Landscape Photographers - Q3 28/43 as Main Cameras?

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A genuine question: Do you landscape photographers always prefer W/A lenses?

If so, why?

Disclosure: I am speaking as a 'non' landscape photographer and frequently use longer lenses for same.

[Advertisement]

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

[Stephen_C]

4 hours ago, erl said:

Do you landscape photographers always prefer W/A lenses?

I prefer to carry one, reasonably light, camera now when doing landscape work. The fact that it comes with a wide angle lens dictates the sort of landscape work I do. When I carried my Canon(s) I frequently used to use medium telephoto lenses for landscape work (in addition to wide angle lenses) and, of course, then took photos that I could not now really repeat with my Q3.

However, for me, the key point is the pleasure of walking with the reasonably light Leica and no additional lenses. I do not often find myself hampered in any way in taking the photos I wish to take. Of course, others may well have different views (and better muscles!).

Stephen

[Pavel V]

Definitely.

Moved from GFX 100 II + 20-35 and 55/1.7 to Q3 + Q3 43. 

I do agree that in some cases q3 28 is not wide enough, however it's always with you .

Only missing tele option. Crop doesn't help (nor 28 nor 43) . For landscape with tele FOV of long tele is required.  

[JTLeica]

4 hours ago, erl said:

A genuine question: Do you landscape photographers always prefer W/A lenses?

If so, why?

Disclosure: I am speaking as a 'non' landscape photographer and frequently use longer lenses for same.

I dont personally. 

Some things you do really need wide like for astro, 20mm or so is great. But for other photography with a subject that isnt the sky, 28-50 is my preferred.

 

[Oxfordian]

My Q3 is my carry everywhere camera, it is used for Landscapes, Urban, Street, Portraits and so on, I bought it specifically to be my jack of all camera, so far it has succeeded very well.

However, I have found that where I want to capture distant subjects or isolate something then the wide angle aspect of the Q3's lens doesn't always work so I dig out my SL2 and a mix of AF or MF lenses to capture the image I was after. As an example there was a recent steam railway gala locally, the Q3 was great for shots up close or showing the trains in the landscape but when I wanted isolate subjects from the background I found that my Lumix 85mm or manual focus Nikon 135mm enabled me to get the image I wanted.

The longest lens that I now own is that 135mm AiS Nikkor lens, my days of lugging a big camera kit are over, my long telephoto and zoom lenses are gone, when I leave the house what I need for a day out of photography must be contained within a Billingham Hadley shoulder bag - usually my Q3 plus SL2 and a lens, where I am going and the subject matter will determine what is on the SL2.

I spent so many years having a well full F-Stop backpack strapped to my back, puffing and panting up hill and down dale to my chosen location, now I revel in the freedom that the Q3 gives me, I did wonder if I would miss those zoom lenses or the detail isolating telephoto's but so far I don't. The picture below show that the Q3 can be used for landscapes (okay a seascape) and good results can be easily obtained. 

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!

Edited May 27 by Oxfordian

[SrMi]

Check out LFI's Landscape Gallery. Plenty of Qs are being used.

[MFT-Lehrling]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes for landscape the Q-Line is such a good choice!
The first Q116 brought me to the 1 camera, 1 lens& focal length philosophy, which i find still the most rewarding thing. Especially for landscape, i find the 28mm (26mm "ish") the most versatile. Got the Q2 and now Q3. Each iteration an improvement over the last one... sometimes i miss not having a 50 or 90mm... but not having 28mm would hurt more. Plus side is also the small filters that are possible (i rarely use them, but still the option is nice).


 

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!

[ravinj]

16 hours ago, erl said:

A genuine question: Do you landscape photographers always prefer W/A lenses?

If so, why?

Disclosure: I am speaking as a 'non' landscape photographer and frequently use longer lenses for same.

No. I prefer longer focal lengths in general for landscapes. Some of my best photographs in Grand Canyon were with the Leica R 180mm. In Iceland, it was the Sony 100-400GM that gave me the images that I like. 

[erl]

Having asked the question and got many and varied answers, all valid, thank you. I come to the conclusion that most (not all) of you are 'gear' driven when it comes to your choice of what to carry. To me this seems to dictate and restrict the type of image you will get. Clearly such practitioners are happy with the result, so what else matters?

In my own case, I am mainly 'motif' driven. The subject dictates to me what lens, and maybe camera, I will employ. Essentially, I frequently suffer for my craft by deliberately carrying more gear than may be necessary, but the suffering pays off. I do get unexpected images that a 'one lens' scenario would fail to gather. The general concept of the Q series does appeal to me and I have contemplated it many times, but always challenge myself with the fact that I can closely replicate a Q with one of my M's plus the appropriate lens. Perhaps the time is coming when I cannot/will not carry my current load and be reduced to something Q like. Till then, I will enjoy maximum flexibility and continue with my rationalization. 🤩

[ravinj]

20 minutes ago, erl said:

Perhaps the time is coming when I cannot/will not carry my current load

If it works for you and you can carry the gear, then why not!

For me that time has come now - while I can still carry the load, I have decided not to. There was a time when I hiked with the Leica S2 and S lenses + tripod for miles in Glacier National Park.

I have now "compromised" - one camera body and a maximum of two lenses for most of the shooting. I add Panasonic G9 + Olympus 75 F1.8 or Pana-Leica 50-200 as long tele options if needed for places like Yellowstone. Both are small and light lenses compared to FF equivalents. I have been stunned at times with the quality from the G9 + Oly 75 and have to do a double take to make sure that it is really a "small' MFT sensor and not a FF. 

In any case, I would not carry only one single camera for dedicated photography trips, no matter how good it is, as I believe in having redundancy. Things fail and I would hate to be in Yosemite with that one camera that failed and no backup. 

[ianforber]

18 hours ago, erl said:

Having asked the question and got many and varied answers, all valid, thank you. I come to the conclusion that most (not all) of you are 'gear' driven when it comes to your choice of what to carry. To me this seems to dictate and restrict the type of image you will get. Clearly such practitioners are happy with the result, so what else matters?

I hadn’t thought of it like that. You may be right. What I think I’m doing is using the gear that I know will get me what I’m looking for. In this instance it’s my Q2. I was briefly seduced into buying a M11 with 50mm and 35mm lenses, in part because I told myself the slightly smaller size and having the option to remove the lens would help. It didn’t. I didn’t like using it as much as my previous Mamiya 7II or my Q2 so I sold it. I suspect that means I am vulnerable to gear choice!

[o2mpx]

On 5/27/2025 at 6:33 AM, Oxfordian said:

My Q3 is my carry everywhere camera, it is used for Landscapes, Urban, Street, Portraits and so on, I bought it specifically to be my jack of all camera, so far it has succeeded very well.

However, I have found that where I want to capture distant subjects or isolate something then the wide angle aspect of the Q3's lens doesn't always work so I dig out my SL2 and a mix of AF or MF lenses to capture the image I was after. As an example there was a recent steam railway gala locally, the Q3 was great for shots up close or showing the trains in the landscape but when I wanted isolate subjects from the background I found that my Lumix 85mm or manual focus Nikon 135mm enabled me to get the image I wanted.

The longest lens that I now own is that 135mm AiS Nikkor lens, my days of lugging a big camera kit are over, my long telephoto and zoom lenses are gone, when I leave the house what I need for a day out of photography must be contained within a Billingham Hadley shoulder bag - usually my Q3 plus SL2 and a lens, where I am going and the subject matter will determine what is on the SL2.

I spent so many years having a well full F-Stop backpack strapped to my back, puffing and panting up hill and down dale to my chosen location, now I revel in the freedom that the Q3 gives me, I did wonder if I would miss those zoom lenses or the detail isolating telephoto's but so far I don't. The picture below show that the Q3 can be used for landscapes (okay a seascape) and good results can be easily obtained. 

If the objective is versatility and light weight, there’re likely 3 options in the table. 1. Q2/3 28+43, 2. Q3 for wide and M10 or 11/SL2 or 3 with 90+135, 3. M body and lenses 28+50+90+135?

[S Maclean]

On 5/27/2025 at 3:44 AM, erl said:

A genuine question: Do you landscape photographers always prefer W/A lenses?

If so, why?

Disclosure: I am speaking as a 'non' landscape photographer and frequently use longer lenses for same.

Not at all, It really depends on what the shot is. SOmetimes Wide Angle lenses really don’t work. Very open landscapes with the subject (tree/mountain range etc) at some distance ant no anchor in the foreground can become very flat. In this case a longer lens can compress the foreground a little and get a better composition.  Same thing where there are several points of interst that combine into the shot and compression can balance better.  Even on closer  envrironments a longer lens can bring a perspective and dimension wide angle doesnt.

For shots where there are more interesting anchors in foreground and background, or shots that need a wider refference then, yes, WA is the way to go.

[S Maclean]

On 5/27/2025 at 3:23 PM, MFT-Lehrling said:

Yes for landscape the Q-Line is such a good choice!
The first Q116 brought me to the 1 camera, 1 lens& focal length philosophy, which i find still the most rewarding thing. Especially for landscape, i find the 28mm (26mm "ish") the most versatile. Got the Q2 and now Q3. Each iteration an improvement over the last one... sometimes i miss not having a 50 or 90mm... but not having 28mm would hurt more. Plus side is also the small filters that are possible (i rarely use them, but still the option is nice).


 

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!

Absolutely gorgeus pictures. Such clarity!

[Sandokan]

On 5/23/2025 at 12:16 PM, JTLeica said:

Whilst the SL3 is my 'main' camera, the 43mm Q3 and the 28mm Q3 are absolutely awesome for landscapes. Personally I like tighter framing for most pictures to the 43mm would be the one I would keep if I had to chose one only.

But, the 28mm is a little more flexible.

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!

What are the locations of the 4 landscapes?

[brickftl]

agreed the Q3 is great for landscape. Years ago I took my original Q and no other camera/lenses on a hiking trip to Scotland - it was perfect both for landscape and street. https://brick.smugmug.com/Travel/2018-9-London-Scotland

Here's one of the images

 

 

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!

[chris_tribble]

Just to add to this interesting conversation, I went for a walk this morning around a headland called Jenny Brown's Point on Morcambe Bay.  A mix of woodland paths and views over the bay.  The Q3 43 was a perfect companion. This time I used native 43 and crop 75.  The files sit perfectly alongside one another. I added Exif data to these images to illustrate the point.

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!

 

[luisdent]

If i might chime in. I shoot a fuji xt5 with 18 1.4, 33 1.4, 56 1.2, 90 f2, and 55-200 mostly. I found that a significant number of my shots are the 18 1.4 and 33 1.4. (28 and 50 ff equivalent roughly).

Ultimately this led me to getting a q3. While I haven't used it much yet, as I just got it, I can say that for me personally there is no one lens fits all solution and never will be. I literally did the stats of all of my photos of the last few years. And these are the statistics that I found:

(Apsc fl)

18mm 51.6%

33mm 18.4%

56mm 20.5%

90mm 4.8%

200mm 5.1%

I'm sort of a geek, so I will say that this data is very context driven and this is encompassing only my keepers not every shot I ever took. After I cull all my images down as much as possible, this is what I end up with. 

So here's the challenge, even though 5% of my photos have been taken at 200mm, some of them are my favorite shots I've ever taken. So how do you quantify the value of that focal length? For me that is very difficult since the percentage of shots is so low I'm tempted to say I won't need a telephoto lens at all. And yet when I look at a handful of shots in the last few years that I really love from my 200mm, I have a hard time parting with it. 

And who says I have to? 

However, what I have also found over the years is that I hate changing lenses. I played with carrying two cameras for a while and that had benefits and drawbacks. If the cameras were small enough I might say that is my preferred option (q3 28/43 anyone?), but ultimately I ended up using the XT5 and changing lenses. Over the years I've got to the point where I generally carry two to three lenses max. I can almost guarantee that every trip will contain the 18 1.4. depending on where I'm going I will add the 33 1.4 and or something more telephoto depending on the subject matter. 

But more and more I find I am simply using the 18 1.4 with the 33 1.4 as a two lens combo. As you can see from my statistics this covers roughly 70% of all of my photos. But there's one more caveat, the 56mm percentage is a bit skewed because I do portraits shoots where the 56 excels. However, I've come to love the 33 for portraits too.. So if I were to use only my personal photography the number would definitely be skewed more towards the 33 instead of the 56. Of course the 56 (85 FF) focal length gives superb portrait results. But the point being that probably 70% or more of my photos are those two lenses. Further, for EDC and general day-to-day photography I have gotten to where I only use the 18 1.4. I'll be honest, I prefer a 50 mm FF "look"  more than a 28 mm FF look (which makes the q3 43 sexy). However with a wide enough aperture the overall benefits of the versatility of a wider field of view are worth leaning on that focal length more for me. 

So with all of that said, my point is just that I shoot everything from landscape to portrait, and I think the fuji 18 1.4 does astonishingly well for what it is. I do have the 16 to 55 2.8 MK2, and there are times 16 mm is nice depending on the landscape. But you could say the same for 55 mm. But in the end there is no single focal length to cover every situation. However, I've personally been getting more and more comfortable with the idea that covering 80% of all photos with a high quality lens that is compact is worth the sacrifice to not have to carry significantly more weight, size, and hassle of lens changing, sensor cleaning, etc 

So here I am about to embark on a journey with a Q3. I'm probably not getting rid of my Fuji system, but my goal is to use the Q3 as much as possible and only use the Fuji when I absolutely need more portrait oriented lenses or I know that I'm going to need telephoto for something specific such as a certain event for instance. But I'm going to attempt to use the Q3 for all of my travel and general photography, which will probably be at least 80% of all of my photography. 

In conclusion, I would argue that in my experience the 28 mm of the Q3 is probably the best all-around landscape lens. I'm not a fan of super wide lenses as they cause a lot of distortion and make the subject look very far away in distant. Of course they are excellent if you're trying to exaggerate the sky or certain features. But I prefer a more what you see is what you get landscape style. And I think 28 mm does well with that. You can also do panoramas and the Q3 allows pretty generous cropping as well so you have a decent amount of flexibility. No, you won't get any telephoto lighthouses or bird shots or anything, but that's a trade off I'm willing to make at this point. And we'll see how it goes. So to answer the question, I'd say the Q3 is a go for landscapes! Wooh!

If you read all this, I'm impressed.

com.google.android.apps.docs.editors.trix.editors.clipboard?uuid=acab13b0-00e0-4906-a8ca-b0376ec72a5e

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[M11 for me]

Am 28.5.2025 um 02:58 schrieb erl:

I come to the conclusion that most (not all) of you are 'gear' driven when it comes to your choice of what to carry.

That is an interesting finding and whennI think of me its absolutely correct.

When I think back about 20 years (I was a bit younger then but you too) it was the greatest to carry with me the 24-70 2,8 plus the 70-200 2,8 (weight!!) and I "needed" that for landscape. I owned a beautiful backpack. And I suffered from the weight. Only the emoty backpack was heavier than my whole Leica stuff I have normally with me. So I learned to have only 2 or 3 Leica lenses with my M and got used to that very soon. 

Gear driven? Absolutely.

But the important thing is that I liked the outcome with only fixed focal lengths.

Then it got even better: A while ago I got a Q3 28 to test while my wife had her Q2. We planned a trip to Ireland and I wondered back and forth if I should take my M or the Q3 (or both). And eventually I decided to take the Q3 only.

My point now is that I missed nothing. In post I croped sometimes, of course. The 28 got my main lens in the meantime on the M as well. 

[erl]

1 hour ago, M11 for me said:

That is an interesting finding and whennI think of me its absolutely correct.

When I think back about 20 years (I was a bit younger then but you too) it was the greatest to carry with me the 24-70 2,8 plus the 70-200 2,8 (weight!!) and I "needed" that for landscape. I owned a beautiful backpack. And I suffered from the weight. Only the emoty backpack was heavier than my whole Leica stuff I have normally with me. So I learned to have only 2 or 3 Leica lenses with my M and got used to that very soon. 

Gear driven? Absolutely.

But the important thing is that I liked the outcome with only fixed focal lengths.

Then it got even better: A while ago I got a Q3 28 to test while my wife had her Q2. We planned a trip to Ireland and I wondered back and forth if I should take my M or the Q3 (or both). And eventually I decided to take the Q3 only.

My point now is that I missed nothing. In post I croped sometimes, of course. The 28 got my main lens in the meantime on the M as well. 

Ah! History. Yes, I too caried almost the exact gear combo around the UK and Europe for three months, in the largest Billingham bag imaginable. It did nearly kill me, but I have never regretted it. These days I 'test' myself carrying a comprehensive Hasselblad kit, but only for half a day! I still believe in having a good choice of gear on each venture, but have developed 'clever' ways to manage it. I refuse to accept that I will not always be able to do it, but of course I know I am wrong.😂