Advice on longer focal length options to complement/replace Q2

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

There is nothing much smaller or lighter for full frame or aps-c with the same focal range and f-stop. You’d need to look at micro 4/3 if you want smaller but still relatively fast glass. Canon also has a 28 2.8 pancake as a backup to the Q2 but it’s not weathersealed like the rest. There are many options to choose from. 

Actually there is something much smaller for FF.
The Leica Macro Elmar 90 F4 M is FF and weighs only 230g.
It is only 41mm long when collapsed and it is one of the best 90mm ever, even on infinity.

It will be 135eq on the TL2/CL and the combo only weighs 750g together.
I would go for the Leica Macro Elmar 90 on the TL2, which I could crop to 200mm eq.

Combined with a M11 or M10R you can really speak of a great tele solution up to 200mm eq.

[mokona]

or a sigma 90mm f2.8 for L mount which is as tiny, with AF for TL2/CL and ridiculously cheap compared to the Leica 90mm macro.

[Qwertynm]

vor 51 Minuten schrieb dpitt:

Actually there is something much smaller for FF.

Then please read my whole statement. A 90mm prime is not a 70-200/4 zoom. Yes, you can stitch together a couple shots to get a 70mm PoV or crop to get a 200mm eq. no doubt about it. But that’s not what I said.

[liggy]

Most of the time while traveling I like to have a wide option.  The first camera/lens in the bag is now the Sony A7RV / 20-70.  Q2 next.  Additional lenses dependent upon destinations.  

[Einst_Stein]

I have problem to enjoy my trip to switch lenses. I also prefer prime accompanied by zoom. So to travel light, I have XV + either Q3 or X 113. If you can live with 28-70mm （equivalent) then you do not need CL or TL. 

[Qwertynm]

@Rsure look at it, it's tiny compared to other tele zooms. it's as long as the Q.

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!

[Rsure]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@Qwertynm thanks for the snap. It is indeed smaller than I’d expected for a 70-200mm lens. The CL with the 55-135mm lens while offering similar coverage would be much smaller though? And would be cheaper too? Of course APSC vs FF but is that something you considered as well? 

[Rsure]

@Einst_Stein sorry not sure which cameras you’re referring to? 

[Qwertynm]

vor 23 Minuten schrieb Rsure:

The CL with the 55-135mm lens while offering similar coverage would be much smaller though? And would be cheaper too? Of course APSC vs FF but is that something you considered as well? 

No, I did not. I only briefly shot APS-C with the Fuji X-Pro 1 next to my Canon 5D II at the time and the Fuji always needed more light than my FF camera. The Q3 is actually my first Leica. I already had the RF 70-200/4 when I bought the Q3.

Personally I wouldn’t consider the CL. It’s discontinued and it’s APS-C. According to the data sheet in Leicas website the TL 50-135 is a bit lighter at 500g and just as long with 110mm. Personally, I‘d rather buy new then buy into a dead system. But it’s up to you of course. 

[mokona]

1 hour ago, Rsure said:

@Qwertynm thanks for the snap. It is indeed smaller than I’d expected for a 70-200mm lens. The CL with the 55-135mm lens while offering similar coverage would be much smaller though? And would be cheaper too? Of course APSC vs FF but is that something you considered as well? 

to have an idea of the respective size for each combo

https://camerasize.com/compact/#851.944,726.694,820,ha,t

[jaapv]

The 55-135 is one of the best lenses in this category ever built. FF- I will challenge over 90% off FF sensors to match CL APS-C

[David Cantor]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The 55-135 is one of the best lenses in this category ever built. FF- I will challenge over 90% off FF sensors to match CL APS-C

I have zero experience of FF sensors but the CL is in my opinion is superb and who cares if it is APS-C, most of those who pass judgement have never used one.  One of my micro-four thirds images (16MP) graced the National Portrait Gallery in London, chosen for the exhibition catalogue cover and used for an extensive poster campaign on the London Underground system.  
I’m baffled by some of the angst, indecision and concern displayed on this forum about cameras and lenses, 90% of photography takes place between the ears.

[Einst_Stein]

I doubt any would be happy with any single focal length besides Qx, but changing lens in the field could be a pain. So the safest choice is a light camera with a light zoom. In Leica quality category, CL/TL with 55-135mm is THE choice. Same argument applies to wider lens. It would be 11-23mm. 

Your choice is stopped at there. 

[Le Chef]

3 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

I‘d rather buy new then buy into a dead system

That’s obviously your choice. As far as I’m aware with my own CL system it’s not dead: it functions to the same standard as when I bought it. Each lens does what it’s designed to do. I have a Q3 and output from the CL compares very favorably.

It’s only a dead system for those who can’t be bothered to be curious rather than simply judgmentally dismissive.

[dpitt]

32 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

I doubt any would be happy with any single focal length besides Qx, but changing lens in the field could be a pain. So the safest choice is a light camera with a light zoom. In Leica quality category, CL/TL with 55-135mm is THE choice. Same argument applies to wider lens. It would be 11-23mm. 

Your choice is stopped at there. 

Why would cropping only apply to a Qx?
As long as you have a high quality lens and sensor, cropping applies to all good systems in equal amount. The results from my M9 cropped are almost indistinguishable from the M8 with the same lens. Certainly at base ISO.

My SL in cropped mode with the Summilux 35 TL beats the TL2, even it the latter has 24MP and the crop has only 10MP...

So I think that cropping a M10, M10R or M11 would be easily superior to any Qx. The main advantage is also that you can chose which FL you will start with. If you like 35mm more then using a 35mm M lens will outclass any crop you could ever make with the FF Q. And certainly if you start with a good 50mm M lens, the Q is out of the equation for 50mm eq. and beyond. If Leica thinks cropping a 28mm to 70 or even 90 mm on the Q is acceptable, you can easily crop a M10 to 160mm with a 50 mm and to 200mm with a 90mm lens.

[Qwertynm]

How about an SL2/3 with the TL 55-135. It doesn’t cover the whole sensor but with a (potential) 60MP sensor you‘re still left with >24MP. And it opens up other possibilities with the L mount. And, shares the same battery as your Q2. 

[Qwertynm]

vor 50 Minuten schrieb Le Chef:

It’s only a dead system for those who can’t be bothered to be curious rather than simply judgmentally dismissive.

Of course the old cameras and lenses still work. It’s a dead system in the sense of it has been abandoned by Leica and once your CL dies, you won’t be able to get a new one or get it repaired. The lenses will probably work far longer than the bodies and with todays high MP camera the upgrade path to the SL line has been laid out by Leica. Well played

[Rsure]

@mokona thank you for sharing the comparison. The Canon R5 body alone looks almost as big as the Q2! 
 

@Le Chef I was wondering what the implications of Leica discontinuing a model are. Is it different from any other model that gets replaced by a newer one like the M9/M10 etc..? No new lenses could be a big one perhaps?

@jaapv with the addition of a CL would there be a compelling reason to have a Q2 (for travel/landscapes)? Other than having FF of course. 
 

[Rsure]

13 minutes ago, Qwertynm said:

How about an SL2/3 with the TL 55-135. It doesn’t cover the whole sensor but with a (potential) 60MP sensor you‘re still left with >24MP. And it opens up other possibilities with the L mount. And, shares the same battery as your Q2. 

The SL line is as bulky as a Nikon/Canon system that I moved away from (happily) to the Q2. I would like to avoid going back to something similarly sized.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jaapv]

7 minutes ago, Rsure said:

@mokona thank you for sharing the comparison. The Canon R5 body alone looks almost as big as the Q2! 
 

@Le Chef I was wondering what the implications of Leica discontinuing a model are. Is it different from any other model that gets replaced by a newer one like the M9/M10 etc..? No new lenses could be a big one perhaps?

@jaapv with the addition of a CL would there be a compelling reason to have a Q2 (for travel/landscapes)? Other than having FF of course. 
 

That argument would go for any compact interchangeable lens system; reason why I never bought into the Q series - I have a CL, I have M cameras and the lenses to match (and of course, the heavy stuff, but that is not under discussion here).