems to get me 1.5 stories.

I sold my M and lenses earlier this year to buy the Q2, for various reasons I've listed in another post. I still don't miss the 35, but I do miss having a longer lens when I want to get closer. I've considered getting a CL for that, or a used SL with the 45mm f/2.8 Sigma. (Anyone want to sell me a used SL?)

By the way, the 35mm crop on a Q2 gets you a 30MP file, not 24. So it's still more pixels than a Q at 28mm.

[bobtodrick]

I love the 28mm.

They did it because you may not like the in camera cropping the camera does...but it give you the option of both 28mm and 35mm.

If it was a fixed 35mm, no way you are going to shoot at 28mm.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[Yellow Lab]

I'm replying to SF Newbie's comments :

I differ on his opinion.  For a given focal length, the lens remains true to that focal length whatever may be the camera format.  The coverage offered by the camera format changes, but not the characteristics of the lens.  Each focal length has it's intrinsic angle of view.  A 28mm does not have the same angle of view as a 35mm.  Getting closer to the subject does not alter this.  It just makes the subject seem nearer and so larger.  The angle seen from the camera has not changed and so it's relationship to the background has not changed.  My choice of lenses have always been as much about how I wished to control the background as my subject in the forground.  Perhaps this helps. 

I too would buy a Q2 with a 35mm native lens but I suspect that it would canibalize a portion of Leica's M sales.  I don't think that we will ever see it offered.

[sfphoto]

1 hour ago, Yellow Lab said:

For a given focal length, the lens remains true to that focal length whatever may be the camera format.  The coverage offered by the camera format changes, but not the characteristics of the lens.  Each focal length has it's intrinsic angle of view.  A 28mm does not have the same angle of view as a 35mm.  Getting closer to the subject does not alter this.  It just makes the subject seem nearer and so larger.  The angle seen from the camera has not changed and so it's relationship to the background has not changed.  My choice of lenses have always been as much about how I wished to control the background as my subject in the forground. 

I can only repeat myself (to emphasize how brilliant the Q2 is). A 28mm lens on any camera can be used as a 35mm lens by simply cropping the chip. You get the same image perspective, proportions, angle of view as if you had changed to a 35mm lens. Resolution, depth of field, etc. may be different but this is not what you are talking about. This is why the Q2 can be used perfectly well in 35mm or 50mm crop mode. 

If your argument was true nobody would use APS-C or MFT cameras because of the terrible distortions of the ultrawide angle lenses they have to use to get a wideangle perspective: To get a 35mm FF equivalent on a MFT camera you need to use a 17mm lens. This lens on that small chip will produce the exact same perspective as a 35mm lens on a FF.

[Guest]

My opinion is that a Q 35 would easily outsell a Q 2.

[LexS]

On 11/14/2019 at 1:35 PM, Herr Barnack said:

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.  😊

No way, you don't know the feet I have, way to flat and big (more important: I need to be less round to see my feet).

 

[LPettigrew]

It would put the whole M system at risk, that's not what we want 🙂

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jaapv]

As long as the Q has no optical viewfinder and rangefinder, that is a most unlikely scenario.

[PhotoCruiser]

I am fine with the 28mm, 35mm would be too narrow for the use i make of the Q2 but i understand that some people would prefer the 35mm.
I rather crop than not be able to fit all  want in the picture because i can't step more back.
But that's me...

Chris

Edited November 23, 2019 by PhotoCruiser