Q2 @50mm vs CL + Summilux-TL 35

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having time to spare and thinking about if my Q2 can replace my Summilux-TL 35. It is a 1,600€ in my wallet and a 500g in my bag question.

Short answer no. Long answer, maybe if I am ready to make some small sacrifices.

The basics facts :

• Lens drawing is the about same between the two lenses. Q2 at 50mm is as superb as Summilux-TL 35
• Summilux-TL 35 has thinner depth of field than Summilux-Q 28. f/2 vs f/3 equivalent. Not that of the big deal actually.
• TL is faster than Q2. f/1.4 vs f/1.7 Transmission is the same. So same aperture setting will gives you same exposure value (for the crop part of Q2)
• Q2 50mm crop field of view is noticeable larger than TL 35 one. One is a real 50mm and the other a real 52.5mm one. Which is more in line with other M 50mm which are more 52mm than 50mm one. At close focus distance, you have to move the Q2 seven cm closer to get the same FoV. 
• Q2 offers ISO 50. CL is stuck to 100 minimum
• CL is 24MP and Q2 @50mm is only 14MP. It is  around 25% linear difference. CL is better for bigger prints. 

Now the worst part about Q2 :

• composition is very hard with the small window view. 
• Q2 @50mm has almost a 1.5 stops disadvantage at high ISO with TL. At 3,200 and under, they are the about the same, very hard to make any difference between them. 25,000 and 50,000 somehow is usable with CL. But 12,500 is the maximum for Q2. 50,000 looks really really bad with Q2. 

 

So now should I part from my Summilux-TL 35 ? If I do such thing, the CL will be much less useful. But right now Q2 serves me for 2/3 of my photos already.

However Q2 is very impressive, except for very high ISO. But it has OIS if needed. 

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by nicci78

[nicci78]

Right now the Q2 makes those current lenses not worthy for the CL :

• Super-Vario-Elmar-SL 16-35 f/3,5-4,5 asph
• Elmarit-TL 18 f/2,8 asph
• Super-Elmar-M 18 f/3,8 asph
• Vario-Elmar-TL 18-56 f/3,5-5,6 asph
• Super-Elmar-M 21 f/3,4 asph
• Summilux-M 21 f/1,4 asph
• Summicron-TL 23 f/2 asph
• Elmar-M 24 f/3,4 asph
• Summilux-M 24 f/1,4 asph
• Elmarit-M 28 f/2,8 asph
• Summicron-M 28 f/2 asph
• Summarit-M 35 f/2,4 asph
• Summicron-M 35 f/2 asph
• APO-Summicron-SL 35 f/2 asph

And it makes those lenses questionnable for the CL :

• Super-Vario-Elmar-TL 11-23 f/3,5-4,5 Of course it worths it if you need 17mm equivalent wide angle
• Summilux-M 28 f/1,4 asph
• Summilux-TL 35 f/1,4 asph

Only 50mm and longer lenses worth it for the CL as a Q2 companion. That only left 2 TL lenses over the 7 available. 😅

• APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 60 f/2,8 asph
• APO-Vario-Elmar-TL 55-135 f/3,5-4,5 asph

 

So now, should I sell my TL 35 ? 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Rob7P]

Interested.. Now I've got a T+23summicron, and I will sell it because I want a single camera and I want the take closer photos at 50mm.. I'm not a pro, I will use especially for travel so the q2 with the weather sealing is attracting me. 

If you have to choose a single camera and lens Q2 or CL+35lux? Q2@50 is 15mp not 14

[Rob7P]

On 12/13/2019 at 12:32 PM, nicci78 said:

So now, should I sell my TL 35 ? 

 

Interested.. Now I've got a T+23summicron, and I will sell it because I want a single camera and I want the take closer photos at 50mm.. I'm not a pro, I will use especially for travel so the q2 with the weather sealing is attracting me. 

If you have to choose a single camera and lens Q2 or CL+35lux? Q2@50 is 15mp not 14

[jaapv]

Not my idea of using a camera. But different strokes for different folks.

[M11 for me]

Does it come down to the question at the end if 15Mpix are enough to make a print of 66cm x 100cm? I do not know if that is possible. probably it is. But if I would do it or not I would still like to be able to print at that size. Probably I would keep all my lenses. For me 28mm and 50mm are the most used focal lengths with Leica. So I fully understand the problem whether to go with CL or Q2.

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The issue surely is not pixel count, but the size of the sensor and size of the pixels themselves. You CAN see the difference between images from a full frame camera vs APSC even if you only look on this site. If pixel count was the only criteria then surely we would look for the highest pixel count on the smallest sensor.

[nicci78]

7 hours ago, Rob7P said:

Interested.. Now I've got a T+23summicron, and I will sell it because I want a single camera and I want the take closer photos at 50mm.. I'm not a pro, I will use especially for travel so the q2 with the weather sealing is attracting me. 

If you have to choose a single camera and lens Q2 or CL+35lux? Q2@50 is 15mp not 14

14.66MP you can round it up to 15MP if you like. 

Just like Q2 is 46.73MP at 28mm and 29.98MP at 35mm. Only 6.57MP at 75mm

Of course 47MP ; 30MP ; 15MP & 7MP sound better. 

 

The problem with less megapixel count, is that the noise will be more apparent, than an image with more MP. And in this case Q2 lost in two ways : noisier at pixel level & less pixels to hide it. In the end CL + TL 35 will be less noisy. 

[bags27]

Let me play psychologist. What I'm "hearing" (😀) isn't anxiety about a particular lens. No need to do anything with the lens: it will pretty much keep its value until you decide to sell it. What I'm "hearing" is something deeper. You're just not entirely happy with your camera bodies, their value and use.

Phil--you don't need to pay me $300/hr for my advice. In fact, you will need that $300 and a lot, lot more when you hear what I've been "hearing": deep down inside, your id is telling your superego that you really want, you need, you must have, an SL2. The only resolution to this camera angst is for your ego to get in touch with your inner photographic id-self and become actualized. Do the deed, demanded Goethe. Dump everything else and buy the SL2. Then, you can stop fantasizing about patricide and incest. 

On second thought, the advice is so good that I think I'll take it myself. So, I'll really do need your $300, Phil. I accept paypal.

[nicci78]

😅
 

Don’t worry I won’t buy SL2.  Too big and too heavy. Ugly high ISO.

 The idea is entertaining. In theory it is not bad. But in reality, CL is nicer to handle and better looking. 
 

By the way if I ever ever bought SL2, I would need to keep the extra 300€ 😉

Edited December 31, 2019 by nicci78

[jaapv]

18 hours ago, M10 for me said:

Does it come down to the question at the end if 15Mpix are enough to make a print of 66cm x 100cm? I do not know if that is possible. probably it is. But if I would do it or not I would still like to be able to print at that size. Probably I would keep all my lenses. For me 28mm and 50mm are the most used focal lengths with Leica. So I fully understand the problem whether to go with CL or Q2.

 

17 hours ago, Le Chef said:

The issue surely is not pixel count, but the size of the sensor and size of the pixels themselves. You CAN see the difference between images from a full frame camera vs APSC even if you only look on this site. If pixel count was the only criteria then surely we would look for the highest pixel count on the smallest sensor.

II cannot see any difference between APS-c and FF on a 1280 pixel 500 kB image, but maybe that is just me...

But le Chef is right that there is a difference visible at large prints. That does not necessarily translate in "better" or "worse". It is perfectly possible to print as large as you want for normal viewing distances given proper postprocessing and printing technique. As I said, I have excellent 1.20 m prints from the M8, even at ISO 800, despite 10 megapixel, 2006 technology and APS-H. Using a TL: or CL should be no problem. full-rame and APS-C are close enough in rendering to make any differences in the final result more dependent on lens and sensor quality than on sensor size.

However, if you want prints with medium format look, neither full frame nor APS-c will suffice. You must skip the miniature sensors and go to medium format cameras.

[bags27]

5 hours ago, nicci78 said:

😅
 

Don’t worry I won’t buy SL2.  Too big and too heavy. Ugly high ISO.

 The idea is entertaining. In theory it is not bad. But in reality, CL is nicer to handle and better looking. 
 

By the way if I ever ever bought SL2, I would need to keep the extra 300€ 😉

I charge US dollars, not Euros: think of it as a discount. 😀

It is entirely off-thread--sorry--but when I had a chance to walk around with the SL2 with a shoulder strap and with TL and M lenses, it was not effectively heavier than the CL with the same lenses. 

[Leica Guy]

16 hours ago, bags27 said:

Let me play psychologist. What I'm "hearing" (😀) isn't anxiety about a particular lens. No need to do anything with the lens: it will pretty much keep its value until you decide to sell it. What I'm "hearing" is something deeper. You're just not entirely happy with your camera bodies, their value and use.

Phil--you don't need to pay me $300/hr for my advice. In fact, you will need that $300 and a lot, lot more when you hear what I've been "hearing": deep down inside, your id is telling your superego that you really want, you need, you must have, an SL2. The only resolution to this camera angst is for your ego to get in touch with your inner photographic id-self and become actualized. Do the deed, demanded Goethe. Dump everything else and buy the SL2. Then, you can stop fantasizing about patricide and incest. 

On second thought, the advice is so good that I think I'll take it myself. So, I'll really do need your $300, Phil. I accept paypal.

Ken. Take your meds. Your looking in the mirror again. 😁

[bags27]

5 minutes ago, Leica Guy said:

Ken. Take your meds. Your looking in the mirror again. 😁

right, the meds! now where did I put them? ☺️

[jaapv]

Put a Chipolo* in the box! Then, to be able to use the app, ring your own phone to find it

 

 

https://chipolo.net/en

 

[jgbossert]

Am 30.12.2019 um 16:28 schrieb M11 for me:

Does it come down to the question at the end if 15Mpix are enough to make a print of 66cm x 100cm? I do not know if that is possible. probably it is. But if I would do it or not I would still like to be able to print at that size. Probably I would keep all my lenses. For me 28mm and 50mm are the most used focal lengths with Leica. So I fully understand the problem whether to go with CL or Q2.

Some 15 year ago nobody would have questioned if one can print Tri-X 35mm to 150x100 cm. Sure you can do it and it looks very good, because you do not look at that size close-up. And we got lots of discussion about true film megapixel equivalents and all that bullshit. I shot film and digital a lot and had my own lab, my own large format printers and all that stuff. This film at ISO 400 was comparable to the 6-8 megapixel APS-C / full frame sensors of the mid 2000s. The print in the attachment is that size.

But more than 8-10 megapixels are handy if you want to crop a lot.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jgbossert]

Am 30.12.2019 um 16:54 schrieb Le Chef:

The issue surely is not pixel count, but the size of the sensor and size of the pixels themselves. You CAN see the difference between images from a full frame camera vs APSC even if you only look on this site. If pixel count was the only criteria then surely we would look for the highest pixel count on the smallest sensor.

Absolutely true, but you CAN see the difference between images from a full frame camera made by an amateur and APSC by a talent even if you only look on this site.

Nevertheless the lens makes a slight aesthetically difference. For my taste micro-contrast is important. My experience is that there are good lenses in APSC and full frame, as well as middle crop format cameras.