Is there any Leica Q 28mm F1.7 lens equivalent on M-system ?

[mottykytu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Leica Q's 28mm F1,7 is an Instant classic but do we have any M lense that can compare to it? 

[Photon42]

Present offerings are Elmarit, Summicron and Summilux 28. You can compare it to any of these.

[RF’sDelight]

PS:

• Elmarit = f2.8 
• Summicron = f2.0
• Summilux = f1.4

[Chris W]

I compared my 1980's Elmarit 28mm lens to my Q on a tripod shot.

The image out of the Q is slightly wider (more content). The colours, detail and crispness of the Q lens was much more than my 28mm on the M240 at various apertures.

I think the Q lens is pretty special. 

[01af]

vor 58 Minuten schrieb Chris W:

The colours, detail, and crispness of the Q lens was much more than my [1980's Elmarit] 28 mm ...

Well – the current 28 mm M lenses are sharper than a 40-year-old Elmarit ... so I guess the current Summilux-M 28 mm Asph and Summicron-M 28 mm Asph are not the same as, but close enough to, the Q's lens.

[Kiwimac]

I’m not sure the Q 28 lens is as good as it looks. I believe that there is a fair bit of software correction applied automatically. 
 

That being the case, it’s not easy to compare it to the 28 Lux (which seems to be the obvious comparison) without knowing the software corrections so you could duplicate them - although that might not be necessary. 
 

The 24 Lux actually costs more than a 28 Q so logically you’d surmise it ought to be better but that’s not always true. 

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

M lenses are designed to be used with no digital correction, because they have to work on film Ms. Q lenses are designed to be used with digital optical (geometric) corrections, because they produces a better result than trying to correct both optical and chromatic aberrations with just glass. The only sensible comparison is to compare the results as they are intended to be seen.

The Q28 lens is as good as it looks, because looking at the results is the only way to evaluate it. Saying it is not good without the software correction is like saying a lens is not good because you've taken one of the glass elements out!

[mottykytu]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

M lenses are designed to be used with no digital correction, because they have to work on film Ms. Q lenses are designed to be used with digital optical (geometric) corrections, because they produces a better result than trying to correct both optical and chromatic aberrations with just glass. The only sensible comparison is to compare the results as they are intended to be seen.

The Q28 lens is as good as it looks, because looking at the results is the only way to evaluate it. Saying it is not good without the software correction is like saying a lens is not good because you've taken one of the glass elements out!

That make the Q "Too Digital" and Clinical under some eyes

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, mottykytu said:

That make the Q "Too Digital" and Clinical under some eyes

Fortunately the world is full of eyes, all with different ways of seeing things.

.

.

As I posted in response to one of your earlier threads, it would be good to get an idea of what sort of photography you do, what your experience is, what your aspirations are etc. It makes it easier to offer advice. Even better would be a link to some of your photos, or posting some here, but I can understand that new members may be cautious to start with.

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, Kiwimac said:

I believe that there is a fair bit of software correction applied automatically.

Which is quite logical - this is a hybrid lens of which the correction of the optical part is designed to be combined with digital elements; the two cannot be separated - quite normal in present day lens design with all major brands.

[lct]

3 hours ago, mottykytu said:

That make the Q "Too Digital" and Clinical under some eyes

If you like this rendering, you may wish to try the Ultron 28/2 asph on the M11. A bit too contrasty for my taste but a very good little lens otherwise.

[costa43]

The Q is a total package. A really good lens made to work in harmony with the body it is attached to.  I think the 28mm Ultron ii by Voigtlander will resolve more detail than the Q lens across the frame on the 60mp body. My little Color Skopar does too to my eye. There is also an APO 28mm from Voigtlander arriving this year which promises to be fantastic. The Q28 has excellent centre sharpness and high contrast/micro contrast which makes it look sharper than it is, the image quality tends to fall off on the periphery a bit. This may or may not be that important to you, depending on what you shoot. I also think that Leica pimp the dng files a bit more with the Q than with the M so people who are not that au fait with editing find it a bit easier to get to a pleasing final result. This might be total hogwash but it’s the impression I get when working with both sets of dng files.

Edited May 13 by costa43

[Chris W]

6 hours ago, mottykytu said:

That make the Q "Too Digital" and Clinical under some eyes

Caveat: I ended up not wanting to shoot 28mm most of the time, but when I owned it I thought the Q delivered some of the most gorgeous looking images I've ever taken. Detailed, lovely fall off and rich colours.

[3D-Kraft.com]

Faster than f/2.0: Voigtländer Nokton 28/1.5 ASPH, Thypoch Simera 28/1.4 ASPH. Both good to excellent.

But if you're tied to Leica, you can of course also buy the ridiculously expensive 28mm Summilux.

[Kiwimac]

9 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

M lenses are designed to be used with no digital correction, because they have to work on film Ms. Q lenses are designed to be used with digital optical (geometric) corrections, because they produces a better result than trying to correct both optical and chromatic aberrations with just glass. The only sensible comparison is to compare the results as they are intended to be seen.

The Q28 lens is as good as it looks, because looking at the results is the only way to evaluate it. Saying it is not good without the software correction is like saying a lens is not good because you've taken one of the glass elements out!

If that is the case the answer to the OP is no. 
 

You either have to compare the lens itself with another lens, or you have to compare the corrected images in both cases. 

[steve edmunds]

I have the Leica Q2 with its dazzling sharpness and contrast and the M262 with the 28mm elmarit version iv [ i think] and the 50mm f2.8 elmar-M which are just ok lenses it seems in Leica land.

so why do i prefer the two M lenses final result to the Q and its amazing lens? for people and scenic photography that is , if a mugger said "you can keep your Q2 or your M262 but hand over one of them"  he or she would be making off with my Q2 .

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Kiwimac said:

If that is the case the answer to the OP is no. 
 

You either have to compare the lens itself with another lens, or you have to compare the corrected images in both cases. 

You only have to compare the final output with all the necessary software corrections applied. Software correction can improve the output's overall IQ,

[Fleabag]

vor 22 Stunden schrieb Chris W:

The image out of the Q is slightly wider (more content).

I've recently seen a video where a reviewer contacted Leica about this and whether the Q actually has a wider lens (sorry, don't remember who it was). Leica replied that the Q has indeed a 28mm lens and the difference is due to focus breathing. At infinity, the Q should basically show the same content as the Summilux 28. Sadly, the reviewer didn't test this.

[Kiwimac]

On 5/14/2025 at 8:20 AM, 3D-Kraft.com said:

Faster than f/2.0: Voigtländer Nokton 28/1.5 ASPH, Thypoch Simera 28/1.4 ASPH. Both good to excellent.

But if you're tied to Leica, you can of course also buy the ridiculously expensive 28mm Summilux.

Or find a good second hand one. I just picked up a mint one for slightly less than the cost of a new 28 Cron. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Chris W]

21 hours ago, Fleabag said:

I've recently seen a video where a reviewer contacted Leica about this and whether the Q actually has a wider lens (sorry, don't remember who it was). Leica replied that the Q has indeed a 28mm lens and the difference is due to focus breathing. At infinity, the Q should basically show the same content as the Summilux 28. Sadly, the reviewer didn't test this.

I don't know. I compared my M28mm and Q at different distances and f stops and the Q image was always wider.