Indeepthought Posted January 21 Share #1 Posted January 21 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have my CL, in my stable of lenses is the 60mm macro TL, an excellent lens that in all honesty covers my macro needs, I fancy a Q2 and want to know if the macro setting & performance matches the 60mm TL? I would appreciate any info.. Regards 🍷 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 21 Posted January 21 Hi Indeepthought, Take a look here Advise Please’. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Le Chef Posted January 22 Share #2 Posted January 22 One from 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! 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/387568-advise-please%E2%80%99/?do=findComment&comment=5001039'>More sharing options...
Le Chef Posted January 22 Share #3 Posted January 22 And one more 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! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/387568-advise-please%E2%80%99/?do=findComment&comment=5001041'>More sharing options...
Qwertynm Posted January 22 Share #4 Posted January 22 (edited) If you‘re cool with approx 3MP after cropping to a FoV of a 100mm, then yes. Edited January 22 by Qwertynm Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 22 Share #5 Posted January 22 Very nice colours, sharpness, presentation, etc, but notice the extremely steep perspective*; a longer lens of about 100 - 135 mm ( or an equivalent crop) would yield a more natural-looking result. The cause: you are too close. * The blackberry is about double the size of the strawberry and the round tart has turned into an oval, the stalk of the flower disappears into infinity) 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chef Posted January 22 Share #6 Posted January 22 To be fair I deliberately shot as close as I could, so any distortion is down to me not the lens. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpitt Posted January 22 Share #7 Posted January 22 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) If I analyse what you are asking it is this: The 60 TL is a macro lens designed for a 1,5 crop sensor. It has a field of view equivalent to a 90mm FF macro lens. On the CL and TL2 it yields 24MP of very high quality... I think those sensors are close to IQ of the sensor of the Q2. The Q2 is FF and has a 28mm (more 26,...) lens that is designed for general purpose used, and is much smaller than the 60 TL. To get the same FOV oon the Q2, you need to reach 90mm => 90/28 = crop factor of 3.2 This will yield 47/3.2/3.2 = 4,6 MP Even though I know and respect the marvelous Digilux 2 results, less than 5 MP not very much today. IMO it does not make much sense to compare it to FF 24MP - 60MP Leica sensors available today. Keep your TL lens and CL for macro purposes. Having a cropped sensor is an advantage in the macro field. It depends on the magnification you want to get. Occasional macro use with heavy cropping can yield amazing images, even when the lens is not macro. So the Q2 is probably a good alternative when the CL is not with you. e.g. The Leica 35 Summilux TL on Leica SL (601) in cropped mode, and heavily cropped in PP 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 22 by dpitt 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/387568-advise-please%E2%80%99/?do=findComment&comment=5001359'>More sharing options...
Indeepthought Posted January 22 Author Share #8 Posted January 22 4 minutes ago, dpitt said: If I analyse what you are asking it is this: The 60 TL is a macro lens designed for a 1,5 crop sensor. It has a field of view equivalent to a 90mm FF macro lens. On the CL and TL2 it yields 24MP of very high quality... I think those sensors are close to IQ of the sensor of the Q2. The Q2 is FF and has a 28mm (more 26,...) lens that is designed for general purpose used, and is much smaller than the 60 TL. To get the same FOV oon the Q2, you need to reach 90mm => 90/28 = crop factor of 3.2 This will yield 47/3.2/3.2 = 4,6 MP Even though I know and respect the marvelous Digilux 2 results, less than 5 MP not very much today. IMO it does not make much sense to compare it to FF 24MP - 60MP Leica sensors available today. Keep your TL lens and CL for macro purposes. Having a cropped sensor is an advantage in the macro field. It depends on the magnification you want to get. Occasional macro use with heavy cropping can yield amazing images, even when the lens is not macro. So the Q2 is probably a good alternative when the CL is not with you. e.g. The Leica 35 Summilux TL on Leica SL (601) in cropped mode, and heavily cropped in PP 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! I thank you for your info, as you say, the Q2 is best as a general photography tool. The CL in conjunction with the 60mm macro TL is a superb combo. Regards 🍷.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 22 Share #9 Posted January 22 (edited) The 60TL has a macro ratio of 1:1 (from the technical data). Leica does not give a macro ratio for the 28Q but one website estimates 4.25:1, which is nowhere near macro. Obviously by cropping you can get down to true macro (1:1), at the cost of pixels. Cropping the Q3 to the same number of pixels as the CL (6000x4000) would get you to a ratio of the order of 2.6:1, and about 3:1 on the Q2. Then you have the distortion and practicality issues others have mentioned. So, no, the Q series in no way matches the 60TL's macro performance at a technical level. Edited January 22 by LocalHero1953 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M11 for me Posted January 22 Share #10 Posted January 22 The Q's macro function just allows you to go that bit nearer to your subject compared to non-macro lens-setting. The lens is still a 28mm and you compare it here to your 100mm equivalent. But to me in lots of everyday situations you have quite a nice solution with the Q's macro setting. Imagine you go out with the aim to shoot Macro. In that instance you go out with your 60mm on CL and tripod and whatever you need. If on the other hand you are hiking or on holidays and by accident you come along something that you would like to shoot "big" then with your Q you have most probably a very valid solution. Yes, its still the angle of view of a 28mm lens. But this is still much better than nothing plus you have the option to crop in post or in camera. My points are in no way anything against the points described in the posts above. Its just my pragmatic view. In practice you always have limited equipment in your bag. And with the Q you probably don't even have a bag! The spare battery is in your pocket. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 22 Share #11 Posted January 22 (edited) I agree entirely. I’ve lost track of the number of times my wife has asked me to photograph a flower or leaf with my Q2 so she can identify it later. Mind you, I used to carry the CL and 35 + 60, which did the same thing but better - till I swapped them all for the Q2! Edited January 22 by LocalHero1953 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indeepthought Posted January 22 Author Share #12 Posted January 22 I really appreciate all the views and knowledge offered. The Q2 will used as a more general FF, the macro setting being great to have, but my real macro work will continue with the CL & 60mm macro TL.. Once again, thanks for all the info. Regards 🍷.. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted January 22 Share #13 Posted January 22 23 minutes ago, M11 for me said: The Q's macro function just allows you to go that bit nearer to your subject compared to non-macro lens-setting. That's how I used it.....and not very often. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Lane Posted January 22 Share #14 Posted January 22 I use my Q2’s macro setting simply as a close focus option for those opportunistic times when I am only carrying the Q2. For any pre-planned macro work I always reach for the TL60. For me, they are complimentary - one does not replace the other. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Jefferson Posted January 23 Share #15 Posted January 23 Hmm...There's a reason why macro lens existed, much like a very narrow and thin razor sharp blade with specially designed handle to be hold specific way (a chisel, for example), to carve tiny sculpture. Where Q2 is like a normal looking all purpose blade with some extra cut out at the tip mimicking a sculpture chisel, but since the blade need to be big enough to carve larger piece, and won't be as precise as a dedicated chisel, but it can do the job good enough for most people who occasionally want to use the same blade to carve small item... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indeepthought Posted January 23 Author Share #16 Posted January 23 11 hours ago, Casey Jefferson said: Hmm...There's a reason why macro lens existed, much like a very narrow and thin razor sharp blade with specially designed handle to be hold specific way (a chisel, for example), to carve tiny sculpture. Where Q2 is like a normal looking all purpose blade with some extra cut out at the tip mimicking a sculpture chisel, but since the blade need to be big enough to carve larger piece, and won't be as precise as a dedicated chisel, but it can do the job good enough for most people who occasionally want to use the same blade to carve small item... Thank you for your explanation, most informative. Regards 🍷.. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miltz Posted January 25 Share #17 Posted January 25 On 1/21/2024 at 5:15 PM, Indeepthought said: I have my CL, in my stable of lenses is the 60mm macro TL, an excellent lens that in all honesty covers my macro needs, I fancy a Q2 and want to know if the macro setting & performance matches the 60mm TL? I would appreciate any info.. Regards 🍷 I don’t have a TL, but I had the 60mm macro on Olympus. There is no comparison the dedicated macro lens destroys the Q in macro mode. That being said it’s amazing to have such close focus on a fixed lens and the macro mode on the Q is great to have, but it’s no match for a real macro lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indeepthought Posted January 25 Author Share #18 Posted January 25 20 minutes ago, Miltz said: I don’t have a TL, but I had the 60mm macro on Olympus. There is no comparison the dedicated macro lens destroys the Q in macro mode. That being said it’s amazing to have such close focus on a fixed lens and the macro mode on the Q is great to have, but it’s no match for a real macro lens. 🍷 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegobi Posted January 25 Share #19 Posted January 25 40 minutes ago, Miltz said: I don’t have a TL, but I had the 60mm macro on Olympus. There is no comparison the dedicated macro lens destroys the Q in macro mode. That being said it’s amazing to have such close focus on a fixed lens and the macro mode on the Q is great to have, but it’s no match for a real macro lens. I have that exact lens myself and agree absolutely—no comparison! I am not a fan of the ‘Macro’ label on the Q—it is a close focus setting. ..but even so, I use it quite a lot and have been really happy with the results (have a look in the Q2 Monochrom image thread for some examples). But beware! When you switch to Macro mode the front element moves forward. If you are using the Q2 hood watch out for any thicker filters you may have attached! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indeepthought Posted January 25 Author Share #20 Posted January 25 6 minutes ago, thegobi said: I have that exact lens myself and agree absolutely—no comparison! I am not a fan of the ‘Macro’ label on the Q—it is a close focus setting. ..but even so, I use it quite a lot and have been really happy with the results (have a look in the Q2 Monochrom image thread for some examples). But beware! When you switch to Macro mode the front element moves forward. If you are using the Q2 hood watch out for any thicker filters you may have attached! Much obliged for the info. Regards 🍷 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.