luisdent wrote:
I've tried to read as much of this thread as possible, and the lens looks superb, but can someone summarize how this compares to the leica q3 28 lens? I have and LOVE that lens. And I also shoot fuji. And man, I wish there was something in between. Other than autofocus, this looks like it could pair with the sony a7rc very well and be similar in size to the q3 but then give me the option of longer focal lengths as well. But I'm very used to the fuji 18 1.4 and then the q3, and it's hard to go back to the fuji after the q3 lens. But I keep it for the other lenses (33, 56, 90, etc.)
Having the sony and this lens would fulfil my 75% EDC use case, and i could easily get another lens or two to match the fuji 33/56. And gain the benefits of FF and better tech. But.... I really don't want to gain a lot of size. So this looks appealing. Would it compare well to the q3?...Show more →
If you compare MTF tests (supplied by the manufacturers) of the two lenses, you'll note that the 28/2 Apo Lanthar has a more even rendition across the frame. Both are very sharp. The overall rendering of the 28/2 Apo Lanthar is very pleasant too (see Fred tests).
Therefore, my feeling (based on tests, picture galleries, etc., i.e., not on side-by-side shots) is that the Apo Lanthar is an equally good lens (at least) but MF only. Of course, a MILC is a much more versatile tool than a fixed-lens camera, like your Q3 ...
luisdent wrote:
I've tried to read as much of this thread as possible, and the lens looks superb, but can someone summarize how this compares to the leica q3 28 lens? I have and LOVE that lens. And I also shoot fuji. And man, I wish there was something in between. Other than autofocus, this looks like it could pair with the sony a7rc very well and be similar in size to the q3 but then give me the option of longer focal lengths as well. But I'm very used to the fuji 18 1.4 and then the q3, and it's hard to go back to the fuji after the q3 lens. But I keep it for the other lenses (33, 56, 90, etc.)
Having the sony and this lens would fulfil my 75% EDC use case, and i could easily get another lens or two to match the fuji 33/56. And gain the benefits of FF and better tech. But.... I really don't want to gain a lot of size. So this looks appealing. Would it compare well to the q3?...Show more →
In terms of blur amount, they're not that different. The Leica is labeled 28mm after the software in-camera crop, but optically it's really about 25.2mm uncropped (see the discussion here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1830361/).
So if we compare 25/1.7 vs 28/2, the Q3 still produces slightly more blur, especially when the background is far from the subject...but the difference is small. (see illustration below)
When it comes to correction, though, the CV 28/2 APO is clearly optically better controlled for CA and distortion, and it delivers higher resolution and contrast, particularly off-axis. Honestly, nothing else matches the Voigtlander 28/2 APO-Lanthar in terms of resolution, correction, and compact size. so if 28mm is your preferred FL, I highly recommend it.
With the a7cr aensor being very similar to the q3 60mp sensor (if not the same?) is there any image quality factors that would make the q3 better?
I'm strongly considering an a7cr with the 28 and 50 voigtlanders. If i need autofocus for something i can always get other sony lenses, but for all around carry this seems to match the q3 in size and optics, no?
luisdent wrote:
... is there any image quality factors that would make the q3 better?
If you're interested in shooting environmental portraits with a fast 28 mm lens, have a look at the Thypoch Simera 28/1.4: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-thypoch-simera-28mm-1-4/
For cityscapes/landscapes, the 28/2 Apo-Lanthar is unbeatable.
luisdent wrote:
With the a7cr aensor being very similar to the q3 60mp sensor (if not the same?) is there any image quality factors that would make the q3 better?
I'm strongly considering an a7cr with the 28 and 50 voigtlanders. If i need autofocus for something i can always get other sony lenses, but for all around carry this seems to match the q3 in size and optics, no?
Compared to the 7CR, the only real arguments in favor of the Q3 are the tactile feel and overall build quality. The Sony isn’t cheap or poorly made by any means, but the Q’s body and craftsmanship are on another level.
In terms of technical performance, though, the Sony will likely outperform it in most areas. The only real exceptions are the Q’s much higher-resolution EVF and its beautifully quiet leaf shutter. On the downside, it’s limited to 1/2000s mechanically.
Feb 19, 2026 at 04:56 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
In terms of blur amount, they're not that different. The Leica is labeled 28mm after the software in-camera crop, but optically it's really about 25.2mm uncropped (see the discussion here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1830361/).
So if we compare 25/1.7 vs 28/2, the Q3 still produces slightly more blur, especially when the background is far from the subject...but the difference is small. (see illustration below)
When it comes to correction, though, the CV 28/2 APO is clearly optically better controlled for CA and distortion, and it delivers higher resolution and contrast, particularly off-axis. Honestly, nothing else matches the Voigtlander 28/2 APO-Lanthar in terms of resolution, correction, and compact size. so if 28mm is your preferred FL, I highly recommend it....Show more →
Another way to think about the similarities is that Leica is pretty much cropping a 25mm lens to a 28mm lens and that is a 1.12 X crop factor, which makes the lens on the Q3 a lot like a 28mm f/1.9 lens. That isn't as accurate or precise as your graph but gives a nice simple summary of how similar the two lenses are in their capabilities.
luisdent wrote:
With the a7cr aensor being very similar to the q3 60mp sensor (if not the same?) is there any image quality factors that would make the q3 better?
I'm strongly considering an a7cr with the 28 and 50 voigtlanders. If i need autofocus for something i can always get other sony lenses, but for all around carry this seems to match the q3 in size and optics, no?
CV lenses do not open the aperture for focusing, so if you use them at f/8, your focusing aids often won’t work, and the EVF may have refresh rate issues. This is a big, but rarely mentioned, difference between these lenses and the Q3 or AF lenses. Depending on how you work, it could be nothing, or a complete showstopper.
Personally, for now, I decided that I already have both quality and compactness covered with my existing AF lenses, just not in a single lens.
I have never noticed that focus aids do not work at f8 or similar apertures. So I am not sure what you mean.
olegkin wrote:
CV lenses do not open the aperture for focusing, so if you use them at f/8, your focusing aids often won’t work, and the EVF may have refresh rate issues. This is a big, but rarely mentioned, difference between these lenses and the Q3 or AF lenses. Depending on how you work, it could be nothing, or a complete showstopper.
Personally, for now, I decided that I already have both quality and compactness covered with my existing AF lenses, just not in a single lens.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Another way to think about the similarities is that Leica is pretty much cropping a 25mm lens to a 28mm lens and that is a 1.12 X crop factor, which makes the lens on the Q3 a lot like a 28mm f/1.9 lens. That isn't as accurate or precise as your graph but gives a nice simple summary of how similar the two lenses are in their capabilities.
Yes, thanks Steve!
It's really more like comparing a 28mm f/2 to a 28mm f/1.8 when you are talking about blur. The Q 28mm behaves closer to a 25mm that's cropped to about 27mm, so you end up with roughly a 1.08x factor. When you translate that in terms of depth of field, it lines up more closely with a 28mm f/1.8 for comparison against the Voigtlander 28/2 APO.
There is a difference between f/1.8 and f/2 at 28mm, but honestly, it's pretty small. You'd have to look for it.
It's really more like comparing a 28mm f/2 to a 28mm f/1.8 when you are talking about blur. The Q 28mm behaves closer to a 25mm that's cropped to about 27mm, so you end up with roughly a 1.08x factor. When you translate that in terms of depth of field, it lines up more closely with a 28mm f/1.8 for comparison against the Voigtlander 28/2 APO.
There is a difference between f/1.8 and f/2 at 28mm, but honestly, it's pretty small. You'd have to look for it.
Okey…so, do I need VM28 f2 APO for my SLs next to my Q2 or not?
I'm not really looking for an exact match of the Q3 per se. I have the Fuji 18 1.4, so I know the Q3 is a little wider than that. That is perfectly fine. I'm just not a big fan of 35mm full frame. I find it an awkward in between. So I prefer 28mm as my main focal length with a 50mm for a little bit of separation and portraits. Truth be told, if I could only have one lens I would want a 50mm, however there are just too many times where I need something wider to get certain buildings, landscapes, etc. so I find that 28mm works great as an all around lens. I could probably use those two focal lengths for 90% of all of my photography honestly.
That was the reason I went with the Q3. And to be honest it is very close at completely replacing The Fuji 18 and 33 lenses. The 33 does give slightly more separation and resolution compared to the cropped q3, but the difference is actually not that large.
So, i figured a sony a7cr could potentially give me a similar form factor to the q3/fuji while also replacing the telephoto side of thing for that last 10%. And perhaps i could replace the q3 and my entire fuji kit with just the Sony and 3 lenses... That's my thinking anyway. I want simple, minimal, compact, but full frame quality.
RoamingScott wrote:
Focus aids at f8? Brother, there is a very reliable focus scale on the lens for f8 shooting.
"Depending on how you work, it could be nothing, or a complete showstopper."
I can barely see the scale on the lens. I only use it at infinity. But there’s no stop or click there, and the focusing ring moves quite easily on CV lenses. I have to check it after each shot. I also often focus on the near foreground, so focusing through the viewfinder is more convenient for me most of the time. But you do you.
larsbentzen wrote:
Also waiting to see if Zeiss/cosina release a new Otus 28 1.4 or if Nikon would make a Z 28mm f1.2 with autofocus…
Zeiss claimed the Otus ML series will be made mostly in different focal lengths, the latest one is a 35/1.4, so I assume a 24/1.4 might follow later on, so sadly, I'd cross that off.
Same with a Nikon 28/1.2, seems too close to the 35/1.2.
But as an owner of both the AF-S and AF-D version, a Z 28/1.4 would be more than welcome by me (one can always dream, right...?)
Feb 20, 2026 at 02:13 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
padam19 wrote:
Zeiss claimed the Otus ML series will be made mostly in different focal lengths, the latest one is a 35/1.4, so I assume a 24/1.4 might follow later on, so sadly, I'd cross that off.
Same with a Nikon 28/1.2, seems too close to the 35/1.2.
But as an owner of both the AF-S and AF-D version, a Z 28/1.4 would be more than welcome by me (one can always dream, right...?)
Given Zeiss's history with FF focal lengths, I would expect a 25 f/1.4 Otus ML rather than a 24mm. Zeiss has made a 25 f/2.8 Contax/Yashica mount lens, a 25 f/2.8 and 25 f/2 ZE/ZF mount lens, a 25 f/1.4 Milvus lens, a 25 f/2.4 Loxia E mount lens, and a 25 f/2 Batis E mount lens. I don't think they have ever made a 24mm lens. The only 24mm lenses they ever made were Sony/Zeiss and developed jointly with Sony.
I am not sure they will make an Otus ML wider than 35mm, but if they do I expect the one they would make first would be a 25mm.
Big fan of this lens so far. I've got my Sony version listed for sale in the B&S as I sold my Sony camera, but ordered the Nikon version because this is going to be my main lens for quite a bit of product work. It resolves so well that even with 200mp pixel shift it holds up. I will be interested to see some of the test charts on sites like lenstip when they review this lens.
Notably, the Nikon version is substantially larger than the Sony version and comes with a much larger lens hood. The Sony version is longer on account of the mount's flange distance, but the size difference is notable. The focus ring rotation is also backward on the Nikon lens, which I'd be interested in the reasoning for.
nhmorgan wrote:
The focus ring rotation is also backward on the Nikon lens, which I'd be interested in the reasoning for.
That's the normal direction for Nikon.
Fred Miranda wrote:
In terms of blur amount, they're not that different. The Leica is labeled 28mm after the software in-camera crop, but optically it's really about 25.2mm uncropped (see the discussion here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1830361/).
So if we compare 25/1.7 vs 28/2, the Q3 still produces slightly more blur, especially when the background is far from the subject...but the difference is small. (see illustration below)
When it comes to correction, though, the CV 28/2 APO is clearly optically better controlled for CA and distortion, and it delivers higher resolution and contrast, particularly off-axis. Honestly, nothing else matches the Voigtlander 28/2 APO-Lanthar in terms of resolution, correction, and compact size. so if 28mm is your preferred FL, I highly recommend it....Show more →
I'd really want to seem them compared side-by-side. My Ultron 28 f/2 and Summicron 28 f/2 never came close to the Q lens for blur. I wonder if the Q lens has focus breathing that makes for a lightly longer lens at close distances (non-macro mode).
