Jump to content
biswasg

Wish the Q2 came with a 35mm lens

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, Steven said:

In that case yes you would get the same perspective as a 35 by cropping into the 28. 
The only impact would be on the depth of field which would be less shallow than the 35 after cropping on the 28thThe only impact would be on the depth of field which would be less shallow than the 35 after cropping on the 28

And the impact on DOF would be due to the "cropping" of the sensor size, thus changing the magnification throughout the imaging chain, not by the focal length. 

Share this post


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

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the focal length, only with the change in distance thus the perspective.

It has everything to do with the direction this thread took though. 

My point is that, even if some don't want to accept it, the Q is a 28mm. Not a 35 + 50 +70. 

It is just a 28mm length, with a 28mm focal length, and even Leica markets it as a 4 lens in 1, in no way it is, or is similar to a 35, a 50, and even less a 75. It is JUST a 28mm in which you can crop thanks to the high res sensor. One should buy the Q if they want a 28mm camera. Not if they are looking for a 35mm camera. If I could chose between a 28mm 1.7 47MP Q, and a 35mm 1.7 30MP Q, I would take the 35mm in a heartbeat, because 35 is my main focal length. And I would be way different than the 28mm version. 

I don't know how to phrase it anymore. I don't care for the wikipedia definition of the word perspective. The Q is a 28mm focal length camera and nothing else. Sure, you can replicate a 35mm field of view by cropping, but it doesn't make a 35mm equivalent. 

If you disagree with that, then let me claim that my 35 lux on my M10R is also a 90mm. Except it is NOT !!!!!!!!

Edited by Steven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Well this is the 28/35mm tread so i guess that we are still in the contex and Steven,  you are free to ask whatever you want.
Sometimes it s also useful to open a new tread if the question may get lost between other treads, that is what i would do.

I know now what i was already knowing, f.e. that 28mm is not a portrait lens and that it may distort depending of distance because of being a wide angle.

Maybe someone here who has a Leica with interchangable lenses take two photos same distance one with 28mm and one with 35mm.
As i am not really sure about that so i ask someone who has either e zoom lens (likely) or both a 28mm and a 35mm lens (unlikely) on a Leica.
I could do that with my D800 and the 24-70mm, but it's not a Leica so to avoiud further discussions it would e better if a Leica is used.

My point is that the distortion or any other quality loss between 28mm and 35mm is barely noticable?
If the distortion is noticable and necessary for ones use he makes of, i understand the discussion about a Q2 with 35mm,
but if the distortion (or any other quality loss) is barely noticable then i have some problems to understand where the problem is.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PhotoCruiser said:

'Well this is the 28/35mm tread so i guess that we are still in the contex and Steven,  you are free to ask whatever you want.
Sometimes it s also useful to open a new tread if the question may get lost between other treads, that is what i would do.

I know now what i was already knowing, f.e. that 28mm is not a portrait lens and that it may distort depending of distance because of being a wide angle.

Maybe someone here who has a Leica with interchangable lenses take two photos same distance one with 28mm and one with 35mm.
As i am not really sure about that so i ask someone who has either e zoom lens (likely) or both a 28mm and a 35mm lens (unlikely) on a Leica.
I could do that with my D800 and the 24-70mm, but it's not a Leica so to avoiud further discussions it would e better if a Leica is used.

My point is that the distortion or any other quality loss between 28mm and 35mm is barely noticable?
If the distortion is noticable and necessary for ones use he makes of, i understand the discussion about a Q2 with 35mm,
but if the distortion (or any other quality loss) is barely noticable then i have some problems to understand where the problem is.

Chris

Again, you can easily get the same photos with a 35mm fov and 28 fov with the Leica Q2 crop mode. But you will have to sacrifice depth of field when cropping into 35 mm and this what most people DO NOT want. If you don’t care about losing the shallow depth of field look, you can buy the q2 and safely use it as a 35mm lens. It just won’t be a 1.7 lens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steven said:

If you disagree with that, then let me claim that my 35 lux on my M10R is also a 90mm. Except it is NOT !!!!!!!!

They are. Try it. Your 35/1.4 and a 90/3.6 are identical in perspective, depth of field, “compression”, etc. Just that the 35mm shows more stuff around the frame, that you simply crop away...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 14 Minuten schrieb Steven:

If you don’t care about losing the shallow depth of field look, you can buy the q2 and safely use it as a 35mm lens. It just won’t be a 1.7 lens. 

So please show us the difference to see how big it is, matematical numbers and human eye perception are two different shoes

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PhotoCruiser said:My point is that the distortion or any other quality loss between 28mm and 35mm is barely noticable?

If the distortion is noticable and necessary for ones use he makes of, i understand the discussion about a Q2 with 35mm,
but if the distortion (or any other quality loss) is barely noticable then i have some problems to understand where the problem is.

Good idea. Someone should try it. 
 

Not sure what you mean by “distortion”. The 28 on the Q2 is pretty well corrected. In any case, any distortions or chromatic aberrations will only get worse towards the edges. I would therefore think that you get a potentially better image if you crop a 28mm image to 35mm, as you get rid of the potentially less sharp and distorted edges.

(I am not talking about resolution just distortions)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I sold my Q2 (with a very very heart) two days ago, so I cannot make that test for you anymore. But if you want to see what a 35mm crop from the Q vs a real 35mm would like side by side, all you need is a 35mm lens, preferably a Summilux (set a 1,7) but even a Summicron at F2 would show a bit of a difference. After that, take a tripod, take twice the same shot, one time at the widest aperture, and a second time at an aperture of around 2.8 (I'm sure someone here can tell us precisely what the equivalent aperture of the 35 crop is). You will see the difference in the image. 

If you are shooting a landscape, or far away from your subject (without any foreground object in your composition), the difference in DOF should be minimal but still noticeable.

If you are shooting a portrait, the difference will me massive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

IMHO it makes more sense to have a Q with a 50mm Lux (Q5?) than a Q2 Monochrom

The MQM will sell well I think. Maybe as well as a « q5 ». 
But I’m convinced a Q3 (35mm) would have sold better than the q, q2, q2m, and q5 altogether. For very obvious reasons. It’s a fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steven said:

The MQM will sell well I think. Maybe as well as a « q5 ». 
But I’m convinced a Q3 (35mm) would have sold better than the q, q2, q2m, and q5 altogether. For very obvious reasons. It’s a fact. 

Ps: let me know if they obvious reason isn’t obvious enough that I need to explain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steven said:

Unfortunately, I sold my Q2 (with a very very heart) two days ago, so I cannot make that test for you anymore. But if you want to see what a 35mm crop from the Q vs a real 35mm would like side by side, all you need is a 35mm lens, preferably a Summilux (set a 1,7) but even a Summicron at F2 would show a bit of a difference. After that, take a tripod, take twice the same shot, one time at the widest aperture, and a second time at an aperture of around 2.8 (I'm sure someone here can tell us precisely what the equivalent aperture of the 35 crop is). You will see the difference in the image. 

If you are shooting a landscape, or far away from your subject (without any foreground object in your composition), the difference in DOF should be minimal but still noticeable.

If you are shooting a portrait, the difference will me massive. 

I do follow your posts with interest but your inability to accept when you are wrong is frustrating. By the way the Leica Q lens is not 28mm, it is around 25mm which is then adjusted in software and cropped, so what you think is a 28mm lens is actually a cropped 25 or so.

Maybe you are confusing optical distortion with perspective distortion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Daedalus2000 said:

I do follow your posts with interest but your inability to accept when you are wrong is frustrating. By the way the Leica Q lens is not 28mm, it is around 25mm which is then adjusted in software and cropped, so what you think is a 28mm lens is actually a cropped 25 or so.

Maybe you are confusing optical distortion with perspective distortion....

I am indeed referring to optical distortion caused by a wider lens if you tried to frame the shot the same as a 35mm which would require you to get closer to your subject with a 28 and there for create some distortion (fish eye type, if that makes it clearer, whatever you want to call them). 
I still believe that I am right. I’m just maybe no expressing myself well enough or you’re not understanding me well enough. 
language barrier. 
thanks for following my posts though 🙏🏼 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure of course it will sell well, but following the reasonings in this thread, you could just convert to b/w in post and not lose much, the same as you crop from 28 to 35 😉

Share this post


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

Sure of course it will sell well, but following the reasonings in this thread, you could just convert to b/w in post and not lose much, the same as you crop from 28 to 35 😉

Losing some shallowness in the depth of field. Which no one wants. Which almost no one wants. Unless it’s an interchangeable lens. 
The 35mm Q would have been selling more than all the other Leica items all together.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that Leica hesitated with these two focal lengths. 

I know exactly why they went for 28. 
I know exactly why they should have gone for 35. 
 

not staying the q isn’t a success. Just saying it could have been better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steven said:

I am indeed referring to optical distortion caused by a wider lens if you tried to frame the shot the same as a 35mm which would require you to get closer to your subject with a 28 and there for create some distortion (fish eye type, if that makes it clearer, whatever you want to call them). 
I still believe that I am right. I’m just maybe no expressing myself well enough or you’re not understanding me well enough. 
language barrier. 
thanks for following my posts though 🙏🏼 

Optical distortion is a property of the lens (specific design etc), perspective distortion is caused by the distance to the subject, and what you describe depends on distance because as you say you need to move closer to the subject. 

Here it explains it well   https://photographylife.com/what-is-distortion#:~:text=While optical distortion is caused,subject within the image frame.

Anyway, I will move on from this and continue to enjoy your posts :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Sure of course it will sell well, but following the reasonings in this thread, you could just convert to b/w in post and not lose much, the same as you crop from 28 to 35 😉

Some people concluded that (but not for high iso performance and DR) :

https://youtu.be/IS7hb7BYDoo?t=550

 

Edited by Daedalus2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven - So, you're interested in a 28 lens for your M10-R. If I understood correctly from another thread, you're were leaning toward the Summilux 28. Have you considered the Summaron 1:5.6/28 at all? For an M9, I would never have considered this lens but, for an M10 with much better high-ISO capability, I like the Summaron.  (I posted a picture using that lens in another thread.) 

I have never been interested in the Summilux 28, although I was interested in the Summilux 21 or, more likely, the the Voigtlander 1.4/21. But, in the end, the size and weight of these lenses made me stick with my Elmarit 21 ASPH.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

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...