nehemiahphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
I am a little late for this thread…
I am going to respectfully disagree with you on this one. I’ve shot the GM 24 since launch, and owned multiple copies of the ZM 35/1.4, 35 Lux FLE and the Q2. And also lots of CV glass (at least ten of their lenses).
In terms of colors/micro-contrast, I found the FLE and 50 Lux to have “better” micro-contrast and color than the Q2 (at least centrally. Outside the central part of the frame, the 35 Lux and 50 Lux are not consistent until stopped down).
After having owned those 2, I was initially a bit disappointed with punch of the Q2. I checked my impression with Fred, who had the same experience. He also found his 28/1.4 Lux to have a little extra juice over the Q2 lux. I haven’t shot the 28/1.4 Lux so have no comment on that, but trust Fred. Fred also tested the Q2 lux, and I think he found it to be 25.7mm or so uncorrected, but someone else can dig up that thread and see if my memory serves.
In addition to the difference in micro-contrast, there is also a different warmer/more tonal digital feel to the Q2 files in my experience. I like the Q2 files very much though, and better than the GM in terms of color and contrast and overall tonal rendition. I made a more extensive comparison a GM 24 + a7x and Q2 in the post linked above.
But, long story short, the 35/50 Lux have some of the best micro-contrast centrally I’ve experienced. The new APO’s from CV or Leica may be better yet, but I haven’t shot them. I’ve owned the GM 35 as well, and while I think it’s as sharp as any of them, the files feel flatter to me. You’ll read that somewhat frequently with that lens. Similar to the 55 ZA, though it resolves quite well. I also shot the CV 35/1.7, another lenses in terms of pure resolution is really special and neck-and-neck with the ZM 35/1.4, but again Fred did crops tome time ago and the CV 35/1.7 has less micro-contrast. Files definitely feel flatter. Some will just process around that or aren’t that sensitive to it, but I have found you can’t really bring back what isn’t there. But that’s another discussion.
I ran test side by side between a 35 FLE and ZM 35 on a modded sensor (so native performance). Again, centrally, the FLE was on par or even a bit ahead with ZM 35/1.4 at portrait distance, but is had more LoCal, a different color palate, and falls apart outside the central area. The FLE needs till 2.8 to resolve deep into the corners, at least at 42mp.
Realistically, when shooters talks about a Leica look, at least with modern Leica’s, much of it comes down to tonal rendition and contrast. This is why I often enjoy Voigt’s less than some. Zeiss and CV’s and GM’s are often objectively comparable or best Leica’s, but in real world shooting files often feel different. And a shooter might find that they prefer GM’s to Leica or Zeiss to CV, etc. And each lens needs to be taken on it’s own basis too. And not just in terms of sample variation. Zeiss glass isn’t really consistent in terms of tonal palate and micro- contrasts between the Loxias, ZM, Batis and ZA in similar specs even when they are all being manufactured and sold at the same time in my experience.
For my preference/experience:
35 FLE/ZM35/1.4> Q28 > GM 24 > CV
So, to get back to it. I think the Q2 has a distinct look which is different than some other Leica M lenses currently in production. Perhaps that’s because of different optical formula or coating or glass or whatever. I found the 50 and 35 Lux rendered very much like each other, and those files look like the 28 Lux to me as well. The Q2 has s nice look but is not fast or distinctive. That camera is more about the small size + lovely usability and build with a solid lens in a FL we don’t have a lot of options.
I like the RX1 Sonnar better. The Q2 does have a look, but not a super strong one. I always like Leica’s coatings, esp for b/w.
Edited on Dec 07, 2023 at 06:34 PM · View previous versions
|
.