Advice on longer focal length options to complement/replace Q2

[Rsure]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all, I love travel (/landscape) photography and sold all my Nikon gear (D810 and lenses) to move to a Leica Q2 a couple of years ago. The reason was primarily that it was a pain to carry all my Nikon gear everywhere. I have enjoyed using the Q2 but have reached a point where I am missing having the option of longer focal lengths. Most recently on a trip to Italy I felt like I missed a lot of nice shots when faced with the vast Tuscan landscapes and the beautiful Dolomites, among others. While I did get some decent shots I really missed having a longer focal length lens.

I am planning to travel to Iceland this summer and am dreading going there with just my Q2 and really want to have an option for longer focal lengths. I love the feel and quality of Leica camera builds and would ideally like to stay within the Leica world. I'd like to stick to a budget of ~$6-$7K if possible. I will add that I am not interested in taking any videos at all and not interested in shooting speed as well. Weight is a consideration though (but not sure how to avoid SL!). I'm thinking of a few possible options:

1.  Buy a used SL2 and zoom lens (Elmarit 24-70?) and use that in addition to my Q2

2. Buy a used SL2S and zoom lens and use that in addition to my Q2

3. Sell the Q2 and wait for SL3 and buy that as an only camera

4. Buy a used M10/M10-R and a 90mm lens and use that in addition to my Q2

5. Buy a used M10-R/M11 and a couple of used lenses (maybe 24mm and 90mm?) and sell the Q2

Can you'll please give me some advice on how to go about this? While not my first option I am open to suggestions on non-Leica cameras as well if that can offer a good solution.

Thanks!

[jaapv]

1 or 2 from your list. If you want to save some money, get a `Sigma or Panasonic lens. Selling the Q is a mistake, you will regret it. An M seems to be a bit over the top for a single trip, and if you like the Q chances are that you won't take to an M camera. However, just get CL with 18-55 and 55-135 and  take that next to your Q.

Edited February 20, 2024 by jaapv

[Marc B-C]

@Rsure Why not go for a Q3 and use the electronic "crop" function? With 60mp the 50mm crop is still 18.9m pixels. I believe it offers crop options of 35, 50, 75 and 90mm. Personally I am very happy with my Q2 / 47mp and regularly crop (albeit pp). No-one has ever accused my shots of not having enough megapixels. Having sold all my Nikon and Fuji kit, I have no interest is going back to multiple lenses / bodies. 

PS ignore anyone who moans about equivalent depth of field etc, it is a non argument as far as I am concerned. 

PPS have you tried the "crop" function on the Q2? It not only crops but only meters for the cropped area. It really is not bad at all.

Note I did Iceland in August 2023 with my Q2 and was totally happy with the camera for both landscapes and town shots.

[Rsure]

@jaapv thanks for the advice. I am also quite intrigued by the CL but wasn't sure if it is too old a system to buy into now? And also how its sensor will perform for landscape photos (especially given that I've gotten used to the Q2)?! 

It is a very viable option cost wise as well so I will definitely look into it.

Also, while Iceland is the upcoming trip I have this summer as a long term solution do you think it makes sense to move to the M system (buy giving up on my Q). I realize about the change with the manual focusing and range finder experience, but will the M be suited to long focal length style landscape images?

Edited February 20, 2024 by Rsure

[Rsure]

@Marc B-C Thanks for your reply. After my experience with the Q2 I am vary of getting into another fixed lens camera although I realize the Q3 offers some more flexibility than the Q2. I am not sure how useful the cropping function is honestly, in my experience I have found the image lacking while trying to get the composition by cropping an image from the Q2. But to be frank I hadn't really thought of this as a viable option and haven't explored it thoroughly, so that is something I should definitely look into.

Very happy to hear your feedback on covering Iceland with only your Q2! I was worried about the prospect of facing even vaster expanses of landscapes to photograph (without a telephoto zoom) than I encountered in Italy!

[jaapv]

The CL can compete with any full frame system in image quality. Yes, when pushed to the limit a top notch FF camera may show a slight advantage. But you are into princess on the pea level pixel peeping by then. For travel use the results will be more than satisfactory.
Leica has indeed made the (IMO) wrong decision to discontinue the system. But have a look at the number of satisfied M8,9,240,X-series, even Digilux2, etc users on this forum. 
What is your definition of long focal length? I use anything up to say 300 mm for landscape. That is certainly not the usual M territory although it can be done. If you use it rarely, are you prepared to spend 10.000 Euro plus for the privilege? 

[Rsure]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@jaapv "Princess on the pea" level - good one! 😄 I get your point about the serious dollars for the M primarily for travel photography, but it does seem like a more 'long-term, future-proof" system possibly and if being in the Leica world the ultimate destination some time in the future?

Previously for me on my Nikon DSLR I never went beyond 200mm on the telephoto side so maybe that as a max limit on the long focal lengths.

I have been reading some heartening feedback on the CL camera and that is looking like a definite option I should consider. In terms of lenses with the CL, does it make sense to consider any M lenses now (with a view to an M camera 2-3 years down the line)?

[jaapv]

7 minutes ago, Rsure said:

@jaapv "Princess on the pea" level - good one! 😄 I get your point about the serious dollars for the M primarily for travel photography, but it does seem like a more 'long-term, future-proof" system possibly and if being in the Leica world the ultimate destination some time in the future?

Previously for me on my Nikon DSLR I never went beyond 200mm on the telephoto side so maybe that as a max limit on the long focal lengths.

I have been reading some heartening feedback on the CL camera and that is looking like a definite option I should consider. In terms of lenses with the CL, does it make sense to consider any M lenses now (with a view to an M camera 2-3 years down the line)?

M lenses  perform excellently on the CL. The Summilux M 24 is really as good as a Summilux 35 on full frame and a constant occupant in my CL bag  My low light 50 on the CL is a Summicron 35 asph. As for longevity, Leica services cameras as long as they have the relevant spare parts. The CL in my experience is pretty robust and reliable. 

[jaapv]

Take care! Don’t be like me!  On my main holiday this is my camera bag… 

 

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!

[dpitt]

2 hours ago, Rsure said:

Hi all, I love travel (/landscape) photography and sold all my Nikon gear (D810 and lenses) to move to a Leica Q2 a couple of years ago. The reason was primarily that it was a pain to carry all my Nikon gear everywhere. I have enjoyed using the Q2 but have reached a point where I am missing having the option of longer focal lengths. ...

 

Your reason to switch to Leica was in part the weight and size of your Nikon gear. The natural solution would be to switch to a used M system. It will cover everything the Q does and more. With a tiny M lens it is even smaller than the Q while the IQ is even better. With anything from the M240 you have an EVF to use longer lenses than 90mm comfortably. It depends how much time you want to spend with really long and big lenses. The comfort zone with the M ends at around 135mm, anything larger is SL territory, unless you just want to get a job done occasionally.

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

1 or 2 from your list. If you want to save some money, get a `Sigma or Panasonic lens. Selling the Q is a mistake, you will regret it. An M seems to be a bit over the top for a single trip, and if you like the Q chances are that you won't take to an M camera. However, just get CL with 18-55 and 55-135 and  take that next to your Q.

+1 it was a  big mistake from Leica to kill the APS-C high quality line... I hope they are have a FF compact system camera with built in EVF tin the pipeline.

Problem is that for someone selling Nikon gear because of weight and size, using a SL and SL zoom will be even heavier. No question that you will like the handling and IQ of the SL but taking it on a long hike or even city walk is nothing for me.
The CL will be a much better travel companion to your Q and the crop factor of 1,5 helps keeping weight and size down of the lenses. My TL2 has the same sensor and capabilities and is less expensive on the used market. I often take it with a nice tiny M lens, or with the lightweight and excellent Lumix 20-60 S lens which is 30-90 mm eq on the CL/TL2. With the excellent  external EVF it is a serious competitor for the CL. I do not like the 'iPhone way' to take pictures.

The TL2 is even more flexible and compact with its external EVF and can produce the same results
e.g. it can be used with the EVF tilted upwards which can not be done with the CL.

[Rsure]

@jaapv that's a bag full of Leica gear??! Even my Nikon gear was nowhere near that much 😄

@dpitt thanks for replying. I absolutely agree that the SL is like going back to Nikon gear in size and heft. I played around with the SL and SL2 at the Leica store yesterday and man those were heavy cameras. I had no desire to go back to those honestly. The lenses too are just like DSLR lenses. Which is why I was wondering if an M system could be the answer to my problems. Right now the cost is going to be a deterrent and really wondering now the CL might be the ticket. And if I can figure out a way to find some affordable M lenses then that will also help me avoid more expenses when I can move to an M body. 

[jaapv]

Well, it starts with the S5ii and Sigma 150-600, SL with 35-70 R, and CL with two zooms, Summilux 24 M, Binoculars, sundry lenses, chargers, batteries,  etc., And a bit left at the top for some personal stuff. That is what happens combining wildlife with general travel photography and backup redundancy

[dpitt]

32 minutes ago, Rsure said:

@jaapv that's a bag full of Leica gear??! Even my Nikon gear was nowhere near that much 😄

@dpitt thanks for replying. I absolutely agree that the SL is like going back to Nikon gear in size and heft. I played around with the SL and SL2 at the Leica store yesterday and man those were heavy cameras. I had no desire to go back to those honestly. The lenses too are just like DSLR lenses. Which is why I was wondering if an M system could be the answer to my problems. Right now the cost is going to be a deterrent and really wondering now the CL might be the ticket. And if I can figure out a way to find some affordable M lenses then that will also help me avoid more expenses when I can move to an M body. 

Don't forget the TL2 if you want to go cheaper. I agree that a built in EVF has its merits, but both TL2 and CL are one of the best APS-C bodies ever made  from IQ perspective.
If you want to go the M lenses way on both, then you get a very compact and powerful package. I like using vintage lenses on my TL2. The Summicron 35v3 F2.0 works really nice as a 50mm solution and I use an Elmarit-M 21 mm F2.8 as a '35eq.' on it.
 

Look here where I posted some results with the 21 mm

 

For Macro, zooms and tele lenses, the Leica R lenses give a lot of value for the money at about a third of the price of their M counterparts. They are not as compact as M lenses, but they feel tiny compared to the SL or even TL equivalents.

To be clear, none of the M or R lenses have AF or IS.

Edited February 20, 2024 by dpitt

[mokona]

I like to combine Q2 and CL+sigma 56mm.

For a longer reach, I'd look into the sigma 90mm f2.8.

CL+20-60 pana is a nice combo too but I feel the Q2 crops deliver a bit better output for the 28mm-50mm focal range, so I don't usually bring them together.

[dpitt]

6 minutes ago, mokona said:

I like to combine Q2 and CL+sigma 56mm.

For a longer reach, I'd look into the sigma 90mm f2.8.

CL+20-60 pana is a nice combo too but I feel the Q2 crops deliver a bit better output for the 28mm-50mm focal range, so I don't usually bring them together.

You are right. The Q is tough to beat.
I have no Q but I think that I would need my TL2 + Summicron 35v3 to beat a 50mm crop from the Q.
And possibly the CL/ TL2 + Summicron 50 would be a great way to have 28mm- 50mm with the Q, and 75mm - 150mm with the APS-C (both by cropping)

Edited February 20, 2024 by dpitt

[dpitt]

On the other hand. You do not have the M yet. Any M, even my old M9 + Summcron 50 F2 would beat the Q2. You would struggle in low light conditions, but when there is enough light there is no contest. And that is without taking into account the joy of using a RF.
YMMV

The M240 is not much more expensive, and adds LV and EVF capabilities + an extra 1-2 stops in high ISO. And both form a smaller and more portable package than the Q, that is with a tiny lens mounted. These can be had in 28/35/40/50 mm FL. IMO for 50mm it needs to be collapsible to make the 'tiny' grade, but they are all smaller than the lens on the Q2.
I can carry the M9 with those lenses in my coat pocket with the lens mounted.

The problem with the Q2 is that it has 'trapped' you with its IQ. Now it will be very hard to find a nice portable solution that has acceptable IQ next to it.
The only one that I found next to my M9 was my Leica X2, I often go out with M9+50 or even 90mm and the X2 as sidekick for 35mm. I found that the images from the X2 can be just as pleasing as the ones from my M9. I have tried several MFT and other compact solutions over the years, but with all of these I found the results disappointing next to the output of the M9.

But as Q2 companion the 35mm eq. Leica X2 makes no sense.
Last year I bought my used TL2 and now I finally have a solution for the long end that is a match for the M9.
it is about the same size and weight as my M9, but it does tele and macro much better than a rangefinder. It sort of has a 1,5 extender built in.

[Le Chef]

In my case I would take my Q3 with a DL-109 as backup.

or..

Take my CL, TL 11-23, Sigma 30 f1.4, TL 55-135.

or…

I could take the Q3 and the CL + TL 55-135 as a do it all.

That’s quite a bit of weight difference between them so would pick according to how much walking/hiking I was going to do.

On one trip to UK I took the CL kit and used the 55-135 once. On a trip round Lake Superior I used the 55-135 twice. I could easily have just taken the CL with TL 18-56 as my do-it-all setup with DL as backup.

On the last trip to UK I took the Q2 (before getting the Q3) and DL. A number of shots were cropped to 50 but I did not miss a longer lens.

I only shoot RAW so processed all shots when I got home.

The quality of the CL images is so high that unless you are shooting in the dark and severely cropping the image, there’s really no issue.

I’m currently planning two trips, one to Scotland and one to New Zealand. I can easily imagine just taking the Q3 and DL as backup and removing complexity and weight from each trip.

Edited February 20, 2024 by Le Chef

[LocalHero1953]

I sold out of the CL system to get a Q2. My head says this was the right solution (for travel, social, family) while my heart keeps nudging me in the back and asking"why did you do that? You know you loved the CL". The real reason was to simplify my systems as I have a SL2-S and various film Leicas. For travel, I find too much kit a distraction rather than an inspiration.

The CL was a great travel camera: I usually took the 35 and the 60, and occasionally the 11-23. But really I would be just as happy in Iceland with the Q2. Before CL or Q were around I went with the M240 and (IIRC) a 28, 35 and 90. I would have taken the 75 instead of the 90, but the former was under repair. The Q2 range (or Q3) would have been enough.

In general I don't miss lenses I don't have: with a longer lens I might have got more seabird shots or wildfowl, or distant rocky cliffs - but I like the shots I did get, and came back with good memories of the rest.

Edited February 20, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[Rsure]

@Le Chef thanks for replying. Do you find any significant benefits of the Q3 over the Q2? It looks like the CL is possibly the best option as a complement to the Q2 for me, I will look for a good used one and also need to decide on what lenses to include.

@dpitt You're right on getting used to the Q2 images, really dont want to step down from that now which was why I was a concerned about how the CL would compare but sounds like it should be good enough. Can I ask why you chose the TL2 over the CL? 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[dpitt]

20 minutes ago, Rsure said:

@Le Chef thanks for replying. Do you find any significant benefits of the Q3 over the Q2? It looks like the CL is possibly the best option as a complement to the Q2 for me, I will look for a good used one and also need to decide on what lenses to include.

@dpitt You're right on getting used to the Q2 images, really dont want to step down from that now which was why I was a concerned about how the CL would compare but sounds like it should be good enough. Can I ask why you chose the TL2 over the CL? 

Why I choose the TL2. Mainly because of price, and I found a really good deal with EVF (020) included. I plan to buy a M10 soon and the same EVF works on the M10 too.
When I read more about the CL, I found it is not better in all aspects. Yes I would appreciate that the CL has a built in EVF, but it does not tilt upright as I like to use when doing macro.

And when I read this, I started thinking the TL2 is maybe ergonomically the best for me. With the TL2, I never accidentally switch settings, and I like how the buttons are integrated compared to the CL.
https://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-CL-mirrorless-digital-camera.html

Have a look at page 2
https://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-CL-mirrorless-digital-camera-review-Page-2.html

Edited February 20, 2024 by dpitt