Which is Better Q lens, the 28 or the 43?

[Richard K]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would guess that they’re both great but thoughts appreciated.

[ramarren]

Whichever of the two focal lengths suits your needs/desires best is the winner. Both are very high quality performers; I doubt you'd be able to see much difference if you spent your time shooting lens test charts. 

For me, were I to buy a Q3, the Q3 43 would be the winner as I much prefer a 43mm lens over a 28mm lens for general purpose use.

G

[David Wien]

I have the 28mm, and I think that having the 43mm in addition would be greedy (and out of my budget range!). I shoot raw, and, after the automatic corrections in software of the distortion and vignetting, which happens for me in PhotoLab, the 28mm lens gives excellent results. The ability to crop is very flexible and, unless you are prepared to carry around a whole selection of lenses of different focal lengths, I think the 28mm is a great compromise. I only miss extreme telephoto (>200 mm) and wide angle  (<20 mm), and for those I use my Canon R6. I like to use the RF40mm lens with the R6, but having only that focal length would be a restriction for me.  This was taken with my Q3 28mm uncropped:

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!

And this was cropped

from this:

David

 

Edited November 15, 2024 by David Wien

[JNK100]

1 hour ago, David Wien said:

I have the 28mm, and I think that having the 43mm in addition would be greedy (and out of my budget range!). I shoot raw, and, after the automatic corrections in software of the distortion and vignetting, which happens for me in PhotoLab, the 28mm lens gives excellent results. The ability to crop is very flexible and, unless you are prepared to carry around a whole selection of lenses of different focal lengths, I think the 28mm is a great compromise. I only miss extreme telephoto (>200 mm) and wide angle  (<20 mm), and for those I use my Canon R6. I like to use the RF40mm lens with the R6, but having only that focal length would be a restriction for me.  This was taken with my Q3 28mm uncropped:

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!

And this was cropped

from this:

David

 

+1

[Monty242]

You may hear a lot of different opinions here. My fairly new Q 3 sits right beside me, packed and ready to be traded in for a Q3 43 today.

I just found myself cropping the vast majority of my fotos and the ones I took with the full 28mm are not my best. I checked all my fotos from the las few years an it is a pattern, my wide angle pictures are mediocre at best and I really like 40mm (or 20mm with MFT-gear). So for me it will be 43mm.

The 43 lens is an APO-lens, should be better, but I cannot say anything to this. I was always pleased with the Q3 pictures in terms of colours and image quality.

 

[EUSe]

It comes down to what focal length you prefer. I had the original Q 116, which was fine for me. I never heard of any complaints about the Q3-28 image quality. The Q3-43 is special. It provides a 3D-effect that really stands out and you keep getting undistorted portraits. The sharpness and clarity in itself are often not flattering):-  as for myself, I feel strongly limited by the 43 mm lens, I regularly need a larger frame. Everything comes at a price! You can get outstanding results, but my miss rate is rather high.

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you are talking about the measurable optical performance of the lenses, then it is the 43mm. Utility and preference are another matter, but when it comes to optical fidelity, the 43mm is the better lens. 

[Stuart Richardson]

3 hours ago, David Wien said:

I have the 28mm, and I think that having the 43mm in addition would be greedy (and out of my budget range!). I shoot raw, and, after the automatic corrections in software of the distortion and vignetting, which happens for me in PhotoLab, the 28mm lens gives excellent results. The ability to crop is very flexible and, unless you are prepared to carry around a whole selection of lenses of different focal lengths, I think the 28mm is a great compromise. I only miss extreme telephoto (>200 mm) and wide angle  (<20 mm), and for those I use my Canon R6. I like to use the RF40mm lens with the R6, but having only that focal length would be a restriction for me.  This was taken with my Q3 28mm uncropped:

And this was cropped

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!

from this:

David

 

With respect, the cropped image you posted is visibly unsharp in the text of the trashcan and the rim. This is the challenge of cropping. Magnification stresses the image chain. That is why prints from larger formats tend to look much sharper even if the lenses are not as sharp (think a 4x5 photo with a 50 year old lens being much sharper than a Leica M6 and 35mm APO Summicron). When you crop, you are stressing the optical chain ever more the greater you punch in, such that even a great lens will start to show its flaws. The 28mm in the Q is a good lens and was up to the task of doing this very well on 24mm. On 47mm it started to strain a bit, and at 60mp, to my eye at least, it is too much for it. Obviously many people happily use it and it is fine for most normal tasks. But as a printer, I would recommend avoiding cropping too heavily if you want to maintain your quality in medium to large prints. It seems counter productive to me to use a Q 28mm camera and crop down to 50mm or more. All that said, I come at it from the perspective of an exhibition printer and artist, not really from the perspective of using it as a casual camera. I also do not care what others do with it, I just sometimes feel the need to speak to the people who are more like me who might read this thread. I wound up selling my Q2 because the lens just was not satisfying to me.

[microview]

6 hours ago, ramarren said:

Whichever of the two focal lengths suits your needs/desires best is the winner. Both are very high quality performers; I doubt you'd be able to see much difference if you spent your time shooting lens test charts. 

For me, were I to buy a Q3, the Q3 43 would be the winner as I much prefer a 43mm lens over a 28mm lens for general purpose use.

G

+1, but the 43 lens is truly remarkable and the colours I think more appealing.

Edited November 15, 2024 by microview

[Tseg]

Like some others, the Q3 (43) has become my gateway drug to the M series (which arrives today).  I like the 43 as my first Leica not only because it demonstrates Leica quality, but there really are few/no M lenses that replicate the focal length.  For my M11-D, my first lens will be the new 28mm Summicron.  I may eventually round out that camera with a 50mm.  Because the M cameras have no stabilization, and rangefinders being what they are, I'm under the understanding that longer focal lengths are technically more difficult to master with an M camera.

[bobtodrick]

A non question IMO.

Much better would be ‘which do you prefer and why’.

They are both optically excellent with typical Leica build quality.

Neither is ‘better’ than the other.

[ramarren]

9 minutes ago, Tseg said:

Like some others, the Q3 (43) has become my gateway drug to the M series (which arrives today).  I like the 43 as my first Leica not only because it demonstrates Leica quality, but there really are few/no M lenses that replicate the focal length.  For my M11-D, my first lens will be the new 28mm Summicron.  I may eventually round out that camera with a 50mm.  Because the M cameras have no stabilization, and rangefinders being what they are, I'm under the understanding that longer focal lengths are technically more difficult to master with an M camera.

Just a comment on the bolded bit above ... Leica M owners have been shooting with 75, 90, and 135 mm lenses for decades without image stabilization very successfully.  It simply means learning how to hold the camera steadily and/or using a support (tripod, camera stand, leaning against a brick wall) occasionally when needed. 

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!

Bicycles For Sale - Santa Clara 2023
Leica M10 Monochrom + Hektor 135mm f/4.5
ISO 2500 @ f/8 @ 1/750 (hand-held)

And, of course, keeping the shutter speed adequately fast when possible.  

G

[Qwertynm]

The more interesting question to answer would be

how much better is the 43 over the 28 cropped to 43 and then downscaled to a web-friendly dimension like 1800x1200.

maybe James @Sparkassenkunde and other with both cameras could chime in?

[bobtodrick]

41 minutes ago, ramarren said:

Just a comment on the bolded bit above ... Leica M owners have been shooting with 75, 90, and 135 mm lenses for decades without image stabilization very successfully.  It simply means learning how to hold the camera steadily and/or using a support (tripod, camera stand, leaning against a brick wall) occasionally when needed. 

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!

Bicycles For Sale - Santa Clara 2023
Leica M10 Monochrom + Hektor 135mm f/4.5
ISO 2500 @ f/8 @ 1/750 (hand-held)

And, of course, keeping the shutter speed adequately fast when possible.  

G

I'm always amazed by newer photographers who can't see how you can survive without A/F, image stabilization and the ability to add 20 custom functions, as though there aren't thousands (millions??) of amazing photographs that were pre 2000 when none of this stuff was common.

[ramarren]

26 minutes ago, Qwertynm said:

The more interesting question to answer would be

how much better is the 43 over the 28 cropped to 43 and then downscaled to a web-friendly dimension like 1800x1200.

maybe James @Sparkassenkunde and other with both cameras could chime in?

This will depend not only on the lens and use of the camera but also on the post-processing skills of the person doing the down-scaling and image rendering. Do you really think this is a "fair and objective" test of either the 28 or 43 mm lenses?

I have done such work with a huge number of different cameras, all with nearly indistinguishable results, at which point ... What is the point of such a comparison? 

G

[PeterHatt]

Two pictures from Q3 43 one cropped showing image detail (worth noting at original resolution the sign is pin sharp) 

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!

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, bobtodrick said:

A non question IMO.

Much better would be ‘which do you prefer and why’.

They are both optically excellent with typical Leica build quality.

Neither is ‘better’ than the other.

Opinions aside, the 43mm is objectively the better corrected lens. Which lens one wants to use is their business, and whether they see differences in their work or small prints/web pictures is one thing, but the measurements show the 43mm to be the better lens. Both in it being designated APO and in its MTF.

 

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!

[Qwertynm]

1 hour ago, ramarren said:

What is the point of such a comparison? 

Hei, I didn’t ask the question originally. I don’t think it makes sense comparing two different focal lengths, or cameras in this instance. But the concept of the Q to me is to have a camera that covers multiple focal lengths by cropping.

Now that the Q3 43 has been released I‘m sure some folks are askin themselves if they should add that camera to the stable or just crop in. 

If you go trough the Q3 43 image thread there seem to be many images where I think that could’ve been done with the Q3 28 by cropping in. 

Question remains: how much am I leaving on the table by cropping in vs having the thighter FoV. 

[ramarren]

I don't know why I'd want to store my cameras out where I keep the horses, but heh ...

I've made (and won awards for) 20x24 inch prints that I made with using a 5Mpixel camera to capture the images.

With that in mind, presuming that either 28 or 43 mm Q lenses are of the quality that they are reputed to be, you should be able to make at least 10x15 inch prints at the smallest crop size available, to be conservative about it.

Experiment and see, that's all. Pick which camera you want based on whether you want a wider or a narrower base field of view. Getting all hot and bothered about resolution performance means absolutely nothing when it comes to good photographs, at least at this level of base performance from either of these cameras. 

G

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Qwertynm]

1 hour ago, ramarren said:

Getting all hot and bothered about resolution performance means absolutely nothing when it comes to good photographs

I totally agree. But this is a camera forum with many photo enthusiasts that care as much about the gear as the images. Now, let’s see some comparisons 😅🙏