Question regarding the Q2 lens

[kirkmc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I got a Q2M last week, my first Leica, and I was wondering about the lens. Leica makes a 28mm Summilux f1.4, and this lens is the same, but f1.7. Is it essentially the same lens, and is the maximum aperture related to the fact that it's a fixed lens? I was curious because the f1.4 costs about the same price as the Q2M, so my thought is that it's not quite the same. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Tp2000]

If you subscribe to Reid reviews, he did a comparison of resolution and vignetting between the two lenses. Tl;dr version - they’re two different lenses. The 1.7 relies upon software to correct barrel distortion whereas the 1.4 design is optimised to minimise distortion etc. 

[Anakronox]

And the Q2 lens also sports a leaf shutter.

[Tortuga]

Totally different lens. The Q lens plays with distortion to achieve its performance; the M lens doesn’t have that luxury.

[earleygallery]

The lens for the Q is designed with specific sensor in mind and is effectively one unit. As said above it relies on distortion correction in camera (if you took a photo with the lens otherwise there would be terrible wide angle distortion!).

The M lens is designed to show minimal distortion as it can be used with a film camera or a digital camera and is a much more complex design.

[Yarosuav]

I have both the Q2 and the Summilux on my M10-R. First and foremost, on top of everything mentioned above, the Summilux is 1.4 and the Q2 is not… They also render very differently (to my eye at least). They Q2 lens is extremely sharp even at 1.7 and has this hyper-real 3D rendering and subject separation, I absolutely love it… Even though the 1.7 aperture will obviously not give you same focus fall-off as 1.4, there’s something about the Q2 look that makes the subject stand out nevertheless…

The Summilux to me is more “gentle” for a lack of better word.

[acg69]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

First of all: beautiful images on your site, congratulations!

You mentioned that the 1.7 is not a 1.4 and that the former doesn't have the focus fall-off of the latter, which is probably true, but can you actually see the difference in the images and are you sure it should be attributed to the difference in maximum aperture and not in the different design of the lenses?

[Yarosuav]

1 hour ago, acg69 said:

First of all: beautiful images on your site, congratulations!

You mentioned that the 1.7 is not a 1.4 and that the former doesn't have the focus fall-off of the latter, which is probably true, but can you actually see the difference in the images and are you sure it should be attributed to the difference in maximum aperture and not in the different design of the lenses?

Thanks! I think part of the difference is definitely due to the Summilux being 1.4 and the Q2 1.7. But I’m not an expert enough to say how much of the difference is due apertures, and how much due to design…