Sell Q2 for 28mm Summilux or Summicron?

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Abracadaben said:

Ive tested the 28mm elmarit, summicron and summilux on my M11 vs Q2.

here are my thoughts for now:
- the Q2 is slightly wider (I wish it wasnt). it also has more distortion than the M lenses
- The Q2 is sharper and has a more contrast than any of the other M lenses. Vs the M summilux, its sharper accross the frame until 5.6 at least.
- The summilux M tends to have slightly nicer bokeh than the Q2 but then the Q2 can get much much closer and produce nice creamy bokeh in closeups
- the summilux M has CA on the outside of the frame especially purple fringing above f5.6.... not the Q2. it controls pretty well CA at any aperture
- overall for the M I tend to like the summicron as its a good compromise, less CA and a lot smaller. The elmarit is great for compactness.
- I think the summilux M is way better for zone focusing. The Q2 goes from 2m to infinity straight up.... 

I did not imagine how great the Q2 would stack up to the M11+28mm summilux. that Q/Q2 lens is amazing.
The Q2 is amazing really, for the price, IQ, weight, and all features (AF, OIS, macro, weather sealing even video...)

I could find myself reaching more for the Q2 than my summilux 28 M IMO.....

Q2 lens also has extremely low vignetting wide open at f/1.7 compared to the 28 Lux at f/1.4. I tend to like the artistic feel of the 28 Lux vignetting, but the Q2's lower vignetting has its place as well.

The fixed lens design has a lot to do with how well the Q2 lens performs (far corners at infinity notwithstanding).

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Abracadaben]

20 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Q2 lens also has extremely low vignetting wide open at f/1.7 compared to the 28 Lux at f/1.4. I tend to like the artistic feel of the 28 Lux vignetting, but the Q2's lower vignetting has its place as well.

The fixed lens design has a lot to do with how well the Q2 lens performs (far corners at infinity notwithstanding).

 

I think the Lux is really for those who are after its look, or need 1.4 (and have a M body film or digital). I would also go for the LUX if that makes traveling light and my main camera is an M. M+Q2 is more room than M+LUX.
The Q2 is software corrected in body too. Otherwise it has a lot of distortion compared to the LUX

[hdmesa]

6 hours ago, Abracadaben said:

I think the Lux is really for those who are after its look, or need 1.4...

Also makes a great landscape lens stopped down.

6 hours ago, Abracadaben said:

...(and have a M body film or digital).

Or SL variant, where a close-focus adapter helps it better compete with the MFD of the Q2.

6 hours ago, Abracadaben said:

I would also go for the LUX if that makes traveling light and my main camera is an M. M+Q2 is more room than M+LUX.

The Q2 can be nice to have with an M system if you do have the room because of its weather sealing. There are conditions where I would put away my M but could continue shooting with the Q2.

6 hours ago, Abracadaben said:

The Q2 is software corrected in body too. Otherwise it has a lot of distortion compared to the LUX

Yes, and that is the one IQ characteristic that when set aside to be corrected in software can allow for better optical correction of everything else, particularly with a fixed lens system. But it's important to remember or realize that the small amount of optical/mechanical vignetting that the Q lens has is moved out of the final image by the distortion correction. This gives better color/noise at the frame edges at f/1.7 versus a lens that needs a lot of vignette correction.

It's actually pretty astonishing how well the Q2 image quality holds up at 47mp given how much distortion correction is applied. 

Edited March 23, 2022 by hdmesa
grammar