28 /1.4 or Q3

[Orson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have 10R now with 35 and 50 mm summilux M lenses.

I lean more towards 27-28 mm in street photography these days.

I like using my 10R however.

I try to decide between a 28/1.4 and Q3?

 

Any pros and cons?

[M Street Photographer]

a very good question.
I also have the M10R, some current and various old lenses that I adapt. I also own a Sony RX1 RII and I am very happy with this combination. Occasionally it is very useful to be able to use an AF, despite my love for the rangefinder. So I just photographed the Christopher Street day with the RX1, where I would have had a hard time with the M10R and mostly, dimmed, would have had to photograph Zone. The creative freedom would be very limited.

Rather, I see two other questions:
Why a 1.4? I don't think it's necessary
And why 28mm? I deliberately bought a Voigtländer 21 1.8 for the M10R because the difference between 35 and 28 mm was too small for me.

Seen in this way, if it has to be 28 mm, I would recommend you a Q3, because of all the positive, new features of the Q 3 and above all because of the AF. you also have a perfect backup camera.
I don't see any disadvantages, except that you could possibly be traveling with 2 cameras. But I never am, because 99% of the time I'm on the road with a camera and a lens.

If you reconsider the focal length, the question is easy to answer.

[Darrell]

I have the 28, 35 and 50 Summiluxes and I couldn’t be happier. They all look great on my M10 and they all get used. On your M10R they would be even better due to the higher resolution. I gave up autofocus when I moved from Canon to Leica and I don’t miss it. I’ve read nothing but good things about the Q3, but it isn’t for me.

[M Street Photographer]

vor 15 Minuten schrieb Darrell:

I have the 28, 35 and 50 Summiluxes and I couldn’t be happier. They all look great on my M10 and they all get used. On your M10R they would be even better due to the higher resolution. I gave up autofocus when I moved from Canon to Leica and I don’t miss it. I’ve read nothing but good things about the Q3, but it isn’t for me.

Your personal preferences are understandable, but what are the pros/cons?
That was the question.

[dkCambridgeshire]

One reason why I'm not considering a Q3 is that I'm very happy with the compact & pocketable (in a large pocket) Leica CL/ TL 18mm combination (27mm FF equivalent).

BW, dunk 

[Photoworks]

There are 2 considerations to keep in mind.

The benefit of Q2, and Q3 is that the lens is sharp wide open, and with the range of stops.
the Q lens is not really a 28mm lens, but a much wider focal length in the 25-26 range. The image covers much more than 28 M lens.
Wide open the Q 28mm lens does not show the topical character of the summilux at 1.4. The little glow, vignetting, and little CA is well corrected.

The Summilux 28mm for M is one of my favorite lens, with a modern look. At 1.4 vignetting and little glow is visible and becomes corrected at f2, 2-8.

The Summilux-M is the sharpest lens in the family, with lots of micro-contrast and saturated colors.
It is a big lens, but it works well on the M11. I wish I had the silver version, but otherwise it performs the same.

The Summilux 28 and 50 are the 2 lenses a carry most of the time.

I also have the 28mm ULTRON II. I a good alternative to many of the 28mm offered by Leica. And lastly the 28- 5.6 lens, the old design offers great vintage-looking softness and flares when shooting into the sun.

I sold my Q2 since I have gotten the M lens and I am very happy with it.

 

https://www.instagram.com/kroke/

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!

 

 

 

 

[M Street Photographer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have named my approach and the pros and cons. If I didn't have an almost brand new RX1 RII, I would have immediately ordered the Q 3 for the M10 R.
The sensor with 60 Mp is also worth noting. I never needed it on my RIV. On the other hand, on the Q3 I think the crop options up to 90 mm and 60 Mp are very good.
If you are traveling with the Q3, you do not need any other focal lengths, apart from WW / UWW.

@Photoworks, the b&w pic is great ! not by the lens, by your Art!

Edited August 5, 2023 by M Street Photographer

[MaticB]

37 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

The benefit of Q2, and Q3 is that the lens is sharp wide open, and with the range of stops.
the Q lens is not really a 28mm lens, but a much wider focal length in the 25-26 range. The image covers much more than 28 M lens.
Wide open the Q 28mm lens does not show the topical character of the summilux at 1.4. The little glow, vignetting, and little CA is well corrected.

The Summilux 28mm for M is one of my favorite lens, with a modern look. At 1.4 vignetting and little glow is visible and becomes corrected at f2, 2-8.

The Summilux-M is the sharpest lens in the family, with lots of micro-contrast and saturated colors.

Agree with that completly! I never owned Q3, but I used to have Q2, and although Summilux 1,7 was excellent, it is simply not the same as Summilux 28/1.4! The quality of the second comes from pure optical perfection, without in-camera corrections. Q2 or Q3, however much as could be, could not completly substitute Summilux 28/1.4. This is at least my impression, but it could also be my ilusion. I've had Summilux 28/1.4 from its introduction, and I'm very pleased I didn't gave in to temptation to sell it! Instead, I replaced Q2 with APO Summicron 35, which is another story. I used my lenses with M10R and M11Monochrom.

Edited August 5, 2023 by MaticB

[dpitt]

Let me state first of that I do not own a Q. I just have two general remarks:

1. Did you consider the size of your lens? I am very pleased with the size of the Leica Elmarit F2.8 ASPH. Compared to normal DSLR or SL lenses any M lens like your Summiluxes look and feel tiny, but the Elmarit takes it to another level. I love to be able to pocket your M with the lens mounted. Much better than a Q. So if you do not want to play with DOF, which is hard with 28mm anyway, and if you want the best sharpness, for landscapes and street. I would recommend the Elmarit. Having to carry 300g less weigt to carry on long walks is also a very different experience compared to your current lenses.
2. If size and weight are not very important for you, then I would consider a Q. Bear in mind that it is still debatable if the Q produces equal IQ compared with a M10R... But it would have other advantages. Having two bodies, the Q and an other FL like 50mm on the M10R would be very convenient to have with you on a holiday trip. No need to change lenses and this combo covers anything from 26mm to short tele range. AF can be an advantage if you want to ask someone else (like  wife / friends) to take a picture. And a Q could be a light weight 'carry everywhere' solution, although the solution with 28mm Elmarit is very close if not better IMO.

Just my 2 cents...

[charlesphoto99]

Bizarre question. One doesn't really replace the other (the functioning of an M being quite different than that of a Q, at least imo). How about a used 28 Elmarit or Summicron and pocket the rest? Or put it towards a used Q2 and then you have both worlds. The Summilux is overkill imo, what with the advance in higher iso quality, and heavy and awkward to boot. 

[Photoworks]

In the case of 28mm for M the sharpness scale goes this way.

 

1. 28 5.6 Lens = mostly soft sharpness and contrast
2. 28 Elmarit 2.8 = sharp
3. 28 summicron 2.0 = sharper, little more character
4. 28 ULTRON II = sharper than summicron, but very close.
5. 28 Summilux = Max sharpens, lots of character, and great micro contrast. I like the look at 1.4, give me separation and I can shoot in low light and at night.

If you are shooting f 4-8 you can pick most lenses.

I would put the Q lens in at 4.5 . It is a wide-angle lens that has lots of correcting in the camera, so you most likely never see the distortion of it. but almost showed no character
Added bonus is the super quiet shutter and sync time to 1/500 for creative use.
The q2 had some challenges in High iso with banding, I am sure the q3 sensor will perform better at ISO 3200

[Ouroboros]

5 hours ago, Orson said:

I have 10R now with 35 and 50 mm summilux M lenses.

I lean more towards 27-28 mm in street photography these days.

I like using my 10R however.

I try to decide between a 28/1.4 and Q3?

 

Any pros and cons?

No brainier: 28mm summilux.  Fantastic lens, a true summilux, unlike the lens in the Q series which is propped-up by firmware.

A summilux won’t die with your M10-R  or need to be sold on with it,  the lens in a Q will ultimately go to a new owner or die with the camera.  

The 28mm summilux will also hold it’s value in the long term, no Q ever will do that.

Edited August 5, 2023 by Ouroboros

[LocalHero1953]

I have the Q2, and I have had a M240 and lenses previously. I still have a Elmarit-M 28mm asph for use with M4 and MP.

If I had neither a Q nor a digital M, I would probably pick the M and Elmarit-M asph (not a summilux). I could live without the wider aperture for the sake of the smaller lens, and I would have the versatility of using other lenses. The Q2 AF is not good enough, IMO, to make the MF of the M series the less good choice. I have only tried the Q3 briefly, and the AF is better, but for how I use the Q, I could probably adapt happily to the M10R and a wide angle lens.

But as I have a Q2, I have no intention of buying a M10R or M11 to use just with a 28mm - the differences just aren't big enough to justify the spend to myself. 

Edited August 5, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[Panda2]

I had a Q for 2 years and migrated to a 28/1.4 a couple years ago, some observations: 

1. The 28/1.4, whilst an astonishing lens with great rendering, it is *not* an absolute slam dunk on the 28/1.7. The fringing wide open is a serious issue - and also not technically as sharp as 28/1.7 in the centre (but still very good). Character-wise, the 28/1.7 is a scalpel, the 28/1.4 is a paint brush, neither is "better" than the other, just different. 

2. Q2/3 (IP52) is much more rainproof than the M. This is nearly a raison d'être for the Q. For some weathers I wouldn't take out the M at all, but can keep the Q out for a limited time. 

3. Social camera: the M is an unwieldy camera should you need to take some photos in a social setting, or god forbid, pass the camera to someone else. I've done it with both, the Q experience was smoother. 

However, the choice depends on whether you have need for a second, more casual and weather-proofed camera as your only carry for some occasions/trips. If you will end up carrying both cameras, get the 28/1.4. If you are fine sometimes with just the Q, then Q3 is fine. And if you enjoy your rangefinder experience and fear the Q3 will make taking out which camera complicated (because it will), then the 28/1.4. And finally, if you're just doing 28mm street photography, the Summaron is my favourite. 

Edited August 5, 2023 by Panda2
typo

[M11 for me]

Under the condition that the Q3 Autofocus is not needed then I would go for the M lens. The Q3 has an excellent lens but the M Summilux will top it.

Then - when still no need for AF - you might have an M11. Then you will have a sensor that is superior to the Q3 sensor. Tests show (e.g. red dot forum) that the M11 has a dynamic range that is 1 ev higher than Q3 sensor.

On the other hand the Q3 is the more versatile camera when the 28mm focal length is for you. 

[BradS]

The differences between the lenses seem insignificant compared to the difference in user experience of the two cameras.

[M11 for me]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb BradS:

The differences between the lenses seem insignificant compared to the difference in user experience of the two cameras.

That is most probably true. The Q3 performs great in practice.

What is there then left for the @Orson initial question?

The difference in image quality is little to none. Then we have the AF in the Q3 and MF in the M. When you think that a camera with AF would be an addition then go for Q3. If AF is no issue then go for Summilux on your existing camera.

[Winedemonium]

10 hours ago, Panda2 said:

2. Q2/3 (IP52) is much more rainproof than the M. This is nearly a raison d'être for the Q. For some weathers I wouldn't take out the M at all, but can keep the Q out for a limited time. 

3. Social camera: the M is an unwieldy camera should you need to take some photos in a social setting, or god forbid, pass the camera to someone else. I've done it with both, the Q experience was smoother. 

My own view closest to this one. I used to have the original Q. My ultimate issue with it was something to do with the way it drew - a combination of almost overly sharp(ened?), and a high level of native lens distortion that was corrected by the camera and baked into the raw file output. I never owned the Q2, and as I understand it the lens on the Q3 is the same. 

I have the 28mm Summilux-M, and I love the way it renders on the M10-R (and as @Ouroboros has pointed out, the lens "lives" whatever I do with it). BUT... it is a big lens, and it blocks a fair amount of the viewfinder, a viewfinder that is really necessary to focus well to make use of the narrow DOF the f/1.4 tempts. Otherwise I would echo what others have suggested in this thread - a smaller 28mm lens. As you are a 35mm and 50mm Summilux user, you may not like the smaller lenses - the 28mm Summilux has the magic sauce. 

The main reason though that I would consider a Q2 or Q3 today though are points 2 and 3 from Panda2. For a really weatherproof, versatile (closer focus and macro, crop modes, video at a pinch, etc), and very social group-friendly camera, the Q has its place and its advantages over the M system. Like for like the M10R and 28 Lux will produce better files than the Q2/3, but in reality the Q2/3 will get you shots you won't get on your M. In other words, there is always a place for a Q for an M shooter, but the IQ of the output is different. That may or may not matter to you.

[newtoleica]

Agree with previous posters that you need to separate the camera Q from the lens Q. Like Street M Photographer I have a Sony RX1R II, it’s a good little AF camera. Very similar to a Q and it has a place for all the reasons stated. if those gel, get a Q3.

As for the lens, have you tried a 24mm? Look at Alan Schaller’s work. Or Gary Winogrand? Going just that bit wider is quite immersive and allows lots of ‘edge of frame’ possibilities. The 24 obviously doesn’t have frame lines but it’s actually just outside the edge of the full finder so with practice it works well.
I use a 24 Elmarit ASPH. Really nice compact lens.  (Also have a 35 Summilux ASPH non-FLE and a 50 Lux ASPH.) 
 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[RexGig0]

I think of a Leica lens as a long-term, treasured thing, to be kept for decades. I think of a digital camera as a consumable item, with a limited service life. I wonder how long Leica service centers will support individual Q camera models, after their end-of-production times? I would accept a Leica Q, if it were a gift. I cannot see myself spending my money to buy a Q.

Street/documentary shooting, as I understand it, is not something normally done at f/1.4, so, I am content to have Elmarit-M f/2.8 and Summaron f/5.6 28mm lenses. I doubt that I will ever be able to justify the cost of a Summilux-M 28mm lens, but, yes, I would rather have the Summilux-M lens than the Q camera. 

While the Q does have a “macro” setting, that is a marketing term that does not correspond to my idea of “macro” shooting. (In actual practice, I use SLR macro lenses, on DSLRs, to achieve a true 1:1 reproduction ratio, at very close range.)

Edited August 6, 2023 by RexGig0