28mm Summicron-SL vs Leica Q2

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 hours ago, helged said:

Will be interesting to see what SL21-APO will bring to the table (software corrections wise). But first the official announcement... 😉

I'll share that as soon as I can get one.

[panoreserve]

I have all currently available SL Apo Summicrons (28-90mm). Only in the case of the 28mm Lightroom does show "built-in lens profile applied" (the raw file contains a built-in lens profile to correct distortion and chromatic aberration). 

I wouldn't be surprised if this is even more true for the upcoming 21mm.

But at the end of the day, it's the optical performance that counts - and it's just as great on the 28mm as it is on the 35mm...

Edited February 19, 2023 by panoreserve

[Advertisement]

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

[panoreserve]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb panoreserve:

I have all currently available SL Apo Summicrons (28-90mm). Only in the case of the 28mm Lightroom does show "built-in lens profile applied" (the raw file contains a built-in lens profile to correct distortion and chromatic aberration). 

I wouldn't be surprised if this is even more true for the upcoming 21mm.

But at the end of the day, it's the optical performance that counts - and it's just as great on the 28mm as it is on the 35mm...

...and the most important thing: you should choose the focal lengths you need for creative reasons - and not because of theoretically existing minimal technical differences...(When I was in Israel in the summer of 2022, I only chose 28 and 90mm and left 35, 50 and 75mm at home to be as flexible as compact...)

[Daniel C.1975]

Hello all, 

 

I think this is an interesting discussion, as it shows so very much that we all sometimes get lost in the aim for technical perfection. 

Don't get me wrong, I am as guilty as we are all. To compare the 28mm Apo-Summicron-SL with the Q2 is very legitimate, as the difference of the investment ist not too high and the base data are very similar, except size and weight. 

If you already owe a SL2(s) it makes sense to buy the lens and have fun with it. I have the 35mm APO-SL, so I imagine the 28mm will be as good as it gets. 

To compare the 28mm with the 50 or 90 or whatever is mute. It's a 28mm.

 

However, having a SL-System with maybe one or more APO-primes, maybe the Summilux-SL 50 or a zoom, will leave you with a large system. So if you might go out with the camera and one lens only, e.g. the 28mm, it is still a relatively large and heavy set-up. Not super bad, but large. For example, I have done a hike in the Dolomits last year with the SL2s and the 24-90 plus filters - left everything else in the valley. It was a large and heave set-up, but I would not have liked to miss the flexibility and conviency. Now comes the big but: But when looking at my pictures, I've made the majority (>85%) at 24-40mm. And only a handful at >75mm. Unfortunately, two main keepers of this trip are made at 90mm  - so the Q2 would not have done the deed ... or I would not have missed what I have not made  

Again however, I have meanwhile bought the Q2 (after missing the Q for some years after I've sold it in 2018), and I really, really love this compact 28mm powerhouse. 

So, would the Dolomits trip have been more enjoyable with the Q2? Maybe, but as it was a long hike, it was a simple one. So I would still take the 24-90 - or maybe not

For my purposes 24mp are always sufficient. With that the Q2 with its 47mp is giving me a lot headroom to crop. Low light performance of the SL2s with a bright lens is of course superior. 

 

The main question here was, if the Q2 is as good in IQ as SL2(s) with the 28APO?

While the Q2 lens is really, really good it is not as good as my 35mm APO-Summicron-SL. Which is overall a bit sharper and contrasty in the corners and sides. Also the focus-plane of the APO is flatter and therefore center-focus and realigning of the frame works better (more accurate). With open aperture and in the near filed it is wise to move the focus point for critical focus.

I've made some comparisons between the Q2 and the SL2s with the 35mm APO. It is nearly impossible on just looking at the pictures to tell which is which (after cropping). If you know where to look you'll find the differences and the APO is the better lens, but in real world there is not much to it. Even in the bokeh area. 

But here we are: Seeking for perfection: The level of IQ of the Q2 is insanely high and beside a tad more clarity of the APO-lenses I dare say, that you won't the a difference between the same picture made with either set-up easily. Except comparing 1:1 and 100%. Yes, especially for landscape the APO is just crazy good and with all other stuff it does have this uncanning amount of clarity. Still, I I am honest, when not in need of large aperture, the 24-90 is more than good enough even for really large prints, and so is the Q2.  We are sometimes just nuts on what we expect from a set up. 

 

In the end there is no clear answer to the question. It's horses for courses. I am on the brim of selling the 35 APO and buying (again) the 75 APO or the 90 APO instead, as this would make a nice still compact combo with the Q2. Or just keep the 35 (I am not sure if I can part) and just add the 90mm Sigma.

Overall I already forsee, that the Q2 will see more use than the SL2s, because it es more than good enough for most stuff. 

 

And as even the longest blabbering is worth nothing without a picture, something from my hike this Saturday with the Q2 - and in this case I was happy to just carry the 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!

 

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I agree with everything you say Daniel! I think it is spot on. I think sometimes I get a bit animated in the technical discussions when people jump in and say "there is no practical difference", because for me and my work there is, though for a large majority of people there probably isn't. Since I am mostly doing work for either highly technically demanding things (artwork reproduction and camera based scanning), or fine art work that may be printed large in an exhibition, subtle technical differences can add up to a lot. That said, in smaller prints or on the web, most of these differences are either very subtle or completely invisible. It is more important to be aware of ones actual usage case.

I certainly think the Q2 is a great compromise for a compact camera. You give up a small bit of optical performance for a lighter and more compact imaging tool with a slightly faster lens. It makes a really good compliment to the SL system. That said, I think I will probably sell mine eventually. For me personally, the "28" in the camera is a bit wider than advertised (more like a 25 or 26) and when cropped down to 35-40mm, it is pretty close in performance to my Ricoh GRIIIx, which is much more compact and more suitable as an everyday compact camera. On the other hand, the Sigma 24mm 3.5 is very close to the Q2 in performance and field of view, and is cheap and compact for the SL2. I initially bought the Q2 to have a wider lens for my SL2 (at the time I only had the 50mm APO Summicron) and because I love the sensor in the SL2. I figured it would replace the digital M that I had sold a few years ago. But ultimately I found that it was just too wide to be an everyday camera for me. It works amazingly as a wide for the SL2 system, but honestly in that context the Sigma does better as it is even more compact (if you are already carrying an SL2) and a tenth of the price. So in the end, it starts to make less sense for my specific use. I think it makes a ton of sense for lots of other photographers, however.

[hellobrandonscott]

Hey all! I took the Q2 and the SL2-S + 28SL to an engagement shoot last week and here's a quick pair to show the difference in "focal length" between the two. Standing in the same place, the Q2 is wider than the 28SL. 

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!

28SL

[huwm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

my bag often caries my SL2 with my 50mm APO (or any of the APO if I had any) attached and my Q2 which gives a nice 'almost' matching 2 lens kit but no lens changes required 

Edited February 25, 2023 by huwm

[Paul2660]

I was surprised to see the that 28mm on the 24-90 was wider than the view provided by the 28mm SL. However the 28mm SL is considerably superior to my 24-90 @ 28mm. This did surprise me. 28mm on the 24-90 showed much more CA, was softer to corners, whereas the 28mm SL is free of both of these issues. It’s really the first wide I have owned that is CA free. (Nikon Canon Fuji and P1)   As a big user of multi shot on the SL2 and S, the results from the 28mm SL were very good. Again superior to my 24-90. F7.1 for the 28mm SL and F 7.1 and 9 for the 24-90 when set to 28mm
 

I have a Q2 but rarely use it. But have found it is also a wide wider than my 28mm SL. 

Paul

[gotium]

On 2/20/2023 at 3:37 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

For me personally, the "28" in the camera is a bit wider than advertised (more like a 25 or 26) and when cropped down to 35-40mm, it is pretty close in performance to my Ricoh GRIIIx, which is much more compact and more suitable as an everyday compact camera. On the other hand, the Sigma 24mm 3.5 is very close to the Q2 in performance and field of view, and is cheap and compact for the SL2. 

I agree on the GRiiix - I actually prefer what I get from it over the Q2 in crop mode, and it's much more compact and way less expensive. I've not used the SL lenses, but can't imagine the Q2 can compete for overall res - it starts to get soft pretty quickly when you move to the edges. I have compared the Q2 vs the Sigma 24/2 on an fp and I think the Sigma is the "sharper" lens across the frame. 

Q2 is currently my most used camera, but it's my favorite FOV and I don't do landscapes; I really like the character of the images.