Advice on longer focal length options to complement/replace Q2

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

47 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? 

I think if you shoot in low light, like to crop, and see a role for the fold out rear screen, then the Q3 is worth it. If not, stick with the Q2.

I have a CL: the lenses are designated “TL” lenses for use with Leica’s APSC cameras, to distinguish them from “L” mount lenses which are for the SL line of full frame cameras.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[JoshuaR]

Personally, I am a one-system, multiple-lenses kind of person. Whenever I find myself maintaining multiple systems—even a Q alongside an M—I find it distracting and unsatisfying. I want consistency across my photographic life.

Over the years, I've tried Q + CL, Q + M, Q + M + Fuji X + Ricoh GR, etc. In the end, I always consolidate back to just M cameras with a range of lenses. I have lenses ranging from 21mm to 90mm and can do pretty much anything.

One of the reasons I went with the Q line was simplicity. If that's true for you, too, you might ask yourself what the simplest solution would be. An M camera with a 28 and a 50 might get you there.

[LocalHero1953]

I bought the TL2, then swapped it for the CL at launch. I later bought the TL2 again as a back up to the CL for a big holiday trip to India (and sold it not long after).

Ultimately I was less satisfied with the image quality from the TL2. I can't explain this (and I have neither now to compare), as I assume they have the same sensor and much of the same electronics, but perhaps there is some difference in the amount of in-body processing/refining. The TL2 menu is more limited than that of the CL (fewer things to set).

I preferred the CL for the integrated EVF, which is far more responsive (less lag) than the add-on EVF for the TL2. On the other hand I loved the TL2 for its looks, the physical interface, and the then-innovative graphical touch interface. I found it excellent for street photography - perhaps one is seen as less of a 'real' photographer but rather someone with a device a bit like a smartphone. The big rear LCD made it easy to use this way.

Edited February 20, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[dpitt]

7 hours ago, Rsure said:

@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?

After re-reading the Overgaard articles, I noticed this paragraph which seems very applicable for your case:
 

Quote

As an entry camera into Leica, the Leica CL is not bad. It has the image quality, the lenses and simplicity beyond what Fuji and other brands presumably find imaginable. That's a Leica specialty; to make something simple, despite all possibilities to make it really complex.

The Leica CL allows you to enter into the Leica TL lenses, and even (via adapter), the Leica M lenses. It's a good point to start from, you can build on that.

Most likely you will end up with a Leica M in any case. That's just how these things go. It's not even a warning or a promise. It's a matter of fact.

I think he is right. You are on a path to a Leica M eventually. I chose my TL2 over a CL because I will always see it as second to my M9 and because I want to upgrade to M10. This way it saves me some budget that I can spend towards the M10 and it uses the same EVF. If your main purpose is to have a (very good) second fiddle to your Q2 then the TL2 fits the bill.
Even the Q3 can not crop its way out of trouble against a good TL or M lens and the TL2 or CL. Cropping not only loses MP, but your 28mm F1.7 lens at 50mm crop is roughly equivalent to a 50mm F3.5 and a 90mm F6.8 in terms of DOF. On the M a Summicron 50 F2.0 or Tele-Elmarit 90mm F2.8 would be very superior, even if the optics and sensor are of the same quality. And in case of an M10 or better, both optics and sensor will be superior to the Q2.

If you intend to better the Q2 even at 28mm and 35mm, then the M solution is the way to go. If you intend to eventually get an M then I think the TL2 is the cheapest path towards a M10 generation M. The advantage is in having double use for the EVF and saving a bit for the same (IMO) quality of sensor. On paper the TL2 even has one extra stop of DR at ISO 400 compared to the CL.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

If you think that the M is not your thing, then the CL is probably the best choice as second camera next to a Q2 or Q3.

Edited February 20, 2024 by dpitt

[ianforber]

I bought an M11 to partner my Q2 for largely the same reasons you are considering - smaller lenses with the potential for longer focal lengths. I only have 35mm and 50mm lenses at the moment but my intention was always to get the 90mm f4 elmar given its size. I just can’t afford it right now.

I’d be loathe to take two different systems with all the different battery chargers and batteries that implies but if you think you’ll only need a longer focal length occasionally, I might be tempted to take the Q2 and stick a used m4/3 camera in the bag - I’ve got an Olympus OMD 5mkii in a cupboard somewhere that I kept specifically to use for telephoto purposes. That way you can buy it cheap used and sell it again for about the same after the trip. It’s probably cheaper than buying a used Panasonic or Sony travel zoom compact, which can produce very good images. 

[Rsure]

15 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

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.

I was wondering if I did get a CL and a couple of zoom lenses if I'd still need the Q2?

Did you really not miss a longer focal length while in Iceland? For me some of these trips (Iceland definitely) are pretty much once-in-a-lifetime trips so would rather not miss any shots if I could. While my Nikon gear was heavy it was so flexible thanks to the zooms that I really didn't miss many photos. Actually the ones I missed were mainly the city snaps when I wasn't bothered to carry the kit and made do with my iPhone. I thought the Q2 would be a great do-it-all and it has been for maybe 90% of the shots (replaces the Nikon and the iPhone) but I'm now kind of realizing that the 10% that I am missing (mostly longer but some also wider than 28mm) are really nice ones which I regret in hindsight.    

While I think it makes sense to consider the CL as others have suggested it is not exactly a cheap alternative especially if it is going to be a stop gap. I really think an M is what will work best for me eventually as @dpitt and @JoshuaRothman has indicated (I think with a 24mm/35mm to cover what Q2 does and one 90mm) so not sure if I should just wait it out till I can afford them or get an interim system now. A possibly good option could be to find a much cheaper alternative like @ianforber has suggested but where I live (Middle East) the used camera market is not as large so finding the right one may not be easy.

Edited February 21, 2024 by Rsure

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 minutes ago, Rsure said:

Did you really not miss a longer focal length while in Iceland?

No - I can't think of one occasion when this occurred to me. Life and the world are full of shots I have missed because I didn't have the right kit, and I find it pointless and stressful regretting the fact. As for long lenses, I am not an twitcher, nor a customary photographer of wildlife, and it is unlikely I would get a shot that would please me, or approach the quality of those who are much better at it than me. I took binoculars to watch the puffins, and simply enjoyed doing so.

Of course if you have a picture in your mind of the sort of shot you want to take in Iceland that requires a long lens, then you should take one. Taking one with the notion that I might randomly see a scene for which it might be useful is not for me.

[Miltz]

If you really care about size and weight carrying two cameras isn’t ideal. I would personally only bring one camera with me. The Nikon Z7 II with 24-120mm lens. The image quality on that sensor is amazing and that lens is excellent. The SL3 will be out by summer, but there is no L mount 24-120mm lens. I would stay away from the Z8 as it has zero benefits for landscapes and it’s super heavy. 

Edited February 21, 2024 by Miltz

[mokona]

Leica M and 28mm+75mm combo is really nice (if you like the 28mm focal length of the Q2).

But when travelling, I find swapping lens a bit bothersome, especially when the weather conditions are not great.

My take in this case would be depending on the day:
- Q2 if I only want to bring one camera
- Q2 with another camera (M+75mm or CL+56mm) fitting in a sling bag so it's easy to take either camera
- a small/light backup 28mm equivalent lens for either the M or CL if the Q2 fails me

Of course that can be adapted to 90mm Leica mount lens

[Rsure]

@Miltz thanks for the feedback. I had the 24-120mm with my Nikon D810 previously and it was a great combination, although not light/small. I've read rumors about the SL3 being smaller but after handling the SL2 I doubt the new one will be small enough to make a meaningful difference and be considered a general carry around camera. And anyways the SL lenses are not small as well. 

@mokona Thanks for the feedback. I actually prefer 24mm to 28mm but either works well for me.

I think I'd rather avoid having 2 camera bodies (although that's not good from a backup perspective) and prefer having to change lenses especially if we're talking M lenses since they're so small. One of the realizations I've had with the Q2 is that it's not all that small as it is made out to be. I still need some bag with me to carry it around as it's not going to fit in any pocket (jacket included!). In that sense, I think the Ricoh GR is definitely a better option since that really is a pocket sized camera with amazing capabilities.  So no to carry a Q2 and another camera body and lens combo is kind of revisiting my Nikon gear days 😄 which I'd rather avoid. For now I think I'm not going to rush into a purchase and probably will go on my Iceland trip with just the Q2. As @LocalHero1953 has said there will always be many missed shots and no point stressing myself out about this. 

I think I would like to move to an M camera when the budget permits and I'm not sure until then if I should make any other purchases unless they can be (more or less) cost neutral or can be utilized going forward with an M (perhaps buying a used CL body now with an M lens)?

 

[dpitt]

2 hours ago, mokona said:

Leica M and 28mm+75mm combo is really nice (if you like the 28mm focal length of the Q2).

But when travelling, I find swapping lens a bit bothersome, especially when the weather conditions are not great.

My take in this case would be depending on the day:
- Q2 if I only want to bring one camera
- Q2 with another camera (M+75mm or CL+56mm) fitting in a sling bag so it's easy to take either camera
- a small/light backup 28mm equivalent lens for either the M or CL if the Q2 fails me

Of course that can be adapted to 90mm Leica mount lens

+1

The OP indicated that he switched to the Q2 because he did not want to carry the big and heavy Nikon gear anymore.
Once that you experienced the luxury of top IQ and handling in a small and relatively light package, there is no way back. At least not for me.

I would rather take 2 small camera's than one big one. Then I either have the luxury of using 2 primes and switch without having to swap lenses. Or I would decide which one I take each day. On holiday you can anticipate on what to expect and make a choice each morining what to take with you:

1. On some occasions I take my X2 35mm eq. fixed lens. (500g.)
   OP => Q2 (600g.)
2. On others I will take my M9 with a 40mm and a spare 90mm or a 21mm and 50mm ... (580 + 250 + 300 ~ 1100g)
   OP => the same with his M or Q2 with M + 90mm ~ 600 + 550 + 300 ~ 1450g
3. On other occassions I take the M9 with 35mm mounted, and a TL2 with a 90mm M lens. (580+250 + 400 + 300  ~ 1600g)
   OP => same as 2 with ~ 1450
4. The OP could decide to take the M only with one or 2 lenses ~ 700 or 1000g. and very compact and easy to carry

Just on weight, the Nikon Z7II + battery + 24-120  is >1700g. It is about the same as nr3, both cameras at once. And also it is larger and not as easy to carry. And more importantly, the handling of the Q and M are very different. In all other cases there is a clear advantage in weight and size.

I honestly think there is also and advantage in results, not only the fact of using F1.7 in stead of F4 for the Nikon. There is a nice Leica sauce/glow in the pictures that you will not get with the Nikon, or any other brands in such a small package.

 

[dpitt]

1 hour ago, Rsure said:

still need some bag with me to carry it around as it's not going to fit in any pocket (jacket included!). In that sense, I think the Ricoh GR is definitely a better option since that really is a pocket sized camera with amazing capabilities.

+1

That is why I like my M and CL/TL2 solutions with a tiny M lens. They are pocketable, certainly in a winter coat for locations like Iceland.

[Miltz]

6 hours ago, Rsure said:

@Miltz thanks for the feedback. I had the 24-120mm with my Nikon D810 previously and it was a great combination, although not light/small. I've read rumors about the SL3 being smaller but after handling the SL2 I doubt the new one will be small enough to make a meaningful difference and be considered a general carry around camera. And anyways the SL lenses are not small as well. 

@mokona Thanks for the feedback. I actually prefer 24mm to 28mm but either works well for me.

I think I'd rather avoid having 2 camera bodies (although that's not good from a backup perspective) and prefer having to change lenses especially if we're talking M lenses since they're so small. One of the realizations I've had with the Q2 is that it's not all that small as it is made out to be. I still need some bag with me to carry it around as it's not going to fit in any pocket (jacket included!). In that sense, I think the Ricoh GR is definitely a better option since that really is a pocket sized camera with amazing capabilities.  So no to carry a Q2 and another camera body and lens combo is kind of revisiting my Nikon gear days 😄 which I'd rather avoid. For now I think I'm not going to rush into a purchase and probably will go on my Iceland trip with just the Q2. As @LocalHero1953 has said there will always be many missed shots and no point stressing myself out about this. 

I think I would like to move to an M camera when the budget permits and I'm not sure until then if I should make any other purchases unless they can be (more or less) cost neutral or can be utilized going forward with an M (perhaps buying a used CL body now with an M lens)?

 

There is no way you had the 24-120mm lens with your Nikon D810 because it’s only for Z mount. The 24-120mm Z with ZII is lighter than the DSLR kit and optically superior. Ultimately it’s still lighter than carrying two separate cameras. 

[Rsure]

I had the Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR G lens for Nikon FX DSLR, not the Z mount one you are referring to 

[dpitt]

2 hours ago, Miltz said:

There is no way you had the 24-120mm lens with your Nikon D810 because it’s only for Z mount. The 24-120mm Z with ZII is lighter than the DSLR kit and optically superior. Ultimately it’s still lighter than carrying two separate cameras. 

Actually, it is around 1400g. according to the specs I found, which is the same weight as a Q2 + M + 90mm F2.8 Tele-Elmarit. It is not all about weight, compactness is key IMO.
They are at least as easy to carry with lens mounted and you could pack them each with lens mounted in a space that would not even fit the Nikon lens alone.

[Qwertynm]

Your Q2 cover 28-50. are you looking for something beyond that up to 200mm that has to be light and relatively lightweight? Do you prefer primes or zooms? Does it have to be full frame? Do you want a Leica or are other brands ok as well?

I use my Canon R5 with the RF 70-200/4 alongside my Leica Q3. The Canon telezoom is 11cm long and weighs 700g. 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. 

Edited February 21, 2024 by Qwertynm

[Rsure]

@Qwertynm While ideally I would have liked to have coverage upto 200mm I want to avoid a heavy setup and multiple systems. Ideally would like to avoid multiple bodies as well if that was feasible. I really like the Q2 and would prefer to stay within the Leica ecosystem if that is possible. SL is simply too bulky for me. The best solution so far seems to be to get a CL + some lenses for medium/telephoto coverage along with my Q2 or move to an M system only with lens coverage upto ~135mm. I like the M solution as it is only 1 body while still being pretty similar in form factor to a Q2. The big hiccup is of course the cost in assembling that system. So now I am considering whether I should get a CL body as an interim solution and then move to M at a later date when possible or just wait until I can afford the full M system. I haven't honestly explored micro 4/3 options too much but am hesitant to try and get used to another system after having used Nikon for 10+ years and Leica now for 2.

[Qwertynm]

If you already know want an M and can afford it, then get the M. There is no point in wasting time and money in stopgaps like the CL or SL or other brands. Get the M and get on with life.

I really like my Canon R5 with the 70-200/4. The combo is really not that heavy or bulky and would be even smaller with the Canon R8. The lens is 700g,  weather sealed, 11cm (4 inches?) short, is sharp and has IS. It fits in a 7L slingbag. There is no smaller FF telezoom of that quality that I know of. To me the Q3 is the perfect addition to my existing gear. It can do certain things but not all things. I don't mind the second body as that means I don't have to change lenses. Something I wouldn't want to do traveling as a landscape photographer. I also don't mind different batteries as I can just plug in a PD powerbank to charge the cameras or hook them up to a dual usb-c charger at the hotel. The different menu systems don't bother me as I don't spend that much time in the menus once the cameras are set up how I want them. But again, if you know what you want, don't beat around the bush. Just get the damn thing if it's that what you want.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[mokona]

But M and 135mm is quite tricky to focus (using rangefinder).

If you want to build a M System and depending on which M body you're eyeing, you might consider selling the Q2 to get straight a M body and a set of lenses...

The good thing about M-mount lenses is that they don't loose much value through time (if bought second hand).

Anyway, realistically, it's not easy to find a CL at a decent price nowadays and a M240 is probably more interesting though a bit more expensive.

[stuny]

To quote Monte Python: "And now for something completely different."

Except for when our travels include SCUBA diving, we travel carry-on only.  In my small backpack are all my connectors, chargers and spare batteries (same batteries for both cameras), our first aid items, my MacBook Air, a Leica Q and a Leica Vlux5.  My clothing and other items are in a soft sided, airline storage bin sized bag.  Barbara has the same size backpack and luggage.  We never have to check luggage, giving us great flexibility to respond to flight changes, never having to wait for checked luggage, nor worry about lost luggage.  When out shooting the most I carry are the two cameras, one of the spare batteries, and one spare SD card.  The Q gets the most work, but the Vlux5 is great for wildlife and building details, inside and out.  If the Vlux5 interests you at all, move quickly:  Panasonic got out of the permanently attached lens camera business, so remaining stock is it.  BTW:  When shooting jpegs, the Vlux5 (and just about all Panaleicvas with zoom lenses) have iZoom, a brilliant algorithm that enables virtually lossless doubling of the long end of the zoom range.  On the Vlux that is 800 MM equivalent for its 25-400 MM lens, and the Dlux 109 (for example) is 150 MM.