I too did a test how wide the lens on my Q3 is and my estimation, comparing it to the Fujifilm X16/1.4, was that it is around 26mm. Which you confirm here. I think it is actually a corrected 24mm lens which results in an image like a 26mm.
I have tested it against a 24mm Sigma E-Mount lens and it has almost exactly the same field of view. Nearer 24 than 26mm in my opinion. As a result I mostly shoot raw plus jpeg, the jpeg using the 35mm frame, so I get the widest from raw for processing if required and the 35mm equivalent crop from jpeg. Plenty of resolution even on the Q2 to crop even to 50mm equivalent or longer if necessary.
Good video! I recently got the Q2M and I had a little difficulty focusing at first. I think I’ll settle on spot of field on AF and zone manual focusing- not multi field. I’m confused about one thing I think you said when you switched to A on the aperture ring. Did you say “aperture priority”? I think the A stands for auto aperture and aperture priority would be when you set the aperture yourself when using the ring to move from 1.7 to 16. Am I confused? Thanks. Geoff
A means automatic. If you put the aperture ring on A and the shutter wheel on A you are in P mode… if you put the aperture ring on A (automatic) an set the shutter ring on manual you are in shutter priority…. If you set the shutter ring on A and set the aperture manually you are in aperture priority. I mostly work with shutter set on A and manually choose my aperture.
as a new leica user which bought the Q3 as my new Leica camera I would appreciate a tutorial for new cameras to leica from the canon world especially hoe to change or set tv priority or F priority
Tried it alongside the Fuji 18mm f/1.4 which is pretty much a 28mm f/2.1 equiv, and I found the Q2 much wider. Probably 25/26mm. Lens manufacturers always round up/down numbers so I'm not surprised (e.g. 574mm = 600mm or something), but simply thought that for such a price, they could have made it a true 28 with no distortion. Christopher Frost's video shows how badly this lens is distorted, and I think I prefer the Fuji 18mm f/1.4 or Viltrox 28mm f/1.8 on Sony E mount both of which have far less distortion and better corner sharpness. I think for the same price, I would get a used M10 + Voigtlander 28mm f/2 or f/1.5 with spare change at the end.
@@flofroschmayer Yeah no AF. But I'm ok with that. I tried the M11 and it was amazing, I just need to save for it. I shoot film too so manual focus isn't a huge issue for me. The lack of macro capabilities is where alternative kits like a Sony would fit in. It will be a slight pain, but tradeoffs I guess.
I've got the Q2M which I absolutely love. But it has a strong disappointment, and having the same lens as the Q3 this should also happen here. In really special light conditions, when it is dark with artifical light from a certain angle from above, there will be a really ugly Moire like effect. It has the shape of the distortion of the lens. This happens from the builtin lens correction, and applications like lightroom which apply the correction will show this effect. It is impossible to get rid of it in the picture unless you drop the blacks really low, or export it with only a low resolution. It occurs in perhaps 2 percent of the taken pictures I had, but if there is a keeper in it, you can hardly use it.
I have not experienced this yet, but I will try to recreate it to see. Does the aperture settings or the focus distance have any influence? Do you work with the lens hood attached?
@@flofroschmayer Apurte and focus don't matter as far as I know. Lens hood is not attached, this could maybe make a difference, I will try. Most of the time this is not visible in the preview of the picture in Lightroom, only after the export in the jpeg. Unfortunately there is no possibility in CZcams to comment with a picture, then I could show it.
Hey@@MarioGaab! You'll find an email link in my channel information. I would be very interested in seeing the sample. And be sure to use the lens hood; I am pretty sure it will help you solve the problem... or at least make it better.
It depends… I have my phases… at the moment it is more Q… but I am sure sometimes in the next few weeks it will be M again. I am happy to have the opportunity to have both phases!
as a new leica user which bought the Q3 as my new Leica camera I would appreciate a tutorial for new cameras to leica from the canon world especially how to change or set The camera to tv priority or to 😊F priority
Great review. Really enjoyed your unusual approach. I have lusted after a Q for a couple of years now. Totally unnecessary. Totally desirable. Your review has taken me a big step closer to being $10,000 poorer 😬
A 28mm is not an ideal focal length for portraits! At least not for head shots. I would recommend 50mm or even longer... The macro funktion is fantastic. I like it a lot and I am using it both for details of objects and plants.
@@a.k.1960 I use the GR3 and take portraits with no issues. You just need to understand how distance affects the parallax distortion so don't shoot at close distances. I like 28mm for environmental portraits as it has a lot more context than a 50mm for example.
That makes sense. I tested it against a Sigma 24mm on E-Mount at between 3 and 4 m and got nearer 24mm equivalent than 26. Also tested against 12mm M4/3 lens which also gave almost exactly the same view. I have not tried it at infinity as the focus breathing effect did not occur to me. To be honest I’m more a 35 to 40mm man day to day and use my Q2 for shooting raw and jpeg, the jpeg usually using the cropping frames for 28, or more often 35 or 50mm. That way I have the maximum versatility in the saved images as there is always the 28mm raw to fall back on.
He says it as it is but I disagree with him about the ease of accidentally slipping into Auto aperture setting for one thing. I’ve never had that issue. Agree with the focus lock switch being rather fiddly but its a matter experience and muscle memory for both matters in my opinion. Don’t get upset about other people’s opinion about ‘stuff’. I couldn’t care less whether people like what I like or not, especially as I probably don’t like what they do anyway.
@@quite1enough Nobody else mentions that because it is such a compact lens for a f1.7 that there is bound to be the modern convention of in-camera correction. Not so much in raw where correction is expected in post processing. It’s certainly a ‘different’ camera and lens to so many others, which is what makes it so fascinating in my opinion. Value for money? It depends on where you stand with regards to disposable income and your priorities in life. Must admit that mine is purely an indulgence and only used occasionally, so whether it is technically superior or not just doesn’t figure. I have far more sophisticated and rugged cameras, smaller and bigger with interchangeable lenses. My A7III for instance is technically far superior apart from its megapixels and EVF and no larger with a Sigma 24mm lens fitted. Significantly better in low light and high iso. Just different and I love the different experiences. Sorry for the ramble. Nothing better to do this morning.
Falls das tatsächlich eines der besten Leica Objektive sein soll, dann baut Leica keine besonders guten Objektive. Die Ecken werden nie richtig scharf, auch nicht wenn man abblendet und die Verzeichnung und Randabschattung ist ziemlich stark. Tatsächlich ist das eines der schlechtesten Objektive in dieser Preisklasse. Für Profis nicht wirklich geeignet.
Okay... sehe ich anders, bzw. differenzierter. Ich besitze diverse Leica Linsen... aber diese ist die einzige, die so kompakt ist, gleichzeitig eine Makro Funktion hat und AF... dafür finde ich sie schon aussergewöhnlich gut und habe sie auch im professionellen Einsatz.
@@flofroschmayer "... auch im professionellen Einsatz." Und den Auftraggebern reicht die doch sehr bescheidene Bildqualität? Ich kenne jedenfalls keinen einzigen Profi, der mit einer digitalen Leica professionelle Kundenaufträge fotografiert. Das macht doch keinen Sinn.
Gute Erklärung Florian 🥰
Sehr gerne! Danke fürs Kompliment!
I too did a test how wide the lens on my Q3 is and my estimation, comparing it to the Fujifilm X16/1.4, was that it is around 26mm. Which you confirm here. I think it is actually a corrected 24mm lens which results in an image like a 26mm.
Wow. Okay. A 24… in the end it is just a fantastic lens.
I have tested it against a 24mm Sigma E-Mount lens and it has almost exactly the same field of view. Nearer 24 than 26mm in my opinion. As a result I mostly shoot raw plus jpeg, the jpeg using the 35mm frame, so I get the widest from raw for processing if required and the 35mm equivalent crop from jpeg. Plenty of resolution even on the Q2 to crop even to 50mm equivalent or longer if necessary.
Good video! I recently got the Q2M and I had a little difficulty focusing at first. I think I’ll settle on spot of field on AF and zone manual focusing- not multi field. I’m confused about one thing I think you said when you switched to A on the aperture ring. Did you say “aperture priority”? I think the A stands for auto aperture and aperture priority would be when you set the aperture yourself when using the ring to move from 1.7 to 16. Am I confused? Thanks. Geoff
A means automatic. If you put the aperture ring on A and the shutter wheel on A you are in P mode… if you put the aperture ring on A (automatic) an set the shutter ring on manual you are in shutter priority…. If you set the shutter ring on A and set the aperture manually you are in aperture priority. I mostly work with shutter set on A and manually choose my aperture.
Thank you
Thank you!!
as a new leica user which bought the Q3 as my new Leica camera I would appreciate a tutorial for new cameras to leica from the canon world especially hoe to change or set tv priority or F priority
see my other anwser
Tried it alongside the Fuji 18mm f/1.4 which is pretty much a 28mm f/2.1 equiv, and I found the Q2 much wider. Probably 25/26mm. Lens manufacturers always round up/down numbers so I'm not surprised (e.g. 574mm = 600mm or something), but simply thought that for such a price, they could have made it a true 28 with no distortion. Christopher Frost's video shows how badly this lens is distorted, and I think I prefer the Fuji 18mm f/1.4 or Viltrox 28mm f/1.8 on Sony E mount both of which have far less distortion and better corner sharpness.
I think for the same price, I would get a used M10 + Voigtlander 28mm f/2 or f/1.5 with spare change at the end.
That is sure one way to go... but you won't have the AF and the Macro possibilities...
@@flofroschmayer Yeah no AF. But I'm ok with that. I tried the M11 and it was amazing, I just need to save for it. I shoot film too so manual focus isn't a huge issue for me. The lack of macro capabilities is where alternative kits like a Sony would fit in. It will be a slight pain, but tradeoffs I guess.
I've got the Q2M which I absolutely love. But it has a strong disappointment, and having the same lens as the Q3 this should also happen here. In really special light conditions, when it is dark with artifical light from a certain angle from above, there will be a really ugly Moire like effect. It has the shape of the distortion of the lens. This happens from the builtin lens correction, and applications like lightroom which apply the correction will show this effect. It is impossible to get rid of it in the picture unless you drop the blacks really low, or export it with only a low resolution. It occurs in perhaps 2 percent of the taken pictures I had, but if there is a keeper in it, you can hardly use it.
I have not experienced this yet, but I will try to recreate it to see. Does the aperture settings or the focus distance have any influence? Do you work with the lens hood attached?
@@flofroschmayer Apurte and focus don't matter as far as I know. Lens hood is not attached, this could maybe make a difference, I will try. Most of the time this is not visible in the preview of the picture in Lightroom, only after the export in the jpeg. Unfortunately there is no possibility in CZcams to comment with a picture, then I could show it.
Hey@@MarioGaab! You'll find an email link in my channel information. I would be very interested in seeing the sample. And be sure to use the lens hood; I am pretty sure it will help you solve the problem... or at least make it better.
What do you take more often the Q or the M?
It depends… I have my phases… at the moment it is more Q… but I am sure sometimes in the next few weeks it will be M again. I am happy to have the opportunity to have both phases!
as a new leica user which bought the Q3 as my new Leica camera I would appreciate a tutorial for new cameras to leica from the canon world especially how to change or set The camera to tv priority or to 😊F priority
Unfortunately I have no experience with Canon cameras.... but I am happy to look into a tutorial video for the Q3 in the future.
Please compare this lens to the Summilux-m f/1.4
I would love to do that, but I don't own a 28mm Summilux M lens at this moment... If I ever get my hands on one I will do a comparison.
Great review. Really enjoyed your unusual approach. I have lusted after a Q for a couple of years now. Totally unnecessary. Totally desirable. Your review has taken me a big step closer to being $10,000 poorer 😬
...and hopefully happier as a Q3 owner...!
28 mm is ok for street & landscapes but how does it fare for portraits & macro ? I didn't find any one talking about this.
A 28mm is not an ideal focal length for portraits! At least not for head shots. I would recommend 50mm or even longer... The macro funktion is fantastic. I like it a lot and I am using it both for details of objects and plants.
@@flofroschmayer thank you. I understand Q3 is not for portraits.
@@a.k.1960 I use the GR3 and take portraits with no issues. You just need to understand how distance affects the parallax distortion so don't shoot at close distances. I like 28mm for environmental portraits as it has a lot more context than a 50mm for example.
@@professionalpotato4764 thank you.
The Q3 lens has a breathing focus, so it is only 28 at Infiniti and closer to 24 up close at 30 cm
Okay… thank you for this information!
That makes sense. I tested it against a Sigma 24mm on E-Mount at between 3 and 4 m and got nearer 24mm equivalent than 26. Also tested against 12mm M4/3 lens which also gave almost exactly the same view. I have not tried it at infinity as the focus breathing effect did not occur to me. To be honest I’m more a 35 to 40mm man day to day and use my Q2 for shooting raw and jpeg, the jpeg usually using the cropping frames for 28, or more often 35 or 50mm. That way I have the maximum versatility in the saved images as there is always the 28mm raw to fall back on.
Recent Christopher Frost review of Q3 lens is rather upsetting to be honest ;(
Okay. I see it differently… not on every point, but at some.
He says it as it is but I disagree with him about the ease of accidentally slipping into Auto aperture setting for one thing. I’ve never had that issue. Agree with the focus lock switch being rather fiddly but its a matter experience and muscle memory for both matters in my opinion. Don’t get upset about other people’s opinion about ‘stuff’. I couldn’t care less whether people like what I like or not, especially as I probably don’t like what they do anyway.
@@hedydd2 my main concern was the amount of lens distortion ;c
@@quite1enough Nobody else mentions that because it is such a compact lens for a f1.7 that there is bound to be the modern convention of in-camera correction. Not so much in raw where correction is expected in post processing. It’s certainly a ‘different’ camera and lens to so many others, which is what makes it so fascinating in my opinion. Value for money? It depends on where you stand with regards to disposable income and your priorities in life. Must admit that mine is purely an indulgence and only used occasionally, so whether it is technically superior or not just doesn’t figure. I have far more sophisticated and rugged cameras, smaller and bigger with interchangeable lenses. My A7III for instance is technically far superior apart from its megapixels and EVF and no larger with a Sigma 24mm lens fitted. Significantly better in low light and high iso. Just different and I love the different experiences. Sorry for the ramble. Nothing better to do this morning.
@@hedydd2 that's totally fine don't be sorry, I can be a hit rambly as well ^^
Falls das tatsächlich eines der besten Leica Objektive sein soll, dann baut Leica keine besonders guten Objektive. Die Ecken werden nie richtig scharf, auch nicht wenn man abblendet und die Verzeichnung und Randabschattung ist ziemlich stark. Tatsächlich ist das eines der schlechtesten Objektive in dieser Preisklasse. Für Profis nicht wirklich geeignet.
Okay... sehe ich anders, bzw. differenzierter. Ich besitze diverse Leica Linsen... aber diese ist die einzige, die so kompakt ist, gleichzeitig eine Makro Funktion hat und AF... dafür finde ich sie schon aussergewöhnlich gut und habe sie auch im professionellen Einsatz.
@@flofroschmayer "... auch im professionellen Einsatz." Und den Auftraggebern reicht die doch sehr bescheidene Bildqualität? Ich kenne jedenfalls keinen einzigen Profi, der mit einer digitalen Leica professionelle Kundenaufträge fotografiert. Das macht doch keinen Sinn.
"Why the Summilux 28mm is one of the best Leica Lenses!"
It's not.
In my world it is... but there are different worlds ;-)