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

[steve edmunds]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why did nobody ever mention before that 43mm was the same as human vision?  for me its nonsense but better than having to admit you just wanted to placate the 35mm and 50mm users by going for 43mm.

I hope it works for leica but surely the m series cameras would have 43mm frame lines if it was such a great focal length?  

[FrankU]

I have found the value of using manual focus again from reading  the (unfair in my opinion) Q3 28 sharpness critiques here. Of course if you let the camera set the autofocus for you, you will get its decision and that is often not the one you want to make. Looking at birds at our feeder through a bug screen with the Q3 gave me clear screen pattern but soft unfocussed  birds. Switching to manual focus and focusing on the birds gave me a softened but sharp in-focus image of the birds' feathers at 50mm digital zoom. Another example: Once I was looking through the car window at a scene far off in another building in wild and pounding  rain in the dark of the night that evening and  AF gave me only clear images of the drops on the car window. (I was not going to get out of the  car  in that storm ...) Then I discovered manual focus and I could zoom in on the scene in the next building's atrium in the dark of the night. And that was what I wanted to depict.

If one wanted to have the far rim of the trashcan in focus (in another post here), one should have focused on it. But of course at 70 or 90mm digital zoom, such a long focal length would have had very little depth of field. So I simply advise playing with the settings on the Q3 28 or 43. and learning the trade offs here.

[Elliot Harper]

3 hours ago, FrankU said:

I have found the value of using manual focus again from reading  the (unfair in my opinion) Q3 28 sharpness critiques here. Of course if you let the camera set the autofocus for you, you will get its decision and that is often not the one you want to make. Looking at birds at our feeder through a bug screen with the Q3 gave me clear screen pattern but soft unfocussed  birds. Switching to manual focus and focusing on the birds gave me a softened but sharp in-focus image of the birds' feathers at 50mm digital zoom. Another example: Once I was looking through the car window at a scene far off in another building in wild and pounding  rain in the dark of the night that evening and  AF gave me only clear images of the drops on the car window. (I was not going to get out of the  car  in that storm ...) Then I discovered manual focus and I could zoom in on the scene in the next building's atrium in the dark of the night. And that was what I wanted to depict.

If one wanted to have the far rim of the trashcan in focus (in another post here), one should have focused on it. But of course at 70 or 90mm digital zoom, such a long focal length would have had very little depth of field. So I simply advise playing with the settings on the Q3 28 or 43. and learning the trade offs here.

If I want manual focus I use my m11.

I use Q3/43 almost exclusively with auto focus. When shooting outdoor with small aperture it’s almost impossible to get better with manual than the auto with Q

[jaapv]

On 11/17/2024 at 10:21 AM, JTLeica said:

The best lens is the 43mm if you are asking from a technical standpoint. It’s most perfect, corner to corner sharpness, with low to no fringing. It makes shooting with it really enjoyable and to be being plum in the middle of my two favourite focal lengths I think it’s a winner for me.

That said I have the Q3 too, and do not plan on selling it. It’s an exceptional lens in the centre 75% of the image, really incredible in face considering Leica designed it ten years so. Well done Leica.

The real answer is of course based on focal length needs but, the 43 lens is better than the 28. 

Better? I don’t know. All wideangle lenses have worse corners than euivalent standard lenses. Nothing to do with lens quality but with the laws of optics. 
The original question makes no sense. One cannot compare two lenses of different focal lengths. 

[JNK100]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

Better? I don’t know. All wideangle lenses have worse corners than euivalent standard lenses. Nothing to do with lens quality but with the laws of optics. 
The original question makes no sense. One cannot compare two lenses of different focal lengths. 

I agree. One either prefers a 28mm or 43mm focal length. The 28mm is brilliant as is the 43mm I am sure.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

Better? I don’t know. All wideangle lenses have worse corners than euivalent standard lenses. Nothing to do with lens quality but with the laws of optics. 
The original question makes no sense. One cannot compare two lenses of different focal lengths. 

Perhaps, but that just means that wide angle lenses struggle to provide the same image quality as standard lenses. Lenses like medium focal length macro lenses tend to provide the best quality of them all. They draw a more accurate image. These things are objective and measurable. If you prefer a lens that is not as good technically but is better for you in angle of view or character, that is absolutely understandable. The problem is the term "better". It is itself too imprecise. Better for what? For whom? If it is technical characteristics and sharpness, it is the 43mm over the 28mm. It's right there in red and black on the chart.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, but the charts are not meant to be read as a comparison between lenses of different focal lengths. MTF graphs are quite limited, OTF diagrams are better but rare, being expensive to create. 

[Le Chef]

This question always reminds me of this image. Both ways are correct - you cannot say one is better than the other. This is how you could consider the Q3 28 and Q3 43. 

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!

[JTLeica]

On 3/16/2025 at 9:23 AM, jaapv said:

Better? I don’t know. All wideangle lenses have worse corners than euivalent standard lenses. Nothing to do with lens quality but with the laws of optics. 
The original question makes no sense. One cannot compare two lenses of different focal lengths. 

Personally I think its quite easy to see what the 43mm is the better lens. Sure its a different focal length bit its sharp corner to corner straight from F2, similar to the 21mm and 28mm APO Sumicron SL lenses. The Q3 lens is fab and I love it, but if judging merely on 'resolution' or sharpness, it's behind the 43.

[JNK100]

2 hours ago, JTLeica said:

Personally I think its quite easy to see what the 43mm is the better lens. Sure its a different focal length bit its sharp corner to corner straight from F2, similar to the 21mm and 28mm APO Sumicron SL lenses. The Q3 lens is fab and I love it, but if judging merely on 'resolution' or sharpness, it's behind the 43.

Perhaps: but the 43mm is of course, 1/2 stop slower.

[Alex1976]

In my opinion the 28mm is a better travel point of view. It depends what you use the camera for. I was surprised because I was always saying the Q would be perfect with a 50 mm, because that is my favorite focal length. I complained the 28 was too wide and got tiresome from that focal length on a trip. I did not really crop very much, maybe too lazy or just didn't get around to it. I traded in the 28 and got the 43. No doubt the lens is incredible and spectacular and it is a better portrait lens. However, I find the 43 a bit limiting for travel and for everyday life/carry the 28 is more useful. It is true you can crop with the 47 or 61 mp quite easily so portraits can actually look pretty good especially if taken from a distance with the camera pointed down (over 40 angles, lol.). I find the 43 is a boring point of view and just looks kind of flat. It does replicate a 50 which I love and is note just wide enough like a 35.  If choosing one or doing over, would get the 28 especially if it is for travel or an everyday carry. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

On 12/11/2024 at 9:11 AM, steve edmunds said:

Why did nobody ever mention before that 43mm was the same as human vision?  for me its nonsense but better than having to admit you just wanted to placate the 35mm and 50mm users by going for 43mm.

I hope it works for leica but surely the m series cameras would have 43mm frame lines if it was such a great focal length?  

Actually it's 43.5mm. The diagonal of the 24x36mm frame. But who's counting? Generally the diagonal of a frame colsest matches the human ry. It doesn't match our vision though. Humans scan left to right and make composite images. A 24mm in 2:1 format feels more *human* to most. But 43mm is pretty neutral. This has been widely known for decades. Pentax have long made 43mm lenses. So do hasselblad (55mm but a 43mm equiv) currently. Leica is hardly the first here. More commonly MANY 45mm lenses have existed over the last 100 years. 

Leica almost certainly did it to both appease and not pander to either of the 35 or 50 faithful. Turns out it's a fabulous focal length to work with, as many of us have been for years.

Gordon

[Rick in CO]

I also tried both and am settling on the Q3 43.  ~75% of my M pictures are with 35 and 50mm focal lengths.  The distortion with the Q3 28mm lens, correctable in many cases, but not others, made me pass on it (Yes, I have Lightroom and Photoshop).  Nevertheless, the 43 more suited my shooting, the old "step closer or step back", so for me it just made more sense.  Both lenses are so sharp as to any discussion is, in my experience, moot, especially if you crop on the Q3.  For wide angle pix I will drop back to my TL2 with the 18mm-28mm equivalent that has virtually no distortion when properly framed.  For wide angle pix I like framing the shot on the lcd screen, it gives me a better idea of perspective,  and for lower aimed shots the optional EVF that swings up is perfect (also saves my knees!).  

[mirrorless]

For me the F1.7 for wedding photography is a big plus on the Q3 28mm vs the F2 on the 43mm. Also I shoot with the APO 75mm on the SL3 and both cameras are a dream combination. 28mm & 75mm is THE dream team especially for wedding photography. Before I used for a long time fast primes with 35mm and 85mm. In certain situations and also indoor the 85mm was always a bit too long and sometimes I wanted to go wider than 35mm. I can use the small Q3 around my neck and there is no need for swapping lenses with the 2 cameras. Cropping with a 61 MPX Sensor on both cameras is great. Easy with the Q3 up to the 75mm area and the SL3 to 135mm+. Especially for street and Storytelling I find 43mm too long. Yes everybody has legs to walk back but somehow my intuition is to approach a subject and not walk away from it. So for me the 28mm Q3 is a no brainer. 

I don't know and to be honest I never tested the Q3 43mm but I find this focal length the most uninteresting focal length I could image. It's just me of course...

Edited March 18 by mirrorless

[SrMi]

I have both cameras and at the moment, I feel that 28mm works better for me. I used to be more of a 50 or 35mm shooter, but after shooting for a while with Q cameras, I developed affinity for the 28mm.

 

[Simone_DF]

On 3/17/2025 at 3:01 PM, Alex1976 said:

In my opinion the 28mm is a better travel point of view. It depends what you use the camera for. 

As a counter-argument, last January I was in Morocco. I brought only the Q43 and a Bessa with a 35mm attached. I thought I was going to miss a wider option in the souks etc, but I didn’t. I think from now on, the Q43 and a film camera will be my only travel options. 

[kobra]

FWIW, here are my experiences... 

I have had a Q2 since launch; it was my first Leica and started a whole new journey, haha. 

Before that, a Fuji X100 series with the 35mm equivalent lens was my "go everywhere" camera. I admit that 28mm took some getting used to, but I felt like I did. 

However, for me, the moment I shot my first photo with the Q3 43 I knew that the 43mm felt a lot better than the 28. I used the Q3 43 for a week exclusively, then went back to the Q2. It really drove home to me how much more natural the 43mm seemed to me. In fact, after only a few weeks, I "see" in 43mm frames; IOW, as I see a scene I know exactly what it will look like in the viewfinder. I've never had a 40mm lens before; closest thing is the 24-70 zooms over the years, but I don't think a zoom trains you to "see a frame" the same as a prime. (I have 3 SL bodies and 6 SL lenses from 16mm to 500mm so lots of "big camera" gear, but the Q series is the "always carry a camera" series and always will be fore me)

That said, I just cannot part with my Q2, at least not yet. I think for so many travel opportunities the pair of 28 and 43mm lenses with cropping ability is just too good to miss out on. (maybe a Q4 28mm? haha) 

Conclusion - what's "better"? I discovered I see more naturally in the 43mm frame, so if I had to pick the one that's better for me that would be it. And, for people photos I really think the 43 is better suited. 

Ok, my opinion and worth the price you paid for it. Thanks for the question and for letting me relate why the Leica Q cameras have been so special for me. 

Best, 

Brad

[steve edmunds]

interesting that Fuji have opted for a 28mm equiv for their new fixed lens camera.

sort of medium format 

[jjroroek]

I read in the comments "because I crop  my q3 28 pics  a lot in postprocessing  it makes me choose for a q3 43" . i also crop my q3 28 pics regularly but mostly its not symmitrical as if you change to a longer focal lens. I then choose from the whole picture of my 28 the ideal part of it and that can be a part out of the center.

Edited March 25 by jjroroek

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[JTLeica]

13 hours ago, steve edmunds said:

interesting that Fuji have opted for a 28mm equiv for their new fixed lens camera.

sort of medium format 

I guess their aim in theory at least is to say they have enough resolution to give you 60mp 35mm, 30mp 50mm etc. In reality that lens and sensor combo with that resolution without it being stabilised is not an easy camera to live with. Let alone the size and ergo issues.