Leica - Is it really a 24mm lens ! And that look !

[AdamMark]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

I’m seriously considering buying a Q2.

I popped into WEX photographic and handled one today.  Very, very nice but in my opinion it needs a “thumb grip” 

Could you please comment on the following : - I would be very grateful.

1. I’ve read comments from people who say the 28mm lens is actually wider ie 24mm - Is that true ?
2. The sales adviser at WEX said “the images from this camera are unlike any others”. - Was he referring to that Leica look ! Or the rich but natural colours ? 

Look forward , hopefully, to your expert comments etc.

Thanks,

Adam.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Le Chef]

You should do a search here for “Is it wider than 28” and you will find this has been discussed ad nauseam.

[gotium]

1 hour ago, AdamMark said:

in my opinion it needs a “thumb grip” 

Disagree -it's fine without, and that thumb grip is pretty heavy. 

1 hour ago, AdamMark said:

Could you please comment on the following : - I would be very grateful.

1. I’ve read comments from people who say the 28mm lens is actually wider ie 24mm - Is that true ?
2. The sales adviser at WEX said “the images from this camera are unlike any others”. - Was he referring to that Leica look ! Or the rich but natural colours ?

 

 

 

 

1. Yes

2. Who knows?

[jaapv]

It has actually been discussed, as said, ad nauseam.

To summarize: The lens is in reality 24 mm, but as this is a modern design that combines optical correction with digital correction, so the edge pixels have to be cut off, making it a 28 mm lens There are tricks to show these cut-off pixels, but they are not very useful, unless you accidentally cut off an essential detail at the edge of the image - emergency use only.

The result of this hybrid correction is a lens that is more compact and better  optimized than a purely optically corrected lens. The camera is certainly capable of rendering images that will stand out.

[Driften]

2 hours ago, AdamMark said:

Hello,

I’m seriously considering buying a Q2.

I popped into WEX photographic and handled one today.  Very, very nice but in my opinion it needs a “thumb grip” 

I like using both the thumbs up and hand grip on my Q2.

Is it wider than 28mm? It seems so, but after the corrections have been automatically applied I suspect it's closer to 28mm than 24mm. If you turn off the corrections or process the DNG's in a program that doesn't honor the corrections it maybe closer to 24mm.

[Farrell Gallery]

Yup, others have elaborated on the focal length....no, it doesn't need a thumb grip, Some *want* one....also you don't need a goofy looking designer purse to carry it in. It's  wonderful camera, with really amazing glass. And fun to use. No camera or focal length is perfect for every occasion....but those who truly understand and appreciate this camera can use it for most things. In my case, everything but headshots. Traveling and exploring, it's all I need. 

[Farrell Gallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Al Brown said:

The sales advisor at the store is a skilled salesman. He knows exactly what to say.

But he wasn't inaccurate haha. 

[LocalHero1953]

9 hours ago, AdamMark said:

1. The sales adviser at WEX said “the images from this camera are unlike any others”. - Was he referring to that Leica look ! Or the rich but natural colours ? 

 

A. Both, neither, one or the other. Your call.

[UliWer]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

 

The result of this hybrid correction is a lens that is more compact and better  optimized than a purely optically corrected lens. 

Aren‘t you comparing a poorly optically corrected lens to one which is purely optically corrected?

[Marc B-C]

The Q2 is an amazing camera and suits my wants perfectly. Is it 24mm? plenty of comments on this as said before. I could not care, I love the photos the camera gives me. In those times when I want a tighter shot, I either walk forward or crop in post.

Re the grip, it depends on your hands. I have both thumb and hand grips. Perfect for me, not for others.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, UliWer said:

Aren‘t you comparing a poorly optically corrected lens to one which is purely optically corrected?

No.

As you know designing a lens is correcting an aberration in one element, shifting the resulting aberrations into the next to correct as best as possible, leaving and creating other aberrations, etc. (very simply put, each correction creates other aberrations). The digital correction is just one more degree of freedom for the designer. It allows him to design a lens that is optically superior to a purely optically corrected lens, except for one aberration (maybe two) that can be eliminated digitally. It can also be used to fit a smaller lens into the design parameters with equal quality - compare the size of the Q lens to the Summilux SL.

On the Q the aberrations that are corrected digitally are distortion and vignetting. As they are done in many other cameras and lenses - do you call the M lenses optically flawed because they need profiles on you digital M? The strength of the Q is the integrated lens-shutter-sensor unit which means that it does not have the built-in assumptions and compromises in the digital correction that a camera with interchangeable lenses has. 

[Rupert Greenwell]

The Q2 focal length is wider to my eyes than a 28mm M lens, I call it 26 mm. The look is of course personal, some prefer the look of the original Q.  No you don't need a thumb grip. I have tried one and the damn thing just snags your clothing etc.

All round the Q2 is a very capable camera and I would recommend it. Good luck !

 

 

[jaapv]

Don't forget that the M framelines are more narrow than the field of view at infinity. - plus an internal focus lens  will show less focal length extension close up than a lens that focuses by shifting the optical cell. Compare at infinity. At 2 m. your M lens is more like a 30. And it may well be that the digital correction on the Q keeps the angle of view constant during focusing should there be any focal length shift..

[UliWer]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb jaapv:

No.

As you know designing a lens is correcting an aberration in one element, … 

Yes, I understand the concept. 

Though the pun of „purely“ and „poorly“ reveals something: you could never use the lens of the Q on film and even on a different digital camera it would cause a lot of problems. Therefore it makes sense that it is fixed on the body and when the body brakes you throw away the lens as well. I think the „poor“ optical correction is also one of the reasons why the combination of lens and camera in the Q is much „cheaper“ than anything we know from the M or even the SL.

vor 1 Stunde schrieb jaapv:

- do you call the M lenses optically flawed because they need profiles on you digital M?

They don‘t need them. I may switch lens detection for the camera and any profiles in the raw converter off, and still get the results I want. When some wide angles had and still have problems on digital cameras it‘s the fault of the sensor and not the lens - as you may see using them on film or we already saw with  progress of sensors used for the M. 

I do not say that digital correction of optical faults is a bad thing. Of course we are now better off than lens users were in the times of Ludwig Bertele, who did wonders with resolution for wide opened lenses like the 50mm Sonnar, but had to pay a high price when it came to distortion. Or Max Berek, who was always eager to avoid any distortion, but could not achieve optimal resolution with wide opened lenses. And of course it‘s much more convenient for customers who don‘t want to pay extreme prices for a maximum of pure optical correction as Leica likes to charge us with their „Apo“ lenses for the M. 

 

[jaapv]

The pun is funny. You could never use the lens on another body, whichever way corrected, see the Digilux 2...

At any rate I think the size/quality argument was more important for the Q than the quality/price one.

 

[Rupert Greenwell]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

Don't forget that the M framelines are more narrow than the field of view at infinity. - plus an internal focus lens  will show less focal length extension close up than a lens that focuses by shifting the optical cell. Compare at infinity. At 2 m. your M lens is more like a 30. And it may well be that the digital correction on the Q keeps the angle of view constant during focusing should there be any focal length shift..

I am sure that you are correct, I should have said that when I view the images in Lightroom, I notice the difference between the two .

[jaapv]

But not at infinity, I’m sure  Having said that, no two lenses have exactly the same focal length. The Summicron M 50 is 53 mm IIRC. 

[Stuart Richardson]

These are boring photos, but one is the Q2 with the 28mm Summilux and the other is the 24mm Sigma on the SL2. I felt that they were very close. So I guess it depends on who you believe...Leica that it is a 28mm, or Sigma that it is a 24mm. The Sigma is wider, but not by much. My feeling is that the Q2 28mm is indeed closer to a 25-26mm, even after correction. It seems wider than my 28mm M lenses did, but I have not done side to sides with those, so it is harder for me to say. Leica on top, Sigma on the bottom. The Sigma is a hair wider (look at the railing and the tree at the right).

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 December 11, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[jaapv]

This is assuming that the M 28 is actually 28. It can easily be 29 or even 30. I would have to search for the actual average value ( there is sample variation too) Personally I would assume the Q to be mathematically correct as the final crop is determined digitally. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[LMacky]

On 12/11/2022 at 9:07 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

These are boring photos, but one is the Q2 with the 28mm Summilux and the other is the 24mm Sigma on the SL2. I felt that they were very close. So I guess it depends on who you believe...Leica that it is a 28mm, or Sigma that it is a 24mm. The Sigma is wider, but not by much. My feeling is that the Q2 28mm is indeed closer to a 25-26mm, even after correction. It seems wider than my 28mm M lenses did, but I have not done side to sides with those, so it is harder for me to say. Leica on top, Sigma on the bottom. The Sigma is a hair wider (look at the railing and the tree at the right).

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!

That is very helpful.