I shoot digital, does that make a big difference? I'm using a Leica M10-P.
As far as the Q goes, I was considering it, just keep my M10P w/ my 50mm f/1.5 sonnar and use a Q2? I don't know. Or just sell the M10P and go for the Q2 by itself. I played with the Q for a weekend, and while it was pretty much a point and shoot in my mind, I did like how small it is and that it has full manual physical controls. OIS was like cheating at focusing though, in a good way.
I suspect the difference in performance between a coded 28mm v1 and 28mm v2 would be reduced on a digital M, especially an M10 (or M240). I just liked the option of adapting a better performing lens to other cameras in the future if I needed. The hood, build, possible higher microcontrast and better flare resistance were bonuses. To be honest you'd probably need to shoot them side by side to compare contrast and flare resistance. If I had the v1 I'd just shoot without the hood or shoot with a smaller hood. I think the question is which one would make you happier. If you're buying used it's less of a risk since you can sell it off for little to no loss.
The difference in price could get you a Ricoh GR3 or another lens (maybe a 35mm 1.4 Zeiss, a lens I love). When you think about what you can do with the money saved by going via the v1 route it really does put things into perspective. I thought pretty hard about it (as you can tell from my overly long reply).
I decided against the Q for 3 reasons:
1) It's a depreciating asset in that it's a camera first, then a 28mm second, and to me the less cameras I have the better because they lose value faster than lenses
I don't shoot enough to justify a 28mm (given I prefer 35mm and 50mm) but want a go-to 28mm for my existing M240, so having a Q sitting around isn't really ideal to me
2) I prefer shooting with a rangefinder, so while the Q is undoubtedly fun, the Q wouldn't fulfill what I want in a 28mm as I want a 28mm rangefinder lens. I do know that the Q's manual focus implementation is pretty good but it isn't the same.
3) I usually only shoot with 1 lens and 1 camera per trip. However if i were to carry 2 lenses, it'd be 28mm and 50mm. A 28cron would be smaller than a Q and 400g lighter. I wouldn't sling both cameras (Q and 50mm + M240) when I'm out, so it's really just having a small lens in my bag to swap out when I want a 28mm.
The above is relevant for 28 v1 or v2 vs Q (or Ricoh GR3 for that matter).
As for alternative 28mms:
- 28Lux: I tried the 28lux for a month - it's too heavy and too big and that sucked the fun out of having a 28mm to sling and walk out of the house
- 28 Elmarit Asph: Found the 28elmarit asph v2 (same for v1 for the most part) to be too contrasty. It's also too small and off balanced when I slung the camera. I didn't use the hood on the v2 as it was almost half the size of the lens (defeated the size advantage). I sometimes felt f2.8 was a bit too slow on my M240.
- 28 f2 MS-Optics: Small, fun 28mm with moderate sharpness in the centre, close focus to 0.3m using live view. My issue with it was that the corners never sharpened up enough when stopped down, and it was too small (same comment in relation to 28 elmarit asph)
I did consider the 28mm 1.4 by 7artisans but I suspect the same issues I had with the 28lux would arise, though it is 1/10 of the price. I didn't like the fact the 28mm 2.8 ZM suffered from some purple corners from what I've read and seen. Voigtlander's 28mm f2 is a pretty decent lens on paper, but I was never drawn to it (I also read it has focus shift).
