Leica noob. Do X typ113 and Q have the same lens?

[nochillkowa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello, I'm a noob and have never held a Leica. But I'm thinking about it lately.

I'm interested in a fixed-lens Leica because I know I can't afford good Leica lenses for M bodies. While I can't afford the Q3 or even the Q2, I started researching the X-series and Q1. I understand the differences, EVF, ff vs apsc, faster everything, etc.

But just the lens alone, am I mistaken and being naive here or do they have the same lens? Summilux 23mm (Q has 28mm) 1.7? I understand that 23mm in a crop sensor is gonna be 35mm-ish and that DoF 1.7 will be different. But are they ultimately the same lens?

Ty for any response.

[wda]

Welcome!

Similar but not identical. The smaller one is designed to cover a smaller format. For practical everyday photography,  it would be difficult to attribute photos to one or the other. Only when you make big prints will you begin to see a difference.

Depth of field will be slightly greater for the 23 mm lens.

I hope this helps. 

[dpitt]

I see more differences than similarities.

Yes they both deliver very good IQ for the price and both have fixed lenses.

Almost everything else is different:

• 28mm vs 35mm equivalent FOV
• price point
• DOF
• 16 MP vs 24 - 60 MP from Q1-Q3
• cropped sensor vs FF
• ...

I love my X2. It still is the best IQ for the weight of any camera that I own. 35mm eq. is wide enough for me and 16MP is plenty, unless you want to crop to 50mm. The used prices are incredibly far apart from the Q. I need to use the external viewer because using the screen to take pictures is not my style and in direct sunlight you can hardly see what you are doing. The EVF 2 is perfect on the X2. The X1 with OVF would do too, if need be.

Both the X113 and the Q series are not as compact and light, so I would prefer either the X2 size and weight or any digital M (even the M8) with a tiny lens for the budget of the Q1.
YMMV

[nicci78]

Optically they have absolutely nothing in common !

X typ 113 is a 23mm lens f/1.7 made to cover APS-C sensor. It is equivalent to 35mm. 
It has 10 elements in 8 groups with 2 aspherical elements 

Q/Q2/Q3 is a 28mm lens f/1.7 made to cover full frame. It is a 28mm after software corrections. 
It has 11 elements in 9 groups with 3 aspherical elements. 
 

Their purpose is the same : fast lens with  f/1.7 aperture, leaf shutter and pseudo-macro with a macro position ring. 
However X typ 113 has a main drawback. Under 1 meter focusing distance its max aperture will decrease slowly until f/2.8. It is a kind of fixed lens with fixed focal length with variable aperture f/1.7-2.8

Leica Q also switch to f/2.8 only in macro mode ! 

[jaapv]

 

On 1/12/2024 at 5:15 AM, nochillkowa said:

But are they ultimately the same lens?

 

No, they are a completely different design. Not only the glass configuration, but a different design principle. The X lens is a purely optical lens, the Q a hybrid optical/digital lens.

[nicci78]

Pure optical corrections vs a mix of software + crop + optical correction there is no debate now. Every manufacturers are using the latter method.
There is a reason why X typ 113 was the last X and the Q the first of a long line up. 
The 113 lens variable aperture was very disappointing : it can open at f/1.7 only from 1.8 m to infinity. 
Then it closes automatically at f/2 from 1.5m to 1.8m. 
Then f/2.2 from 1m to 1.5m. 
Under 1m it will open at f/2.8 only.
This is the real cost of pure optical corrections : slower aperture at closer focusing distances.

Whereas the Summilux-Q can open at f/1.7 until 0.35m !
However in macro mode 0.35-0.17m it will close its diaphragm at f/2.8 
 

 

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/10/06/the-leica-x-typ-113-review-in-under-3500-words-gorgeous-iq-but-with-a-flaw/

10 years ago, Steve Huff was almost cancelled by Leica for saying the truth about the weird variable aperture of the Leica typ 113.

The last X was destined to fail. Only 8 months laters the Leica Q will prevail in every aspect. 

• too big for an APS-C
• variable aperture according to focusing distance. Whereas the Q can maintain f/1.7 until 35cm
• no EVF compared to integrated 4.4 million dots viewfinder of the Q
• slower AF compared to competition at the time. Especially the Q

A tiny X3 would have been nice. Just look at the success of Ricoh GR. APS-C compact cameras have to be small to stay relevant.