Controversy about Q3 lens

[Opaea]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello 

There is controversy about the Q lens 28 mm Sumilux witch would be not the same as the original for Leica M for instance. 
The quality should be lower specifically on the edge. 
Has anyone here that ? I haven’t notice that in my use but I have never tested differences between center and edge of my pictures. 

[M11 for me]

The Summilux M lens is considered the better lens and the lens for the SL is said to be better again. But its difficult to judge in practice. You can easily say that the Q lens is an excellent lens. 

[dpitt]

The Summilux 28 M is sold for €1000 more than the Q3.

Do you think Leica attaches exactly the same lens to your Q3, gives you a €1000 discount and then throws in the FF camera + AF for free?

[Sandokan]

Agree with Alex above. I believe it is the same lens since the Q and yes there are corrections made in software for it, but it is an excellent lens. Are there "better" lenses - probably, but who cares? My Q can do macro too. 

[LocalHero1953]

The Q3 lens shares only a name with its M and SL equivalents, and the name, Summilux, refers only to the aperture, not the design. The Summilux for the Q has to incorporate a leaf shutter, image stabilisation, macro and autofocus - it's a different animal - as are all Summiluxes. In its own category, it is unmatched.

For what I use the Q2 for, which is mainly social/family/people photography, and for travel, the lens is exactly what I need and is of very high quality. If you want a fine art landscape lens then, if you believe the reports, it may not have the edge sharpness other lenses have - I wouldn't know: if I want that performance I would be using the SL2-S.

Edited August 9, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[SrMi]

The contemporary design of Q's lens requires software distortion control (SDC). Leica's M lenses do not require SDC(SDC is impossible with the film).

 

[Patrick NL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Opaea said:

There is controversy about the Q lens 28 mm Sumilux witch would be not the same as the original for Leica M for instance. 

What in the controversy? As far as I know nobody ever assumed it is the same lens. Simply look at them!

[adan]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The Summilux for the Q has to incorporate a leaf shutter, image stabilisation, macro and autofocus

Indeed - and is only f/1.7.

Actually one can look up the performance (MTF) charts and diagrams for both the M and Q versions, from Leica:

28 M: https://leica-camera.com/en-US/photography/lenses/m/summilux-m-28mm-f1-4-asph-black/technical-specification

28 Q (bottom of page): https://www.leica-camera.cn/sites/default/files/documents/2016-05/Technical%2BData_Q%2BTyp%2B116_en.pdf?fdl=1

....and they are really quite close even at the edges, with the Q actually leading in the center wide-open.

The only question I'd have is whether the Q MTF is calculated before or after the software correction has s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d the edge/corner pixels to get rid of the inherent barrel (fisheye) distortion.

 My understanding is that the Q was something of a testbed/prototype for digital lens corrections in-camera - in advance of introducing the SL system.

And that Leica was pleasantly surprised by the rave reviews the whole Q concept received from beta-testers, so put it into full production - and thus history is made.  

Edited August 9, 2023 by adan

[LocalHero1953]

1 minute ago, adan said:

Indeed - and is only f/1.7.

Leica names have only had an approximate relationship to maximum aperture, but they are a handy guide. Summilux is used for f/1.4, but (in this case) also f/1.7. Noctilux covers f/0.95 to f/1.25, and Elmar f/2.8 (normally Elmarit) to f/4. But they are nothing to do with lens design, unlike (e.g.) Tessar. 

[LocalHero1953]

8 minutes ago, adan said:

And that Leica was pleasantly surprised by the rave reviews the whole Q concept received from beta-testers, so put it into full production - and thus history is made.  

which just goes to show how much business analysts and marketers know. After a professional career of 40 years, 11 years of retirement and two glasses of rum, I concur with your analysis of how history is made! 

[Stuart Richardson]

There is not really a controversy, just some who don’t think the lens is still good enough to maximize the utility of the 47 or or 60mp. This is primarily SL users who are spoiled by the APO Summicrons which are much better lenses. I am among them. I bought the Q2 to be a travel camera and to use as a wide angle for my main system, the SL2, since it shares a sensor and is basically the same price as the 28mm apo summicron. What I discovered, however, was that it could not keep up with the other lenses for what I do (large prints for exhibitions). It is by no means a bad lens, it is still very good, but it is showing its age in comparison to the L mount lenses. I think it still compares well to the M lenses, which for the most part are a notch below the SL lenses in technical performance. People get really prickly about this stuff, however, and probably take it too personally. 

[adan]

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

It is by no means a bad lens, it is still very good, but it is showing its age in comparison to the L mount lenses.

Perhaps more accurately (since it is only 8 years old), showing the compromises in imaging imposed by more compact size, and different functionality (as LocalHero1953 detailed).

[MindsEye]

9 hours ago, Opaea said:

Hello 

There is controversy about the Q lens 28 mm Sumilux witch would be not the same as the original for Leica M for instance. 
The quality should be lower specifically on the edge. 
Has anyone here that ? I haven’t notice that in my use but I have never tested differences between center and edge of my pictures. 

I shoot for my living and I am meticulous about testing every lens I buy. I have gone through 2 and even 3 samples at times before accepting a lens. I haven't yet gotten a bad sample of a Leica lens but I have with Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Voigtlander and some others.

I can tell you for exacting professional use, the lens on my Q3 is stellar. At the exteme corners there can be a lack of acutance relative to the rest of the frame. But in general I don't hesitate to shoot at almost any aperture on that lens. You will run into lack of acutance and contrast at f16 and a little at f11 due to diffraction. 

But the real question is: What is the final use of your images? Even if you are making very large prints (which is part of what I do) you will be hard pressed to see any issues if you have done everything right, especially at normal viewing distances. If you are putting your photos on social media or elsewhere online the Q/Q2/Q3 Summilux is way more quality than necessary. I can't really think of a practical scenario where your Q3 Summilux isn't up to the task of high quality images.

If you are a pixel peeper and want to sharpen up those extreme corners or edges, try something like DxO PureRaw 3, Topaz Photo Ai, or Topaz Sharpen Ai. Also keep in mind there are so many variables that contribute to the perception of image quality that I think the least of your worries is that fabulous Summilux on the Q cameras.

[Daniel C.1975]

I would second that the lens is very, very good. 

As always there are pros and cons. Comparing the Q-Lens with the Summilux-m 28mm lens is also showing pros and cons. For a) the Summilux-m is a 1.4 and not a 1.7. But I do not see, that the Summilux-m is better on the edges. For this use-case the summicron-m would be the better choice. 

For b) the Summilux-m does have hefty CAs at open aperture, the Q-lens does not (or it is just removed in camera). Yes, CA can be easily removed, but with the Summilux-m you still need to do it. 

Overall the Summilux-m is the more special lens with more special characteristics. The Q-lens behaves in my opinion more neutral, others might say more clinical. Again, compared with e.g. apo-summicron-SL 35, which I own, the Q-lens does have more character .... and so on and so forth.  - you get it.  

What I want to say is, that it really depends on what your focus is on and what your use-case is. 

For example, when doing let's say social portraits I couldn't give a damn about the slightly reduced corner sharpness. When doing landscape, it can be recognizable, but only compared to the best of the best lenses. 

Also with a apo-summicron-sl on hand, I would still say that the Q-lens is a very, very, good 28mm lens and an extraordinary good 35mm lens. 

The overall package is therefore a very good one, and it is the overall package which makes the Q so special. 

There are optical superior packages available, but only very few. And for them you need to pay more and carry more, or pay more and lose AF. Plus you get the leaf-shutter, the macro-mode, and so on and so forth  

 

Summed up: It really depends on what you want to achieve  

[bobtodrick]

9 hours ago, MindsEye said:

I shoot for my living and I am meticulous about testing every lens I buy. I have gone through 2 and even 3 samples at times before accepting a lens. I haven't yet gotten a bad sample of a Leica lens but I have with Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Voigtlander and some others.

I can tell you for exacting professional use, the lens on my Q3 is stellar. At the exteme corners there can be a lack of acutance relative to the rest of the frame. But in general I don't hesitate to shoot at almost any aperture on that lens. You will run into lack of acutance and contrast at f16 and a little at f11 due to diffraction. 

But the real question is: What is the final use of your images? Even if you are making very large prints (which is part of what I do) you will be hard pressed to see any issues if you have done everything right, especially at normal viewing distances. If you are putting your photos on social media or elsewhere online the Q/Q2/Q3 Summilux is way more quality than necessary. I can't really think of a practical scenario where your Q3 Summilux isn't up to the task of high quality images.

If you are a pixel peeper and want to sharpen up those extreme corners or edges, try something like DxO PureRaw 3, Topaz Photo Ai, or Topaz Sharpen Ai. Also keep in mind there are so many variables that contribute to the perception of image quality that I think the least of your worries is that fabulous Summilux on the Q cameras.

Great answer.

I still use the original Q.  Just finished an exhibit at a local gallery and have self published two books.  At the current state of print technology (both prints and books) most lenses these days are fine.

IMO it’s only the pixel peepers that worry.  And they’ve always been around.  I remember in the ‘old days’ they would photograph the USAF (United States Air Force) test pattern to count the lines per inch resolution.  I always laughed at this…I have never run into one of those test targets on my daily travels 😂.  But if I did I guess it would be nice to know I had a lens that could resolve it all.

[pcgarner]

I've said this before but, in the end, it's all about image. Lens resolution will rarely make the difference between a good image and a great one. Or I could reword that to emphasize that resolution will never elevate a photo to some exalted visual state. If your task is highly technical, yes, resolution becomes important. But photography outside of technical fields is about capturing people's expressions, landscapes and visually eye-catching scenes. I've never viewed an Ansel Adams landscape and worried about edge resolution. Or pixel peeped a Cartier-Bresson photo from 1936, and slammed the Leica 35mm lens he used. Instead, I'm am almost always in awe at their perspicacity. Name almost any great 20th century photog and, IMHO, lens resolution is not something that you'll associate with their iconic images.

Edited August 10, 2023 by pcgarner

[MindsEye]

30 minutes ago, pcgarner said:

I've said this before but, in the end, it's all about image. Lens resolution will rarely make the difference between a good image and a great one. Or I could reword that to emphasize that resolution will never elevate a photo to some exalted visual state. If your task is highly technical, yes, resolution becomes important. But photography outside of technical fields is about capturing people's expressions, landscapes and visually eye-catching scenes. I've never viewed an Ansel Adams landscape and worried about edge resolution. Or pixel peeped a Cartier-Bresson photo from 1936, and slammed the Leica 35mm lens he used. Instead, I'm am almost always in awe at their perspicacity. Name almost any great 20th century photog and, IMHO, lens resolution is not something that you'll associate with their iconic images.

Well said!

[MindsEye]

If you combine the comments @bobtodrick @pcgarner and mine above, they center around the point that, like any artistic endeavor, there is a melding of technical and creative aspects to a successful work of art. In this case, photographic images. My purpose in testing lenses is to insure a lens defect doesn't get in the way of my final images. When I first started selling my prints in the 70s, I rarely printed beyond 11"x14" (28x36cm), and 16x20" (40x50cm) was considered large. These days, making 5' (1.5m) prints is not uncommon for me. At this size, say in a landscape image, if one area was soft (something I've seen more than once when testing lenses) a scrutinizing viewer could see it. Chances are that most people wouldn't notice but if I could notice it, it would bother me, so I test my lenses: A personal standard, if you will.

In essence, I want to get the technical stuff out of the way so I can concentrate on creating meaningful images.

All this said, and having talked with thousands of patrons and potential customers viewing my images over the years, I have yet to hear someone comment about a technical issue. The only people that stick their nose right up to a 5'/1.5m print are photographers. You know it's a photographer looking at your work when their viewing distance is based on the length of their nose 😆

[pcgarner]

9 minutes ago, MindsEye said:

If you combine the comments @bobtodrick @pcgarner and mine above, they center around the point that, like any artistic endeavor, there is a melding of technical and creative aspects to a successful work of art. In this case, photographic images. My purpose in testing lenses is to insure a lens defect doesn't get in the way of my final images. When I first started selling my prints in the 70s, I rarely printed beyond 11"x14" (28x36cm), and 16x20" (40x50cm) was considered large. These days, making 5' (1.5m) prints is not uncommon for me. At this size, say in a landscape image, if one area was soft (something I've seen more than once when testing lenses) a scrutinizing viewer could see it. Chances are that most people wouldn't notice but if I could notice it, it would bother me, so I test my lenses: A personal standard, if you will.

In essence, I want to get the technical stuff out of the way so I can concentrate on creating meaningful images.

All this said, and having talked with thousands of patrons and potential customers viewing my images over the years, I have yet to hear someone comment about a technical issue. The only people that stick their nose right up to a 5'/1.5m print are photographers. You know it's a photographer looking at your work when their viewing distance is based on the length of their nose 😆

Well said. Indeed, a great summation.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Le Chef]

There's no controversy: it's simply a weak clickbait headline.