Jump to content

Leica Q2 converted to 21mm... with Ricoh GW-3 and GW-4 adapter RAW Samples


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently purchased a Leica Q2, and I also have a Ricoh GRiii, with two different adapters. These adapters are called the GW-3 and GW4. The GW-3 is much smaller than the GW-4, which is designed to work better with the updated lens of the GRiii camera, compared to previous models.

So I thought it would be interesting to see how the GW-3 and GW-4 adapters perform when attached to the Leica Q2. Both adapters feature a 49mm screw-mount, so they screw directly on to the front of the Q and Q2. The FoV becomes the equivalent of 21mm on both the Leica Q2 and the Ricoh GR series with the adapter, so it's like a second lens.

I'll stop waffling and you can download my sample RAW files here. I was in a rush so plonked my camera on a mini tripod and faced it towards a wall. I felt this would allow a good test of sharpness, with the wall around 3-4m away from the camera.

The files are DNGs straight out of my Q2, so you can play with them at Lightroom...

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aqjc_qKiYSsr8GeErLi2xd6zpjRs?e=cXKh8Z

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!

Edited by w44neg
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, w44neg said:

I recently purchased a Leica Q2, and I also have a Ricoh GRiii, with two different adapters. These adapters are called the GW-3 and GW4. The GW-3 is much smaller than the GW-4, which is designed to work better with the updated lens of the GRiii camera, compared to previous models.

So I thought it would be interesting to see how the GW-3 and GW-4 adapters perform when attached to the Leica Q2. Both adapters feature a 49mm screw-mount, so they screw directly on to the front of the Q and Q2. The FoV becomes the equivalent of 21mm on both the Leica Q2 and the Ricoh GR series with the adapter, so it's like a second lens.

I'll stop waffling and you can download my sample RAW files here. I was in a rush so plonked my camera on a mini tripod and faced it towards a wall. I felt this would allow a good test of sharpness, with the wall around 3-4m away from the camera.

The files are DNGs straight out of my Q2, so you can play with them at Lightroom...

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aqjc_qKiYSsr8GeErLi2xd6zpjRs?e=cXKh8Z

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!

What is your conclusion? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I’m really busy and haven’t been able to look in detail. I hoped by putting the files out there, others would come back with their thoughts. 
 

I’m going to hopefully look at the images properly tomorrow and I’ll update the thread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, w44neg said:

Unfortunately I’m really busy and haven’t been able to look in detail. I hoped by putting the files out there, others would come back with their thoughts. 
 

I’m going to hopefully look at the images properly tomorrow and I’ll update the thread. 

Thanks. I just looked up the two lenses. The images posted on B&H are encouraging. I’m not near a computer. I’ll download the files later. I appreciate you posting this experiment. It would be a plus if it worked well on the Q/Q2. 

 

I looked at all the files and the f/16 ones in detail. Frankly I'm pretty impressed. I'd have rather seen the files at ISO 100 on tripod, but I'll do that myself. I've seen enough that I'm going to order one and if I like it, I'll keep it otherwise, I'll return within a few days. Thanks so much for the tip. It does look interesting and at least worth investigating further. I didn't see obvious degradation or vignetting, but I'll look closer when I receive my lens. I read about some CA nearer the outside edge. I'll look for that. I will report back on whet I find. 

Edited by Leica Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, w44neg said:

Unfortunately I’m really busy and haven’t been able to look in detail. I hoped by putting the files out there, others would come back with their thoughts. 
 

I’m going to hopefully look at the images properly tomorrow and I’ll update the thread. 

What’s the difference in the two adapters? The GW-4 is just a newer version? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Leica Guy said:

What’s the difference in the two adapters? The GW-4 is just a newer version? 

Yes, GW-4 (72mm filter) is newer and bigger then GW-3 (62mm filter). GW-4 is designed for newer GR III lens. GW-3 was for GR I/II. GW-3 was very cheap, but it is not good even with GR-3. In my comparison with Q2, GW-4 is much better in corners around f8~11.  In my first trial GW3 was af 'ing with caf, but not at the second trial when I compared with GW4. They work in mf. 

I also tried both with RX1R II and had problem screwing fully with GW4 as one side was not good. However GW3 is working with that. I prefer GW3 size and it fits with the smaller RX1R II body.  CAF works with the adapter.

Third choice might be Sony SEL075UWC 21mm converter for Sony 28mm lens. However there is no filter option in the front so I didn't look for that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

29 minutes ago, serhan said:

Yes, GW-4 (72mm filter) is newer and bigger then GW-3 (62mm filter). GW-4 is designed for newer GR III lens. GW-3 was for GR I/II. GW-3 was very cheap, but it is not good even with GR-3. In my comparison with Q2, GW-4 is much better in corners around f8~11.  In my first trial GW3 was af 'ing with caf, but not at the second trial when I compared with GW4. They work in mf. 

I also tried both with RX1R II and had problem screwing fully with GW4 as one side was not good. However GW3 is working with that. I prefer GW3 size and it fits with the smaller RX1R II body.  CAF works with the adapter.

Third choice might be Sony SEL075UWC 21mm converter for Sony 28mm lens. However there is no filter option in the front so I didn't look for that. 

Thanks for the details. I ordered the GW-4 tonight and should have it by Friday. I’ll give it a good test and hopefully it works and is not too big or heavy for the Q2

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Leica Guy said:

Thanks. I just looked up the two lenses. The images posted on B&H are encouraging. I’m not near a computer. I’ll download the files later. I appreciate you posting this experiment. It would be a plus if it worked well on the Q/Q2. 

 

I looked at all the files and the f/16 ones in detail. Frankly I'm pretty impressed. I'd have rather seen the files at ISO 100 on tripod, but I'll do that myself. I've seen enough that I'm going to order one and if I like it, I'll keep it otherwise, I'll return within a few days. Thanks so much for the tip. It does look interesting and at least worth investigating further. I didn't see obvious degradation or vignetting, but I'll look closer when I receive my lens. I read about some CA nearer the outside edge. I'll look for that. I will report back on whet I find. 

Apologies for the ISO. I was also testing the noise of my Q2 vs my GRiii

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please

vor 8 Stunden schrieb w44neg:

Unfortunately I’m really busy and haven’t been able to look in detail.

Thanks for yur article, this add on lens would be a nice thig to have.

As i have a lot of experience withadd-on lenses for underwater use i know that good results are not easily archived.
Main problem is usually corner softness so when you have a little time you may take a series of photos in front of a wall with a grid
(the one you postet would work if nearer) to check for corner softness/unsharp and distortion.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Annoyingly, I'm unable to edit my initial post. However I've now had chance to look at the files and it does appear, in this case at least, m the GW-3 and GW-4 offer similar results, although sadly both only really sharpen up at f11 and f16.

On the GRiii, both adapters offer a very similar result, but they're sharpest between f2.8 and f5.6.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, w44neg said:

Annoyingly, I'm unable to edit my initial post. However I've now had chance to look at the files and it does appear, in this case at least, m the GW-3 and GW-4 offer similar results, although sadly both only really sharpen up at f11 and f16.

On the GRiii, both adapters offer a very similar result, but they're sharpest between f2.8 and f5.6.

Thanks for this. I am having trouble downloading the files (poor internet connection from where I am). But from your reading, are the images unacceptably soft from f1.7 to f8? 

I heard that was the case with the Q1 and the GW-3. Sadly it seems the case now with the GW-4. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Leica Guy said:

Thanks for the details. I ordered the GW-4 tonight and should have it by Friday. I’ll give it a good test and hopefully it works and is not too big or heavy for the Q2. 

Please keep us updated. This option is very intriguing as I have 72mm ND filters and this would be a great landscape option. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peters said:

Thanks for this. I am having trouble downloading the files (poor internet connection from where I am). But from your reading, are the images unacceptably soft from f1.7 to f8? 

I heard that was the case with the Q1 and the GW-3. Sadly it seems the case now with the GW-4. 

Pretty much, yes. It works very well with the Ricoh of course, but it’s very, very soft on the Q2 until F8/f11

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just received my Ricoh GW-4 today. I finished my evaluation and I find it unacceptable in every aperture. It's never sharp on my camera. 

The top image is with the GW-4 and the bottom, is with the standard 28mm lens. Both at f/11. I checked the full range of apertures and this setting was the sharpest.  They both are cropped to the same region in the photo. Same ISO. On tripod. 2 sec. timer used before every I'mage.  I let the shutter speed vary with the GW-4 on or off. The image is about the 1/3rd off center and where the camera focused. 

I do not find the GW-4 usable for my purposes. 

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!

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/17/2020 at 5:55 AM, Leica Guy said:

I just received my Ricoh GW-4 today. I finished my evaluation and I find it unacceptable in every aperture. It's never sharp on my camera. 

The top image is with the GW-4 and the bottom, is with the standard 28mm lens. Both at f/11. I checked the full range of apertures and this setting was the sharpest.  They both are cropped to the same region in the photo. Same ISO. On tripod. 2 sec. timer used before every I'mage.  I let the shutter speed vary with the GW-4 on or off. The image is about the 1/3rd off center and where the camera focused. 

I do not find the GW-4 usable for my purposes. 

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!

Thanks for the test. Did you use AF or manual focus for these? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

I suppose, that none of the third-party wide angle converters will work on a Q2/Q3 in a decent way. Back in the time, I had a Sony FE 28mm with the 21mm converter which worked very well and this is obviously the case with the Ricoh GW-3/-4 on the Ricoh cameras. When one thinks about it: This will only work in a satisfying way if Leica designs a converter taking the lens construction of the Q2/Q3 into consideration, because I expect that optics and its design requires the converters glass matching the lens design of the Q2/Q3. You simply can‘t put any stack of glass in front of a lens if it is not build for it - I suppose.

  • Like 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...