The Q3 43mm and Q3(2,1) 28mm - an ideal combo?

[Kim Dahl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, PaulJohn said:

Interesting. Do you already have a 28 for your Ms? For my testing, it's not just about versatility. It's also about enjoyment. I had a 28 elmarit years ago on an M240P and it was a very enjoyable lens on account of its tiny size and stunning results. 

I have 24 f2.8 - an old case - but incredibly nice on my MD. However, I could use a little better iso on my MD so the M11D would fill that gap. USBC mm and same censon as Q.

Otherwise I have 35 APO and 90 f2 APO. Everything in Leica.

But the 90mm APO is very difficult on the M and I would not buy it again. For that use I would use a different system.

50 mm in Zeiss.

I must say I have become incredibly happy with my Q3.

I used on my holiday Q3 (which is probably close to 26mm!) and my MD with 35 APO.

I currently don't have a 28 for my M - but if I buy the Q3 43, I'm not sure... In fact, the M11-D and Q3 43 are both very tempting. ..

[Silfveroxel]

Planning the same. Keep Q2 and order Q3 43. I don’t think I carry both at the same time, but bring both on trips, and depending the day, leave one in hotel och have in backpack 

Per

[newtoleica]

It’s nice to have options, but I vastly prefer the M for serious photography. The Q is very useable but less enjoyable and immersive for me. I use my Q2 for very casual stuff like family trips. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, newtoleica said:

It’s nice to have options, but I vastly prefer the M for serious photography. The Q is very useable but less enjoyable and immersive for me. I use my Q2 for very casual stuff like family trips. 

M for „serious photography“ and a Q for casual. Interesting thought- most professional Leica photographers use it the other way round. If professionalism or seriousness means blurry images or wrong exposure this may be true, but won’t sell a picture. 
 

28 and 43 to close together - well maybe yes maybe not. 28 (or 25, 26mm in fact) and 50 is, for me, somewhat of a standard two lens setup, like 35 and 75 maybe. The 43 only slightly cropped to 50mm would get us there. Carrying them both wouldn’t be my preference, maybe in a small bag like an ONA. I‘d prefer choosing one for that day’s or the surroundings needs. 

Edited September 29, 2024 by wellknown

[newtoleica]

1 hour ago, wellknown said:

If professionalism or seriousness means blurry images or wrong exposure this may be true, but won’t sell a picture. 

In my use I don't have these problems..... LOL

[ianforber]

I’m keeping my Q2, selling my M11 and I’ve bought the Fuji XT-50 with a 16-50mm zoom (ie 24-75mm) and 35mm (ie 50mm-ish focal length) prime. The Fuji AF is rubbish compared to the Leica as is, obviously, the user interface, but I don’t care as it’s mostly a backup camera although its IBIS will come in handy in certain situations. Much cheaper than buying another Q or adding a lens to my M setup, which I didn’t really enjoy using anyway. 

[garygraphy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just carry one camera to focus on a particular focal length

[SiggiGun]

Of course, it depends on what you want to photograph with it. Certainly not for animal and sports photographers. Not always for landscape or architectural photographers. 
For the rest, I think the 28+43 combo covers 90% of the range of photography. Yes, the focal lengths below 28mm and the possibilities to enlarge (let's say above 135mm) are missing. 

When I see that I take 70% of my photos at 35mm (with an M11-P or M11-D), then the combo would be a perfect solution for me. However, I have invested in M,... so the question doesn't arise (yet). Also, I think the M12 (if that's what it will be called) will certainly be closer to the Q: M lenses still usable,... EVF, autofocus option? Etc.) 

 

[Foxfan100]

On 9/27/2024 at 9:07 PM, wellknown said:

I‘m going to add the new 43mm option to my existing 28mm Q3. For me this might be a nearly perfect combination for travel, landscape and portraits. Had a large M kit with two bodies which I recently sold and still own an SL2-s with focal lengths from 14 to 70 mm through several primes (sigma) and zooms (leica). On a recent trip I realized how easy photography life can be with just the q3 28 on hand. Adding 43mm seems ideal for me. 
Anyone having similar thoughts?

cheers

Nils

I am.

[Viv]

On 9/27/2024 at 10:07 PM, wellknown said:

I‘m going to add the new 43mm option to my existing 28mm Q3. For me this might be a nearly perfect combination for travel, landscape and portraits. Had a large M kit with two bodies which I recently sold and still own an SL2-s with focal lengths from 14 to 70 mm through several primes (sigma) and zooms (leica). On a recent trip I realized how easy photography life can be with just the q3 28 on hand. Adding 43mm seems ideal for me. 
Anyone having similar thoughts?

cheers

Nils

Not me. If I need 43mm, I will crop the images from my Q2.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Viv said:

Not me. If I need 43mm, I will crop the images from my Q2.

This certainly works, if one wants to use a certain part of the picture taken. Where it doesn’t work, is for creating the unique look of o longer focal length. Big nose close up portraits won’t happen with 43mm and the background is definitely a lot more compressed than with 28 (or lower). Having both doesn’t mean never ever cropping a 28mm image to 35 or 40 - this will certainly happen, as you might just have the 28 at hand. But the fun begins starting at 43 natively and maybe cropping to 50-70 sometimes. 28 - 70 covered with lightweight summilux and cron apo lenses, tilting screens, weathersealing, same batteries, same UI, fitting into a small bag if taken out together… tempting to me. 

[Viv]

52 minutes ago, wellknown said:

This certainly works, if one wants to use a certain part of the picture taken. Where it doesn’t work, is for creating the unique look of o longer focal length. Big nose close up portraits won’t happen with 43mm and the background is definitely a lot more compressed than with 28 (or lower). Having both doesn’t mean never ever cropping a 28mm image to 35 or 40 - this will certainly happen, as you might just have the 28 at hand. But the fun begins starting at 43 natively and maybe cropping to 50-70 sometimes. 28 - 70 covered with lightweight summilux and cron apo lenses, tilting screens, weathersealing, same batteries, same UI, fitting into a small bag if taken out together… tempting to me. 

I don't use the Q2 for portraits.

[ianforber]

On 10/4/2024 at 3:37 PM, wellknown said:

This certainly works, if one wants to use a certain part of the picture taken. Where it doesn’t work, is for creating the unique look of o longer focal length. Big nose close up portraits won’t happen with 43mm and the background is definitely a lot more compressed than with 28 (or lower). Having both doesn’t mean never ever cropping a 28mm image to 35 or 40 - this will certainly happen, as you might just have the 28 at hand. But the fun begins starting at 43 natively and maybe cropping to 50-70 sometimes. 28 - 70 covered with lightweight summilux and cron apo lenses, tilting screens, weathersealing, same batteries, same UI, fitting into a small bag if taken out together… tempting to me. 

You only get big nose portraits if you step close to the subject. The better approach is to stand back and pre-plan the crop. The pseudo frame lines help judge this, although it would be much better if Leica offered the option of magnifying the image in the EVF. It’s instinctive to fill the frame at the point of taking the photo (and I have plenty of large nose photos before I learned not to!) but standing back helps - the Qs were always intended to be cameras that would have their images cropped. Before @jaapv comes to explain that compression doesn’t exist, it’s the change of distance from camera to subject that affects the image, are you referring to depth of field which will of course be different on a 43mm lens than a 28mm lens? I confess I haven’t seen any side-by-side shots to compare f2 on a 43mm with f1.7 on a 28mm. Is it much shallower on the 43mm?

Edited October 12, 2024 by ianforber

[Tseg]

I have the 43 on order, supplementing my 12 year use of my Sony RX1 - 35mm / 24 MP (that I bought at launch).   The RX1 is still a beauty and used regularly... but I hear the focus motor can be prone to issues, so not sure how much life the old girl still has in her?  Also, since not weather sealed, has accumulated sensor debris and sending in for a cleaning can cost as much as the camera.

Now there are a fair amount of Q3's being sold second hand as users migrate to the 43... it is tempting me to have both Q3's.... but having a FF 28, 35 and 43 fixed lens is likely a bit much.  Maybe I just need to take some breaths out of a brown paper bag and think about that some more.

[Kim Dahl]

On 9/29/2024 at 4:20 AM, PaulJohn said:

Interesting. Do you already have a 28 for your Ms? For my testing, it's not just about versatility. It's also about enjoyment. I had a 28 elmarit years ago on an M240P and it was a very enjoyable lens on account of its tiny size and stunning results. 

No; I have 35 APO, 90 APO and an older Leica Elmarit 24 f 2.8 - But honestly I can't use my 90mm APO. There are way too many blurry pictures. It's REALLY hard to set sharp (I've used Leica M for over 30 years) so it probably won't get any better. So I consider Leica M to MAX 50mm (for me) But I wanted a Leica 28 f2 .But my Q3 fulfills that need to the fullest. I'm not into old Leica and like the new sharp M lenses best.

 

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Quarterpounder said:

Fully agree. Now waiting for theQ3 71mm and then you have the holy trinity.

Why 71mm? Not 75? Have I missed something?

[Doc_P]

Am 29.9.2024 um 03:43 schrieb PaulJohn:

With 2 Q3's covering 28+ and 43+ I can't help but feel these focal lengths are too close together. For the two to be partners I would have preferred a 28 and a 75. Maybe Leica are planning a Q3 tele to complement there wide and standard Q3s. For 2 Q3's covering travel I think 28 and 75 would be perfect but for 2 Q3's covering low light scenarios 28 and 43 makes a lot more sense. Of course, everyone has a different tolerance for cropping and different usage scenarios.

Absolutely agreed. I enjoy the APOs 28 and 75 on SLs. Q3 28 is great from ergonomics and weight, optically acceptable. The Q3 43 is optically (considering size) stellar, but i would have preferred a Q3 75, too.

[Pierre68]

On 9/27/2024 at 10:09 PM, stephenmick said:

I'm combining the Q3 43mm with my Q2 Monochrom. I had the Q2 previously, but I like having a longer focal length for color work, and more wide-angle for monochrome. But that's just me.

I currently have the Q3 43 and Q2 Reporter (because of its look). But Q3 43 and Q2 M makes sense to me. I also have the M10M and love to shoot it with a 28mm M lens on hyper focal.

[Smogg]

As someone who shoots mostly at 45-50mm but occasionally needs a slightly wider frame, I really like the combination of the Q3 43 and Q3. The Q3 43 on a neck strap and the Q3 with a wrist strap in a bag for the occasional wide angle.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Dr. G]

9 minutes ago, Smogg said:

As someone who shoots mostly at 45-50mm but occasionally needs a slightly wider frame, I really like the combination of the Q3 43 and Q3. The Q3 43 on a neck strap and the Q3 with a wrist strap in a bag for the occasional wide angle.

I keep rethinking this, wanting to carry the same, but I always copped my Q3 to something tighter.  Lately I've been using the 21 APO a lot more and I almost never crop it.  So my eye just doesn't get along with 28mm.