Q3 with 43mm APO f2

[jrichie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, nicelynice said:

Was really hoping that the lens would be smaller! I don't want an APO lens, I want something more portable than the 28mm Q3 and the lens is HEAVY

The 2 things that put me off the Q3 28mm were the wide lens and weight.  Will wait and see what this one looks like, but it sounds like I will be sticking to my original plan and get a GRIIIX as it ticks the boxes. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Miltz]

The more I think about it the idea of a 40mm Leica Q3 is the last camera I would ever want. I’m always wishing my Q3 was wider actually. Starting at 40mm is extremely limiting IMO. Unless you only shoot portraits I don’t see how this focal length would work for a daily carry. I love the idea for people who want 40mm but I expect Leica will sell very few of these once the initial I want it factor wears off. 

[Stuart Richardson]

2 hours ago, Miltz said:

The more I think about it the idea of a 40mm Leica Q3 is the last camera I would ever want. I’m always wishing my Q3 was wider actually. Starting at 40mm is extremely limiting IMO. Unless you only shoot portraits I don’t see how this focal length would work for a daily carry. I love the idea for people who want 40mm but I expect Leica will sell very few of these once the initial I want it factor wears off. 

You might be surprised. After all, a huge proportion of all the great photography associated with Leica was shot with a 50mm, including essentially all of Cartier-Bresson's work, and Leicas did not even have framelines for 35mm or wider until the M2. Meanwhile, anyone who did their work on a Rolleiflex or who used an 80mm on a Hasselblad was essentially using a 40mm or so lens. So if you are talking daily life, Vivian Meier would be a good example, or Gordon Parks or Richard Avedon. If anything, 28mm as a standard lens is anomalously wide. It really seems to have been limited to pocket cameras and phones. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

You might be surprised. After all, a huge proportion of all the great photography associated with Leica was shot with a 50mm, including essentially all of Cartier-Bresson's work....

I guess the difference is that if you have an M camera then you can change the lens if you want to go wider. With a 43mm fixed lens you'd better bring your bicycle with you if you want to capture that once in a lifetime landscape.

[student]

36 minutes ago, Corius said:

With a 43mm fixed lens you'd better bring your bicycle with you if you want to capture that once in a lifetime landscape.

Nice.

Bicycle as an essential accessory in photography; that thought had never occurred to me until now

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, Corius said:

I guess the difference is that if you have an M camera then you can change the lens if you want to go wider. With a 43mm fixed lens you'd better bring your bicycle with you if you want to capture that once in a lifetime landscape.

I work as a landscape photographer and about 80% of my photos are with lenses about 40mm or longer. I think I do just fine without superwides. I have some but rarely use them. Here are some of my favorites taken with a 40mm equivalent. They were all done on a 80mm on 6x7, which is basically equivalent to a 35mm lens cropped to 4x5, or a 40mm lens in terms of width, but with more height. I won't clog up the thread with too many though. I would suggest to those thinking that landscape or any other kind of photography is not possible without wide angle lenses educate themselves a bit on the history of photography. Ubiquitous wide angle lenses are a somewhat recent phenomena in photography and with some notable exceptions, most of the best photography to this day is made with lenses somewhat close to standard. This assuming we go by museums and fine art galleries. Think more David Zwirner, Howard Greenburg or Yossi Milo than the shop on main street that sells giant landscape photos of Yosemite or instagram influencers. Obviously tastes vary, and the great thing is that the 28mm lens is not going anywhere, so enjoy!

 

 

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!

[XRayGuy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I work as a landscape photographer and about 80% of my photos are with lenses about 40mm or longer. I think I do just fine without superwides. I have some but rarely use them. Here are some of my favorites taken with a 40mm equivalent. They were all done on a 80mm on 6x7, which is basically equivalent to a 35mm lens cropped to 4x5, or a 40mm lens in terms of width, but with more height. I won't clog up the thread with too many though. I would suggest to those thinking that landscape or any other kind of photography is not possible without wide angle lenses educate themselves a bit on the history of photography. Ubiquitous wide angle lenses are a somewhat recent phenomena in photography and with some notable exceptions, most of the best photography to this day is made with lenses somewhat close to standard. This assuming we go by museums and fine art galleries. Think more David Zwirner, Howard Greenburg or Yossi Milo than the shop on main street that sells giant landscape photos of Yosemite or instagram influencers. Obviously tastes vary, and the great thing is that the 28mm lens is not going anywhere, so enjoy!

 

 

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 totally agree, Stuart.  My preference for lens is 50mm and I find that length to be incredibly versatile, with perhaps the exception of photos of a group in a small room.  I am quite interested in this iteration of the Q.  I do suspect that the 28mm will have wider appeal overall but many Leica photographers have a soft spot for 40-50mm.

You photographs are just superb.  What a gorgeous use of black and white contrast.

[Likaleica]

I agree with all statements above in favor of the possible new focal length.  Wide angle lenses for landscape were popularized by Marc Adamas in the 1980's and 90's, but prior to that much landscape was done with normal or short telephoto lenses.  So many of the greatest photographs of the 20th century was made with so-called "normal" range lenses.

I have not had much interest in the Q cameras until this new rumor cropped up, which prompted me to rent a Q2M (arrived today).  Wow! is all I can say.  What a fun camera, and the cropped images look good on my monitor.  I'm warming up the printer now to see how they look on paper.

So, count me in on a Q with a normal focal length lens!

(Obligatory cat photo, 50mm crop, f/1.7 @ 1/250)

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!

[nussbusch]

Am 11.9.2024 um 17:23 schrieb Giacomo Busoni:

Yes of course. At first glance, it looks exactly like a Q3. When you look closer, yo see that it says F2 instead of 1.7, and the hood is much shorter. Other than that the lens is still as big, which to me is a huge disappointed considering one is a 1.7 28mm and the other is an F2 43mm lens. Still, it's crazy to see a Q with a new focal length 

What can there be disappointment? 43/2=21.5mm optical aperture, 28/1.7=16,5mm optical aperture. How can you expect the Q43 lens to be significantly smaller than the Q28?

[mahakalaka]

19 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I work as a landscape photographer and about 80% of my photos are with lenses about 40mm or longer. I think I do just fine without superwides. I have some but rarely use them. Here are some of my favorites taken with a 40mm equivalent. They were all done on a 80mm on 6x7, which is basically equivalent to a 35mm lens cropped to 4x5, or a 40mm lens in terms of width, but with more height. I won't clog up the thread with too many though. I would suggest to those thinking that landscape or any other kind of photography is not possible without wide angle lenses educate themselves a bit on the history of photography. Ubiquitous wide angle lenses are a somewhat recent phenomena in photography and with some notable exceptions, most of the best photography to this day is made with lenses somewhat close to standard. This assuming we go by museums and fine art galleries. Think more David Zwirner, Howard Greenburg or Yossi Milo than the shop on main street that sells giant landscape photos of Yosemite or instagram influencers. Obviously tastes vary, and the great thing is that the 28mm lens is not going anywhere, so enjoy!

 

 

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!

Great photos! I especially love the one with the horse! I'm a big admirer of RAX's work as well (even though on-topic, I guess he often uses wider lenses). Can't wait to go back to Iceland. 😊

[Likaleica]

On 9/12/2024 at 7:49 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

I work as a landscape photographer and about 80% of my photos are with lenses about 40mm or longer. I think I do just fine without superwides. I have some but rarely use them. Here are some of my favorites taken with a 40mm equivalent. They were all done on a 80mm on 6x7, which is basically equivalent to a 35mm lens cropped to 4x5, or a 40mm lens in terms of width, but with more height. I won't clog up the thread with too many though. I would suggest to those thinking that landscape or any other kind of photography is not possible without wide angle lenses educate themselves a bit on the history of photography. Ubiquitous wide angle lenses are a somewhat recent phenomena in photography and with some notable exceptions, most of the best photography to this day is made with lenses somewhat close to standard. This assuming we go by museums and fine art galleries. Think more David Zwirner, Howard Greenburg or Yossi Milo than the shop on main street that sells giant landscape photos of Yosemite or instagram influencers. Obviously tastes vary, and the great thing is that the 28mm lens is not going anywhere, so enjoy!

 

 

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!

Yeah, these are beautiful and pastoral, Stuart.  

[cirke]

43mm  is all what I need !  a Q 43mm B&W sensor would be a dream

Edited September 13, 2024 by cirke

[Olaf_ZG]

47 minutes ago, cirke said:

43mm  is all wha I need !  a Q 43mm B&W sensor would be a dream

Let’s first wait for the regular version 😇

[RustyBug]

On 8/25/2024 at 6:24 AM, jaapv said:

Nothing wrong with 40 mm but why not use a Summicron 40/2 C on an M  or SL instead of spending something like 10.000 $ on such a Q? 

Well, the difference in optics of the the 40/2 C vs. a 50 year newer APO 40 Cron should be significant.  Whether it is the M APO's or the SL APO's that same level of optic should absolutely obliterate the 40/2 C (the Flare Monster).  Add in the Macro MFD capability of the 40/2 on the new Q, as well as OIS and ahe  leaf shutter ... and it's definitely a different level of optic than the 40/2 C. 

I use my 40 Cron C regularly on both my M's and SL ... and I have decisions to make for when I use it vs. the 35 Cron ASPH, if I want a more modern rendering or improved resolution.  The 35 Cron ASPH isn't APO, but the difference is noticeable compared to the 40/2 C.  I can only imagine a 40 Cron APO would just be leagues of difference that would then ALLOW for the deeper crops of the Q, starting from 40mm ... easily achieving portrait range.

Cropping into the 40/2 C ... it doesn't hold up as well as contemporary glass does for cropping.

I dig on my 40/2 C ... but, it is nowhere near today's Leica APO optical engineering.  Buy an SL3 or M11 and toss an APO (M or SL) on it, and your $$$ is up there, too.  Sure, a 40/2 C can be had for less than $1K, but it also performs like a less than $1K lens that's 50 years old.  I make good with mine, but dang ... the prospect of a 40/2 APO is light years difference from the 40/2 C (imo).  Looks like we'll find out soon enough. 😉

With the premise of the Q being fixed lens ... vs. the interchangeable lens approach the 40/2 C offers ... the APO level optic of the fixed lens will likely be a superb solution for some folks, looking for the single carry.  As to the wider end ... I'll probably mount the 24/2.8 on the M10R to pair with it.  That could give me 24 - 75 range with no lens changes, or some such thing.

Price wise ... I don't think it'll be $10K.  At least, I certainly hope not.  Under $7K and I might do some horse tradin'.

Edited September 14, 2024 by RustyBug

[RustyBug]

8 hours ago, cirke said:

43mm  is all what I need !  a Q 43mm B&W sensor would be a dream

Yeah ... and likely it's gonna still be a dream for a while to come.  Not sure I'd hold my breath for that one.  But, it's a nice dream.

Edited September 14, 2024 by RustyBug

[Matt Stevens]

On 9/12/2024 at 6:49 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

I work as a landscape photographer and about 80% of my photos are with lenses about 40mm or longer. I think I do just fine without superwides. I have some but rarely use them. Here are some of my favorites taken with a 40mm equivalent. They were all done on a 80mm on 6x7, which is basically equivalent to a 35mm lens cropped to 4x5, or a 40mm lens in terms of width, but with more height. I won't clog up the thread with too many though. I would suggest to those thinking that landscape or any other kind of photography is not possible without wide angle lenses educate themselves a bit on the history of photography. Ubiquitous wide angle lenses are a somewhat recent phenomena in photography and with some notable exceptions, most of the best photography to this day is made with lenses somewhat close to standard. This assuming we go by museums and fine art galleries. Think more David Zwirner, Howard Greenburg or Yossi Milo than the shop on main street that sells giant landscape photos of Yosemite or instagram influencers. Obviously tastes vary, and the great thing is that the 28mm lens is not going anywhere, so enjoy!

 

 

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!

Beautiful photographs! And I totally agree with your comments re: the 40-50mm perspective. I almost always have a 50mm on my color camera. I will purchase a Q3 43 when it drops; I expect I'll shoot it in monochrome mode more often than not, as I am mostly using a Q2M these days.

Edited September 14, 2024 by Matt Stevens

[Dr. G]

Thinking about this from a little different perspective.  There may be more to this than just the difference in focal length and seemingly small difference in aperture.

I use the APO 35 and 50 on my SL3 and can appreciate the difference in rendering of those lenses over the cropped 28 1.7 (I had the Q3).  The APO Summicron-SL lenses (and from what I’ve seen with the APO M lenses) at f/2 separate the subject from the background almost as effectively as my 50mm Summilux-SL at f/1.4, although the background blur of the Lux is smoother and the falloff is more gradual.  43mm f/2 will give a 50mm crop at an equivalent of around f/2.3 or so, while the Q3’s 50mm gives you around f/3.1.   It may be more significant than it seems.  
 

Images with a 50mm crop on this new lens may have a perceived subject separation closer to f/1.5 - 1.6 if it behaves like the SL and M APO lenses.  It all remains to be seen.  

[Likaleica]

2 hours ago, Dr. G said:

Thinking about this from a little different perspective.  There may be more to this than just the difference in focal length and seemingly small difference in aperture.

I use the APO 35 and 50 on my SL3 and can appreciate the difference in rendering of those lenses over the cropped 28 1.7 (I had the Q3).  The APO Summicron-SL lenses (and from what I’ve seen with the APO M lenses) at f/2 separate the subject from the background almost as effectively as my 50mm Summilux-SL at f/1.4, although the background blur of the Lux is smoother and the falloff is more gradual.  43mm f/2 will give a 50mm crop at an equivalent of around f/2.3 or so, while the Q3’s 50mm gives you around f/3.1.   It may be more significant than it seems.  
 

Images with a 50mm crop on this new lens may have a perceived subject separation closer to f/1.5 - 1.6 if it behaves like the SL and M APO lenses.  It all remains to be seen.  

Exactly!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Miltz]

On 9/12/2024 at 1:05 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

You might be surprised. After all, a huge proportion of all the great photography associated with Leica was shot with a 50mm, including essentially all of Cartier-Bresson's work, and Leicas did not even have framelines for 35mm or wider until the M2. Meanwhile, anyone who did their work on a Rolleiflex or who used an 80mm on a Hasselblad was essentially using a 40mm or so lens. So if you are talking daily life, Vivian Meier would be a good example, or Gordon Parks or Richard Avedon. If anything, 28mm as a standard lens is anomalously wide. It really seems to have been limited to pocket cameras and phones. 

Very well said. The difference is they didn’t have a 26mm wide option at the time that I’m aware of, so they made art with what they had. 

[PeterBoyadjian]

I'm on the list over in LA, 

Not sure how the 43ish focal will work for me, 28 I feel is better for travel and taking selfies with my little baby girl.

One wonders can I shoot an entire wedding with Two Q's? hmmmmm