Advice - Q2 vs SL2S

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, jefe said:

Thanks very much for the informative comments, jaapv. The fascinating thing is the with my old Q, I NEVER had a bad result with the sunbursts. Not even once ....... out of hundreds of images I took that contained sunbursts. With the Q2M, I had the camera only a short period of time before I returned it as unfit for the purpose. I took maybe 500 images with it ....... 40 or 50 of which included sunbursts and EVERY single sunburst image featured the grid pattern. Not even one single sunburst image was usable from the Q2M. I wonder ..... is the rear element / sensor distance in the Q2M different than that distance in the Q?? If the issue is distance between the rear element of the lens and the sensor, I am surprised German optical engineers at Leica have not properly addressed the issue when they are selling Q2Ms as premium products for $6,000 USD. I would think this issue will tarnish the brand where superior optics are part of the brand proposition of Leica.

Q2 lens is larger than the Q externally. They had to add weather sealing, so there could be some internal differences both in construction and in materials and/or interior coatings. They may have slightly moved the placement of the elements to better work with the SL2 47mp sensor and/or to accommodate the weather sealing. What I do know: this is no scandal for Leica. Like jaapv said, most all mirrorless cameras do this, but a monochrome sensor will be a bit worse due to no scattering-assist from the Bayer color filter array. The GFX 50S/R with GF lenses does it so badly, it's useless for sunstars, IMO (as well as their sunstars being too small). I can also provoke them on the Canon R5 and R6, and those have AA-filters! Like I said earlier in the thread, the only safe harbor from sensor reflections when stopped down to >f/16 and shooting into the sun is going to be with DSLR lenses that are further away from the sensor.

The Q/Q2 have quite understated sunstars anyway, and I rarely try to create them intentionally except as an accent or when cropping in. 

One thing to ask – did you have a clear protective filter on the lens? Might have made it worse.

Edited July 27, 2021 by hdmesa

[Craig Clark]

16 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

If your photos are going to be printed rather large, the SL2 is going to be a better choice than the SL2S. For this kind of work, your best lens is going to be a tripod...architecture work is very hard to do without a stable platform to help align all the converging lines...otherwise you are going to spend ages in photoshop and lightroom correcting things, and you will wind up cropping in quite a bit. 24mp is enough to print to about 30x40 inches in good quality, but the extra megapixels in the Q2 or SL2 are really going to help you, and "better in low light" is relevant, but not really until you are in the 1000s or 10,000s of ISO, where you should not be anyway for this kind of work (the tripod, remember?). Most architecture work needs a tripod not only for the converging problem I mentioned above, but also because you often have to use small apertures to get everything in DOF, and often the best time to photograph is the early morning or early evening when you can balance the interior and exterior lighting. BTW, I know you said you did not want a Sigma look, but the 24-70mm Zoom is designed and produced by Sigma for Leica. This is not a criticism of it, but you should be aware. I would say that rather than that lens, you might consider the Sigma 24mm lens, which is extremely good and cheap. It should perform better than the zoom at a much lower price. I cannot comment on the 16-35 or Sigma zooms, but they might be more useful in this kind of work than the 24-70mm. When I do architecture work on the SL2, I have primarily used 24mm and 35mm lenses, with 50mm for detail shots. If it is at all possible to avoid, I try not to go any wider as superwides tend to have so much perspective distortion that the house seems cavernous and the interplay between objects is just thrown off because they are so distorted from how we see them in life (of course, some people love that...).

Well said and very useful advice.  When I shot Sony I had the Sigma Art 24mm and to be honest I loved that lens...hated the sony system but loved the lens.  I found it to be a perfect focal length for architecture because of exactly what you said...I could control the distortion much better than a wider lens, and it was tack sharp.  This may be something I consider for sure.  

[Advertisement]

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

[wda]

16 hours ago, jefe said:

Thanks very much for the informative comments, jaapv. The fascinating thing is the with my old Q, I NEVER had a bad result with the sunbursts. Not even once ....... out of hundreds of images I took that contained sunbursts. With the Q2M, I had the camera only a short period of time before I returned it as unfit for the purpose. I took maybe 500 images with it ....... 40 or 50 of which included sunbursts and EVERY single sunburst image featured the grid pattern. Not even one single sunburst image was usable from the Q2M. I wonder ..... is the rear element / sensor distance in the Q2M different than that distance in the Q?? If the issue is distance between the rear element of the lens and the sensor, I am surprised German optical engineers at Leica have not properly addressed the issue when they are selling Q2Ms as premium products for $6,000 USD. I would think this issue will tarnish the brand where superior optics are part of the brand proposition of Leica.

Have you considered rebuying a Q?

[Stuart Richardson]

6 hours ago, Craig Clark said:

Well said and very useful advice.  When I shot Sony I had the Sigma Art 24mm and to be honest I loved that lens...hated the sony system but loved the lens.  I found it to be a perfect focal length for architecture because of exactly what you said...I could control the distortion much better than a wider lens, and it was tack sharp.  This may be something I consider for sure.  

Have a look at the 24mm f3.5 that is made for L mount. It is the lens I was referring to, not the Art lens (which I am sure is great). But that 24 3.5 is very good and very inexpensive. If you search it you will find me and a lot of other people singing its praises. For the kind of work you are describing, I think it would be an easy choice.