ferider
Veteran
I'm sure you won't need to. All M-mount CV lenses have extra add-on hoods available, not all released immediately together with the lens. Maybe LH-7 ?
Roland.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I was >< THAT close to getting one of these by Tuesday - I had ordered one on Thursday afternoon but now I'm S.O.L. due to my local guy not having any in stock (not surprising really). He orders from his distributor and they only got a couple in their shipment and only in silver - and at the very reasonable price of $599 CDN locally there's going to be a bit of a run on these new lenses me thinks 
Cheers,
Dave
Cheers,
Dave
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I should have one in my hands by Monday or Tuesday.
Zenjitsuman
Established
Can anyone tell me what the difference in the lens formula and design is between the new CV lens and the f1.9 lens that was discontinued.
Also, how is the look of the lens results going to be an improved and in what areas.
Also, how is the look of the lens results going to be an improved and in what areas.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I believe, and anyone can correct me if I'm wrong on this, that the new 28 does NOT have the ASPH element that the old f1.9 had. Apparently, based on some intraweb stuff
this is supposed to be a good thing for the M8.. supposed to be I believe there may be other differences but I think that was the main one.
Dave
kxl
Social Documentary
I've been afflicted with a bad case of GAS (the RF gear kind, not the bean burrito kind) lately, and everyone's seemingly positive outlook re: this lens makes it an intriguing target for acquisition. But some sanity has crept into my system, and in reality, this would be a nice "rental" lens for me just to check it out.
Long term, it will probably sit in the closet if I acquired one. I've just never been a fan of the FOV from a 28mm nor am I a big fan of the FOV of a ~42mm FL (the FOV of this lens when mounted on my R-D1S). Even when I shoot the Nikon 17-35mm/2.8 on an FF body, I find that the 28mm FL is my least used.
Obviously, this is just my own world view, and has nothing to do with any lens in particular. So, while this lens may continue to get rave reviews (as did the CV 40mm/1.4), I think I will pass (and no, I don't own the CV 40mm/1.4 either).
Cheers!
Long term, it will probably sit in the closet if I acquired one. I've just never been a fan of the FOV from a 28mm nor am I a big fan of the FOV of a ~42mm FL (the FOV of this lens when mounted on my R-D1S). Even when I shoot the Nikon 17-35mm/2.8 on an FF body, I find that the 28mm FL is my least used.
Obviously, this is just my own world view, and has nothing to do with any lens in particular. So, while this lens may continue to get rave reviews (as did the CV 40mm/1.4), I think I will pass (and no, I don't own the CV 40mm/1.4 either).
Cheers!
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The 28f1.9 as stated is an aspherical design. This gives it a tendency to be flare sensitive - though in the Ultron's f1.9 case. less so than the Summicron 28! I dont have the lens formula for the 28f2 Ultron handy (mine came without a box), but I think it has one more element than the f1.9. The front element has a very pronounced curve to it, versus the almost flat front of the 1.9. This is about as technical I want to get with either lens. In any case, the f2 Ultron 28 is a better performer across the board than the 28f1.9 - at least judging from what I have shot with these lenses. It is also smaller and blocks less of the finder.
Turtle
Veteran
not having asph elements is not exactly holding the ZMs back! Smaller in this case is better as the 28 1.9 was just too big for my liking. This f2 version is interesting and i cannot wait to find out what else CV have up their sleeve. I want an updated 75mm with M mount etc!
Zenjitsuman
Established
Thanks for the reply, I can't decide if I even want to get the lens since I have the Leica 35mm f2.0; Zeiss 25mm f2.8 on a film body. If I buy something else maybe the 75mm range to go along with my 50mm and 90mm would make more sense.
I probably could either walk forward or back a few steps with one or the other of the 25 or 35 and get the same FOV. Has anyone done just that to compare vs. using an extra lens so close in FOV.
Its like having a 35 and a 40. I have 21;25;35;50 and 90 for film.
The 21 and 24 are close numerically but on the really wide end it seems to amplify the difference per each extra mm more than milder wide angle lenses to me.
I probably could either walk forward or back a few steps with one or the other of the 25 or 35 and get the same FOV. Has anyone done just that to compare vs. using an extra lens so close in FOV.
Its like having a 35 and a 40. I have 21;25;35;50 and 90 for film.
The 21 and 24 are close numerically but on the really wide end it seems to amplify the difference per each extra mm more than milder wide angle lenses to me.