The new and very popular 15/4.5 III was designed to be as compact as possible - and that translates to a fixed lens hood.
Some users, especially video shooters, want a removable hood for their purposes.
How important is that to you, especially since SK Grimes offers a service or removing the hood from as little as $65 to slightly less than $300 depending upon how elegant you want the removal to be?
It turns out simply replacing part of the lens barrel with a new Voigtlander part without the hood is not that simple, as it would require the focusing and focus be readjusted. End cost would likely be in the $200-300 range - the range which SK Grimes is already in.
Some users, especially video shooters, want a removable hood for their purposes.
How important is that to you, especially since SK Grimes offers a service or removing the hood from as little as $65 to slightly less than $300 depending upon how elegant you want the removal to be?
It turns out simply replacing part of the lens barrel with a new Voigtlander part without the hood is not that simple, as it would require the focusing and focus be readjusted. End cost would likely be in the $200-300 range - the range which SK Grimes is already in.
Corran
Well-known
It's unfortunate, to me, that you can't use a center filter on lenses with a fixed hood.
I bought an older LTM 12mm and the 77mm filter adapter specifically because I could then use a CF filter I already own, which I think greatly enhances the usefulness of the lens in certain situations.
While it is easier to correct fall-off in post using digital, I still use my lenses on both film and digital, and even then the shadow recovery isn't perfect (and limited, especially with 2+ stops of fall-off, on the 12mm). However, I use these lenses on an M9 (and M6) so perhaps it is a non-issue for newer digital cameras with such huge DR in the shadows.
I bought an older LTM 12mm and the 77mm filter adapter specifically because I could then use a CF filter I already own, which I think greatly enhances the usefulness of the lens in certain situations.
While it is easier to correct fall-off in post using digital, I still use my lenses on both film and digital, and even then the shadow recovery isn't perfect (and limited, especially with 2+ stops of fall-off, on the 12mm). However, I use these lenses on an M9 (and M6) so perhaps it is a non-issue for newer digital cameras with such huge DR in the shadows.
rscheffler
Well-known
I'm not sure I follow the logic of how a non-removable hood makes the lens as small as possible?
I specifically bought a used 12/5.6 LTM version because it didn't have the ridiculous built-in hood, which significantly ballooned the size of the M mount version relative the LTM version. The 12/5.6 LTM is a lens I can tuck away in the corner of a bag. I don't use it very often, but it's handy to have along. Because it's so compact, I don't really count it as taking the place of another lens. However, the 15/4.5 III definitely takes the place of another lens, which means I need to give it greater consideration whether or not to bring along.
I have both the 15/4.5 II and III. I can appreciate that the new optical design increased the length of the lens somewhat. I don't quite follow why the diameter of the lens needed to increase that much as well, especially relative the LTM version. I suspect the built-in hood design is a primary reason for the girth. OK, the LTM's hood is very small and likely very ineffective at blocking the sun just outside the frame... But, how much better is the permanent hood design?
Anyway, yes, I would have preferred it be shipped with a removable hood. Not as a higher cost option, but designed as such from the get go. This is also one of the few 'peeves' I have about the otherwise stellar 21/1.8... I also happen to own the 21/1.4 and greatly prefer its 'box' hood design, increasingly prevalent on Leica's newer lenses. It seems to be relatively effective while minimally affecting lens size.
That said, given the price/performance ratio of the 15/4.5 III, I was willing to accept the compromise of increased size and the inconvenient hood design.
In the future, I would greatly prefer Cosina move away from permanently attached hoods.
Thanks for asking!
Ron
I specifically bought a used 12/5.6 LTM version because it didn't have the ridiculous built-in hood, which significantly ballooned the size of the M mount version relative the LTM version. The 12/5.6 LTM is a lens I can tuck away in the corner of a bag. I don't use it very often, but it's handy to have along. Because it's so compact, I don't really count it as taking the place of another lens. However, the 15/4.5 III definitely takes the place of another lens, which means I need to give it greater consideration whether or not to bring along.
I have both the 15/4.5 II and III. I can appreciate that the new optical design increased the length of the lens somewhat. I don't quite follow why the diameter of the lens needed to increase that much as well, especially relative the LTM version. I suspect the built-in hood design is a primary reason for the girth. OK, the LTM's hood is very small and likely very ineffective at blocking the sun just outside the frame... But, how much better is the permanent hood design?
Anyway, yes, I would have preferred it be shipped with a removable hood. Not as a higher cost option, but designed as such from the get go. This is also one of the few 'peeves' I have about the otherwise stellar 21/1.8... I also happen to own the 21/1.4 and greatly prefer its 'box' hood design, increasingly prevalent on Leica's newer lenses. It seems to be relatively effective while minimally affecting lens size.
That said, given the price/performance ratio of the 15/4.5 III, I was willing to accept the compromise of increased size and the inconvenient hood design.
In the future, I would greatly prefer Cosina move away from permanently attached hoods.
Thanks for asking!
Ron
Lightshow
Member
I'm also upset that the new CV10 & CV12III won't have filter threads, and also fixed hoods too.
mirekti
Member
Same here.
uhoh7
Veteran
Hoods are pain, except those which simply extend like many Leica M. My ZM18 hood is easily pushed off center and can ruin a shot that way. 28cron hood is fragile. SEM 21 much better. The CV 90 and 75 hoods are OK, but would be nicer to collapse.
However I admit I was surprised to learn the CV 15 v3 hood does not come off.
Here is DIY for CV 15:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/56208-voigtlander-cv15mm-version-iii-petal-removal.html
Ron is right, a non-removable hood and "the smallest lens possible" are mutually exclusive, and the lens is not a small one anyway
Where is the: "voigtlander should revise the design" option?
Great lens, though
However I admit I was surprised to learn the CV 15 v3 hood does not come off.
Here is DIY for CV 15:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/56208-voigtlander-cv15mm-version-iii-petal-removal.html
Ron is right, a non-removable hood and "the smallest lens possible" are mutually exclusive, and the lens is not a small one anyway
Where is the: "voigtlander should revise the design" option?
Great lens, though