Q2+SL2+?? for landscapes

[kobra]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all, 

I've enjoyed browsing the forum so far, and searching what I can... but so far have not found answers to my specific questions. So here goes...

Background: I bought a Q2 over a year ago and took many amazing images with in 2022. But, of course, it is not a camera for all situations; it excels as a carry everywhere and travel camera, but I need more. My other system is Fuji X, with lenses from 10-400 (APS-C). I've decided to sell that system and have acquired a used SL2 and a couple of lenses so far. While the SL2 will be for general and travel photography, I want to optimize my kit for landscapes, starscapes and I want to get into astro. One of my main reasons to upgrade to the SL system is for substantially improved IQ, but also with an eye to travel friendly; (meaning flying to exotic destinations will be part of the requirements)

So far, I have the SL2 and a Leica 24-70. Money is not the primary consideration, but of course it matters; so, for example I would not spring for a full kit of Leica only lenses unless there was a strong case for it. 

What lenses would you recommend for landscape photography (that were also somewhat travel friendly)? 

-UWA. I'm thinking of Sigma 14-24 or the newer 16-28, but also hear that the Leica 16-35 is amazing. What would you choose and why?

-Astro. I'm considering the Sigma 20 1.4 Art, but open to other suggestions. 

-WA. I do have the Q2 which offers a bit wider than 28mm, so I'm not inclined to get either a 24 or 28mm prime. I am also not sure that I will gain much by getting the SL APO 35 as the focal lengths may be too similar?  Although I struggle as it seems universally agreed that it is a spectacular lens and I do like the 35mm FOV. I welcome your thoughts on the results from the Q2 for landscape photography and whether this can meet the needs as a backup body and a WA prime? 

-standard zoom; I found a very good deal on a used Leica 24-70 lens. I suspect there could be a difference with the 24-90, but even used it would likely be almost double the cost; and I start to worry about size and weight when traveling. Is there enough of a difference in landscape and travel photography between them? 

-telephoto. I am considering the Sigma 100-400, even though I'm not sure this is the sharpest option out there. Again, my use is primarily landscapes, although I do some wildlife as well. However, I do not do BIF and would likely not get the SL system if I did. So, great IQ for landscapes is the primary goal. I like the size of the Sigma 100-400, but may regret not spending more to get a better solution? 

-macro. I am considering the Sigma 105 macro and I don't think Leica has an SL macro? This is an area of interest, but as part of landscape photography. IOW, the range of lenses I have is to try to capture the essence of a place, from the sweeping vistas to isolating features, to the flaura and fauna. 

-other primes? Considering the reviews of the SL APO line, I'm wondering if the SL50, SL75 or SL90 has a place in a landscape kit. Part of me drools over the flat plane of focus, the apparent sharpness, and focus falloff (where appropriate). But, I do wonder how much this will factor into landscape photography, or how much the love is for people and portrait use. 

I think this email got away on me a bit and it seems like a lot of questions. I guess typical for anyone new to a system. Please do know I welcome any and all feedback on the above, or even if you have a completely different idea on how to approach landscape photography with the SL system. 

Thank you so much in advance! 

Brad

 

[hansvons]

46 minutes ago, kobra said:

-standard zoom; I found a very good deal on a used Leica 24-70 lens. I suspect there could be a difference with the 24-90, but even used it would likely be almost double the cost; and I start to worry about size and weight when traveling. Is there enough of a difference in landscape and travel photography between them? 

The 24-70 lens is all you need for traditional landscape photography. The 24-90 is said to be a bit better in terms of sharpness and dimensionality. I own the 24-90 and can say that it outperforms any other standard zoom I've used from Canon and Nikon. But I can't say anything to the Leica/Sigma 24-70. I assume it's a good lens.

That said, everything wider is only necessary if you want these super-wide shots. I'd go for the 24-70, as you already have a good offer and call it a day. 

[Stuart Richardson]

I primarily do landscape work and use the SL2, Q2, and my SL lenses are the 35 and 50 APO summicrons and the 90-280 zoom. In my opinion, the APO summicrons are in an entirely different league than the Q2 28mm. They are much much sharper in the field, and have a snap and microcontrast that is difficult to replicate. I print large from my works on a regular basis. If you do not, this may not be significant for you. 
It will also depend on what kind of landscape photographer you are. I am more often then not using the 50mm or 90-280, but Iceland has a lot of wide open spaces and wide angles tend to just make everything look small and far away. 

[beewee]

3 hours ago, kobra said:

What lenses would you recommend for landscape photography (that were also somewhat travel friendly)? 

-UWA. I'm thinking of Sigma 14-24 or the newer 16-28, but also hear that the Leica 16-35 is amazing. What would you choose and why?

-Astro. I'm considering the Sigma 20 1.4 Art, but open to other suggestions. 

I’ve shared my thoughts for UWA and Astro here and elsewhere on this forum. That said, if I were shooting a SL2 instead of an SL2-S, I’d definitely go for the 20/1.4 DG DN over the 14-24/2.8 DG DN due to the poorer low noise performance of the SL2.

The SL 16-35 is decent but I wouldn’t call it amazing. It’s very good but the Sigma 14-24 is actually sharper on the wide end. Main drawback of the Sigma is ease of lens flare from the big bulbous front element, no support for front filters, and doesn’t go to 35mm focal length which can be quite limiting if you want to carry only one lens. For long day hikes and scrambles, I stick to the SL 16-35 mainly because of its versatility and coverage.

A combo of the Sigma 14-24/2.8 DG DN and Leica SL 24-90 would perform optically better at all focal ranges compared to the Leica SL 16-35 but it’s a lot of glass to be hauling around. Definitely too much for me for long days in the mountains.

Below are some shots from the Sigma 14-24 DG DN:

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!

 

Everything else below are from the SL 16-35:

Edited January 14, 2023 by beewee

[kobra]

@beewee - thanks for sharing the wonderful images and your thoughts! 

Brad

[kobra]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I primarily do landscape work and use the SL2, Q2, and my SL lenses are the 35 and 50 APO summicrons and the 90-280 zoom. In my opinion, the APO summicrons are in an entirely different league than the Q2 28mm. They are much much sharper in the field, and have a snap and microcontrast that is difficult to replicate. I print large from my works on a regular basis. If you do not, this may not be significant for you. 
It will also depend on what kind of landscape photographer you are. I am more often then not using the 50mm or 90-280, but Iceland has a lot of wide open spaces and wide angles tend to just make everything look small and far away. 

Thanks @Stuart Richardson, I appreciate you sharing your experience. 

I'm curious your thoughts on how you use the Q2 for landscapes compared to the SL35. I suspected the SL35 to be better, but was thinking to start with other lengths as it may be too close to the Q2? 

Thanks again,

Brad

[LeicaR10]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Brad,  I sent you a PM so not to derail your thread. r/ Mark

[Stuart Richardson]

5 hours ago, kobra said:

Thanks @Stuart Richardson, I appreciate you sharing your experience. 

I'm curious your thoughts on how you use the Q2 for landscapes compared to the SL35. I suspected the SL35 to be better, but was thinking to start with other lengths as it may be too close to the Q2? 

Thanks again,

Brad

I don't think they are really that close, to be honest. The 28mm in the Q2, at least in my experience, is closer to a 25mm than a 28mm, and I find that there is a pretty substantial difference between the angle of view. I also think that the 35mm SL is an extraordinary lens. I cannot really say the same about the Q2 lens. It is very good, but not extraordinary. In my opinion, the Q2 is fantastic as a travel or street camera and for use as a photographers casual camera, but when you start trying to really push the optical envelope, you can find some deficiencies. Really the most significant of these is softness in the outer areas of the frame. You may not find this significant, depending on what you photograph and how large you print.

The 35mm SL on the other hand is just one of lenses where there is nothing to criticize. Sure, some people don't like the size and weight, but to me it is totally fine. What you do get from it is exceptionally crisp and sharp photos with no visible aberrations. No fringing, no longitudinal chromatic aberrations (when the foreground bokeh has green fringes and the background bokeh has magenta fringing), and a beautiful smooth bokeh. For landscapes and astro work you can have tack sharp edge to edge results at f2. All the same applies to the 50mm, which to my eyes is just as good.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[dpitt]

Not sure if you considered manual focus lens options?
My strategy would be to buy a good alround SL zoom lens, that is not too bulky and then complement it with some primes for landscape and macro.
The following primes can make a nice travel friendly package.

If you want to extend your range a bit, the Leica 1:3.4 APO 180mm R  is a great performer at infinity. I never tried astro with it, but since its strength is at infinity, it should be very good. Thake the APO 2x extender with you and it becomes a handheld 1:6.8/360mm.

Regarding macro, if you want to travel really light, the 1:4.0/90 mm Macro-Elmar M is excellent, both at short distance and at infinity. The APO 1:2.8/100mm Macro-Elmarit R is in the same league, although a lot heavier compared to the Macro-Elmar lens. Even the non APO 1:4.0/100mm Elmar R is still very good for Macro, but nit in the same league as the APO lenses.

For macro with the SL2, I can recommend watching this:

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by dpitt

[Paul2660]

I still need a 16mm at times, in fact a lot of the time. So I carry the 16-35 and 24-90, even though there is considerable overlap in focal length.  I have a Q2, but never hardly use it as I prefer the SL2, SL2-S, as I will use Multi Shot when I can.  The 16-35 I picked up used and so far, no issues, but I did purchase from the Leica Group in San Francisco.  

Leica has a great lens line in the 3 zooms, I would like to see a bit more on the long side from 280mm, and hoping that the new Teleconverter that was announced with the 100-400 last year will work with the 280mm without a loss in overall image quality.   Also a huge advantage is the 82mm filter size throughout the 3 lenses, a use asset for me. 

You also might consider the Sigma 35mm F2 or 45mm F2 both are very small, light weight and can provide a very nice overall image.  

 

Paul 

[beewee]

8 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I don't think they are really that close, to be honest. The 28mm in the Q2, at least in my experience, is closer to a 25mm than a 28mm, and I find that there is a pretty substantial difference between the angle of view. I also think that the 35mm SL is an extraordinary lens. I cannot really say the same about the Q2 lens. It is very good, but not extraordinary.

+1

In an effort to keep the Q2 lens compact but maintain a larger aperture, Leica had to make some compromises. One of the major ones is geometric distortion that is digitally corrected. If you load the Q2 DNG images into CaptureOne and remove digital corrections, you can see how much there is. The focal length is more like 24mm without the distortion correction. Although digital correction can do a pretty good job, there is some loss in resolution and this is reflected in the final output at the edges/corners of the frame.

I can also attest that the 28mm APO SL is comparable to the other APO Summicron SL lenses. Sharp corner to corner and has the same high contrast rendering in the plane of focus with a nice drop in contrast in out of focus areas when shot wide open. For stopped down shooting though, it’s a bit overkill. You can get the Sigma i-series 24/3.5 DG DN lens to perform almost as well when stopped down to f/5.6-8.0. The Sigma 1/10th the price and 1/3rd the weight of the APO SL primes. I’ve shared some 100MP multi-shot examples from the 24/3.5 here. It’s more than capable in rendering sharp corners on the SL2 when stopped down.

All that said, you can get a pretty unique look with the APO SL primes when shooting wide open. Something that’s not really possible with other lenses. Here’re some examples with the 28 APO SL shot at f/2.

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 January 14, 2023 by beewee

[beewee]

1 hour ago, Paul2660 said:

You also might consider the Sigma 35mm F2 or 45mm F2 both are very small, light weight and can provide a very nice overall image.

Just be warned that the Sigma 45/2 is optically one of the weakest in the i-series family of lenses. People have complained about it being soft.

[Stuart Richardson]

In case you want to look at some boring, but perhaps instructive comparison photos, I will post these here. When I got the 35mm, I decided to compare it to the Q2, just to get a feel for the differences. These are both shot from the same tripod position and both shot at f2.

Q2

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!

SL 35mm

Q2 edge

SL 35mm edge

Again, these are at f2. I just left the sharpening at the lightroom default.

[kobra]

10 hours ago, dpitt said:

Not sure if you considered manual focus lens options?
My strategy would be to buy a good alround SL zoom lens, that is not too bulky and then complement it with some primes for landscape and macro.
The following primes can make a nice travel friendly package.

If you want to extend your range a bit, the Leica 1:3.4 APO 180mm R  is a great performer at infinity. I never tried astro with it, but since its strength is at infinity, it should be very good. Thake the APO 2x extender with you and it becomes a handheld 1:6.8/360mm.

Regarding macro, if you want to travel really light, the 1:4.0/90 mm Macro-Elmar M is excellent, both at short distance and at infinity. The APO 1:2.8/100mm Macro-Elmarit R is in the same league, although a lot heavier compared to the Macro-Elmar lens. Even the non APO 1:4.0/100mm Elmar R is still very good for Macro, but nit in the same league as the APO lenses.

@dpitt - thanks for the suggestions. I am not against a manual lens, and have considered whether to get an adapter and go down that road. I might do that, but right now I think I want to learn more about the native lenses and make some decisions. I will make note of your post, and circle back if I get to the manual route. 

Brad

 

[kobra]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

In case you want to look at some boring, but perhaps instructive comparison photos, I will post these here. When I got the 35mm, I decided to compare it to the Q2, just to get a feel for the differences. These are both shot from the same tripod position and both shot at f2.

Q2

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!

SL 35mm

Q2 edge

SL 35mm edge

Again, these are at f2. I just left the sharpening at the lightroom default.

@Stuart Richardson - thank you again, images are most helpful and these in particular show up some of the critical differences. I have enjoyed a 35mm equivalent in the past with other systems, so I do think I need to add the SL 35 APO to my priority list! 

Brad

[kobra]

9 hours ago, beewee said:

+1

In an effort to keep the Q2 lens compact but maintain a larger aperture, Leica had to make some compromises. One of the major ones is geometric distortion that is digitally corrected. If you load the Q2 DNG images into CaptureOne and remove digital corrections, you can see how much there is. The focal length is more like 24mm without the distortion correction. Although digital correction can do a pretty good job, there is some loss in resolution and this is reflected in the final output at the edges/corners of the frame.

I can also attest that the 28mm APO SL is comparable to the other APO Summicron SL lenses. Sharp corner to corner and has the same high contrast rendering in the plane of focus with a nice drop in contrast in out of focus areas when shot wide open. For stopped down shooting though, it’s a bit overkill. You can get the Sigma i-series 24/3.5 DG DN lens to perform almost as well when stopped down to f/5.6-8.0. The Sigma 1/10th the price and 1/3rd the weight of the APO SL primes. I’ve shared some 100MP multi-shot examples from the 24/3.5 here. It’s more than capable in rendering sharp corners on the SL2 when stopped down.

All that said, you can get a pretty unique look with the APO SL primes when shooting wide open. Something that’s not really possible with other lenses. Here’re some examples with the 28 APO SL shot at f/2.

@beewee - thanks for more images, very helpful! I have not used my Q2 much for landscapes (use it for street/travel), so I appreciate your images (and Stuarts), that are helpful in understanding the comparisons. I am realizing how much I love the Q2 for what I use it for, but that as I replace my landscape system with the SL, this has been helpful to show what I need to consider.

My thoughts around using the Sigma lenses, is whether there will be subtle, yet perhaps significant, differences in the "look". Many have commented on how the Leica lenses render differently and I would be disappointed to have to spend a lot more time chasing an image in LR or C1 to try to achieve a consistent look that could have happened more naturally if I use Leica lenses vs Sigma. That is a big frustration with my current system, and one of the big reasons I am moving away from my Fuji X system (and why I didn't adopt the GFX system). Fuji seems, to me, to either get the color and sharpness very good right up front, or I would spend so much time trying to get there in post and often be disappointed that I could not achieve the vision I wanted. 

I do like the idea of adding some Sigma into my kit and price is only one consideration; the others are size, flexibility of focal lengths being offered, and the overall positive reviews. But, again, I would really hate to then see images that required a lot more work in post; or to find out that images from the Leica lenses were so very different than the images produced from the Sigma lenses. I've read some opinions, but do welcome others as well. 

May I ask; when you use Sigma vs Leica lenses, what differences are you seeing?

Thanks again! 

Brad

[BernardC]

19 hours ago, beewee said:

Just be warned that the Sigma 45/2 is optically one of the weakest in the i-series family of lenses. People have complained about it being soft.

This page explains the optical design philosophy: https://www.sigma-sein.com/en/ohsone/45mm-f2-8-dg-dn-contemporary/

Summary: the lens is designed to be very sharp longer distances, and to allow more spherical aberration as you focus closer. This was partly done to emulate some legendary (and legendarily expensive) historical optics. It does not excel at test charts, but it can be very rewarding with other subjects.

[huwm]

Sigma macro excellent and currently no SL equivalent 

[beewee]

On 1/14/2023 at 9:28 PM, kobra said:

I do like the idea of adding some Sigma into my kit and price is only one consideration; the others are size, flexibility of focal lengths being offered, and the overall positive reviews. But, again, I would really hate to then see images that required a lot more work in post; or to find out that images from the Leica lenses were so very different than the images produced from the Sigma lenses. I've read some opinions, but do welcome others as well. 

May I ask; when you use Sigma vs Leica lenses, what differences are you seeing?

The only Sigma lenses I own are the 14-24/2.8 DG DN and 24/3.5 DG DN so choices are rather limited. When I’m choosing to shoot or purchase I lense, I’m mainly considering what I want to shoot and what trade offs I want to make to achieve my goal. Since I’m mostly shooting landscapes and some people in a more documentary style while spending hours in the backcountry, I’m usually prioritizing the following:

• Overall size of my kit should fit in a camera pouch that goes in my backpack. When I was shooting with an M system in the past, this meant 1 body w/ lens mounted + 1-2 small primes. With the SL system, it means SL2-S + one lens, usually a zoom for covering a few focal lengths.
• Overall weight should be under 2kg
• Lens should be able to render reasonably sharp corners while stopped down and focused to infinity
• Focal length should cover 24mm but depending on where I go and what I want or expect to capture such as some wildlife or grand landscapes

Based on the above, this usually means I’m shooting with the SL2-S + SL 16-35 but if I think there’s a good chance of capturing wildlife, I may go for the SL 24-90 instead. I only really use the Sigma 14-24 for astro. I really rarely take the 28 APO out mainly because I prefer 24mm or 21mm for what I’m shooting. I rarely take the 24/3.5 out mainly because I generally want to have a bit more focal length options that go wider and narrower, so I opt for the SL 16-35 instead. Also, since I need to stop down the 24/3.5 and SL 16-35 to get sharp corners anyway, there’s no real uniqueness or difference in the look.

With that said, when the SL 21 APO and/or SL 24 APO gets released, I could be convinced to shoot with that as my only prime, depending on where I’m going. I imagine, I’ll probably eventually have the full set of 21/24/28 APOs but we’ll see if Leica ever ends up releasing all the remaining APO SL primes that they had on their roadmap. My main motivation for shooting the SL 21 APO or SL 24 APO, if/when it gets released is for a somewhat unique narrow depth of field wide angle look, and very high optical performance even when shot wide open. Also, there’d be additional motivation for shooting with the APO SL primes if/when I upgrade to a higher resolution camera (SL3?) but at present, I have no plans on getting the SL2 since it doesn’t have the dynamic range and low noise performance that I can get with the SL2-S.

In addition, location and weather will also play a role. If I’m shooting in a dusty environment or in inclement weather, I’d still lean towards a single zoom like the SL 16-35. But if the environment allows for shooting primes and swapping lenses without having to worry about rain, dust, snow, etc.. then I’d be more inclined to shoot with an APO SL prime, assuming it covers the focal length I want.

Edited January 17, 2023 by beewee

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Pelu2010]

All shot with the q2 

this winter. 
 

love it. 
 

and with only one option, you get creative. 

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!