35/2 or Q2

[paul.bridges.3388]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Curious on opinions. I’ve been really enjoying the SL2-S, with my first lens: the 75/2 APO. Great for indoor portraits. My existing Q2 has been satisfying the wider lens needs.

But, I’ve been so enjoying the EVF and AF of the SL2-S, what are peoples’ thoughts on whether to persevere with the Q2 (handy not to have to change lenses and shared battery) versus adding the sublime 35/2 APO (improved lowlight? Better EVF)?

Money is always a factor and I’m wondering if it was better spent on the long zoom instead?

[RoySmith]

What images do you want to shoot? Only you can answer whether you want a lens better suited for street photography/landscapes/environmental portraits like the 35 /2  L, or a telephoto zoom.
Your Q2 will do most of what a 35/2 L will do.
One option would be to trade in your Q2 towards the purchase of the 35/2 L, and buy a telephoto. You would however loose the security of having 2 cameras in case one breaks down.

[paul.bridges.3388]

Hi Roy. Great feedback. The SL2-S should become my fully flexible, "do it all" system - with the right lenses. Street, landscapes & environmental. Clearly, I can't buy the entire lens line in one hit. Is having the Q2 helpful in filling the wide-angle hole in my current system? Just how much better is the 35/2 on the SL2-S than the Q2 @28mm?

Put another way, where should I invest next on this journey - knowing I'd like it to do everything? 🙂 For example, the 90-280 would open up wildlife - expanding use of the SL2-S. But, that would mean relying on the Q2 for environmental portraits in the near term. I'm reading you say this isn't really an issue.

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by paul.bridges.3388

[Jeff S]

Rumor has it that Leica will release a relatively compact SL 28-70 f2.8 early this year (possibly by Spring according to ‘Steven’).  If so, that might present another option for a flexible one-body, native lens, solution.  

Jeff

[paul.bridges.3388]

35 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Rumor has it that Leica will release a relatively compact SL 28-70 f2.8 early this year (possibly by Spring according to ‘Steven’).  If so, that might present another option for a flexible one-body, native lens, solution.  

Jeff

Ah, that’s valuable intel. I’d been noodling with the idea of the 24-90, which I used to have on a SL. But, it seems a big, slow lens when I already have Q2 and 90/2 in my bag.

A more compact 28-70 might be worth trading for my Q2. That said, it would leave me without a fast prime for low light environmental.

[Jeff S]

9 minutes ago, paul.bridges.3388 said:

Ah, that’s valuable intel. I’d been noodling with the idea of the 24-90, which I used to have on a SL. But, it seems a big, slow lens when I already have Q2 and 90/2 in my bag.

A more compact 28-70 might be worth trading for my Q2. That said, it would leave me without a fast prime for low light environmental.

I saw your posts concerning the 24-90, hence my comment here.  Of course it doesn’t matter unless it materializes, and performance and handling can be assessed.  But with IBIS and the reportedly stellar high ISO performance of the SL2-S, I’d hardly worry about low light capability.  The questions might be more about DOF/falloff for f2.8 vs f2, framing for 35mm focal length vs 28mm, or other handling/operating concerns.  Always trade offs.

Jeff

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It seems a no-brainer to me to sell it...instead of two cameras, you get one with a better lens, a better viewfinder, better focus etc. I know people get worried about reliability, but how often does your camera completely stop working on a shoot? I am not saying it does not happen...it does. I had it happen once in a helicopter, at the least opportune time, but it is still rare. I think the advantage of having a streamlined kit is more important. Rather than have a Q2 and SL2S, you might consider selling the Q2 and getting the 35mm and adding a cheaper, smaller backup, like an RX100 VII (if you want tiny with a huge focal range), or a X100V, which is the compact I wish Leica had made...a true update of the compact rangefinder cameras of the film era. The best argument in favor of keeping the Q2 is that you already have it, and that you bought the SL2S instead of the SL2, so the Q2 can give you extra resolution if and when you need it. But 24mp is quite a lot for most prints smaller than about 60x90cm.

[Alistairm]

I don’t own a Q2 but wish I did. 

I would keep it. It’s always nice to have a second body, especially a compact one with a fast lens and close up capability that shares a battery with your “big rig”, and gives you a higher resolution option too. 
 

I also love the SL75 and the SL35, and the 90-280. All the SL glass is magnificent. But @Jeff S has made a good suggestion to see if the compact zoom materialises. Maybe in the meantime some of Sigma’s excellent L mount lenses (eg 45, 100-400) a Voigtlander wide or similar would expand your focal range choices? If you’re watching the pennies and pondering the long zoom, the Sigma 100-400 has good reviews, is 1/7 the cost of Leica’s (wonderful) 90-280 and is well suited to the SL-S high ISO capability. 
 

While I bought a Leica because I love Leica glass, the L Mount Alliance has opened up many excellent options. 

[paul.bridges.3388]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Rather than have a Q2 and SL2S, you might consider selling the Q2 and getting the 35mm and adding a cheaper, smaller backup, like an RX100 VII

Valid point. I have a RX1RII, which is truly pocketable. Awful battery life and ergonomics but a good portable option if the Q2 goes. 

[T25UFO]

When asking the question: this lens or that camera, one thing you can pretty much guarantee is equally persuasive answers in favour of both options!

I bought the original SL with 24-90 lens.  I thought I absolutely needed autofocus; I didn't.  I thought this would be a perfect one camera, one lens solution; it wasn't.  Of course, many users will be very happy with this combo, but it just wasn't for me.  Simply proves there is no right or wrong answer.

I am now back with the SL2 and one lens: the SL 75mm Summicron.  Like you, I also have a Q2 and, like you, I have thought about trading this for the excellent SL 35mm Summicron.  There aren't many used Q2s on the market and trading one for the other should be as close to zero cost as you can get.  But I decided against the swap and will keep the two camera, two lens combo.  This has nothing to do with backup (famous last words: I don't expect either camera to fail) but more to do with ease of use.

Same battery, same sensor, similar menu, similar weight in the bag (Q2 - 734 grams; SL 35 - 750 grams), similar weather sealing, and when on location it's quicker to change camera than to change a lens!  I have a particular aversion to changing lenses outdoors anyway - potential dust issues etc.

So is this my dream combination?  Not really.  I do like the 75mm focal length, but if money was not a limiting factor I would love to have a 75mm Noctilux on the SL2.  Sadly, money is a limiting factor!

As someone once wrote: despite my very best endeavours, I have come to no serious conclusion . . . .

[paul.bridges.3388]

1 hour ago, T25UFO said:

When asking the question: this lens or that camera, one thing you can pretty much guarantee is equally persuasive answers in favour of both options!

Same battery, same sensor, similar menu, similar weight in the bag (Q2 - 734 grams; SL 35 - 750 grams), similar weather sealing, and when on location it's quicker to change camera than to change a lens!  I have a particular aversion to changing lenses outdoors anyway - potential dust issues etc.

Glad to read there could be method in my madness. 🙂

I too DETEST changing lenses: I'm often in the field, with kids and a dog. It'll likely mean dropping a $5k lens.  Two cameras hanging from the neck is so much easier. 

Sticking with the Q2 and 75/2, I see two ongoing needs:

- Wide angle for indoor use. I dislike the Q2 noise when pulling shadows at higher ISO.

- Longer zoom for outdoor use where the 75/2 is falling short. Here's where I think that the 90-280 could be a LOT of fun.

Paul

Edited January 20, 2021 by paul.bridges.3388

[T25UFO]

1 hour ago, paul.bridges.3388 said:

Glad to read there could be method in my madness. 🙂

I too DETEST changing lenses: I'm often in the field, with kids and a dog. It'll likely mean dropping a $5k lens.  Two cameras hanging from the neck is so much easier. 

Sticking with the Q2 and 75/2, I see two ongoing needs:

- Wide angle for indoor use. I dislike the Q2 noise when pulling shadows at higher ISO.

- Longer zoom for outdoor use where the 75/2 is falling short. Here's where I think that the 90-280 could be a LOT of fun.

Paul

You really don't need autofocus when going really wide so look at M 21mm Super Elmar.  Set to hyperfocal distance and f8 - point and shoot.  Keep the Q2 as it provides a nice range balance between 21mm and 28mm.

Can't criticise the 90-280 optically.  A tad large and heavy to carry around 🙁

[paul.bridges.3388]

7 hours ago, T25UFO said:

You really don't need autofocus when going really wide so look at M 21mm Super Elmar.  Set to hyperfocal distance and f8 - point and shoot.

Great point. Although I’d still yearn for a fast wide indoor environmental portrait lens?

Edited January 20, 2021 by paul.bridges.3388

[T25UFO]

17 minutes ago, paul.bridges.3388 said:

Great point. Although I’d still yearn for a fast wide indoor environmental portrait lens?

This could get expensive . . . M Summilux 24mm F1.4 or M Summilux 21mm f1.4.

[paul.bridges.3388]

1 minute ago, T25UFO said:

This could get expensive . . . M Summilux 24mm F1.4 or M Summilux 21mm f1.4.

Yeah, definitely expensive when bumping so close to the Q2’s 28mm...?

[T25UFO]

1 minute ago, paul.bridges.3388 said:

Yeah, definitely expensive when bumping so close to the Q2’s 28mm...?

That's why the Q2 is such good value.  28mm f1.7 Summilux and a free camera for £2,000 less than the M lens!

[Mr.Prime]

perhaps not a factor in your decision, but when they release the Q3, your 35/2 will not go down in value...

[T25UFO]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

perhaps not a factor in your decision, but when they release the Q3, your 35/2 will not go down in value...

True . . . Leica glass always holds its value better the a box with sensors and chips.  

But . . . think how many photos you could take in the meantime while waiting for the next generation 'box' to materialise.

[paul.bridges.3388]

8 hours ago, T25UFO said:

You really don't need autofocus when going really wide so look at M 21mm Super Elmar.  Set to hyperfocal distance and f8 - point and shoot.  Keep the Q2 as it provides a nice range balance between 21mm and 28mm.

Devil’s advocate: doesn’t the native SUPER-VARIO-ELMAR-SL 16-35MM F/3.5-4.5 ASPH satisfy BOTH the 21mm Super Elmar M and the Q2 28mm? So, cost wise at least, the 16-35mm could make sense to replace the Q2 instead? Slower, yes, but the Q2 isn’t really cutting it indoors for me anyway. 

Edited January 20, 2021 by paul.bridges.3388

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Stuart Richardson]

Extreme devil's advocate: get the new Sigma 24mm 3.5 and 35mm f2, which combined cost less than half the Leica 35mm and apparently have image quality on par or better than Leica lenses made even a few years ago, keep your Q2 and see whether you actually want a prime lens for your SL2S.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Stuart Richardson