SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
well, either way the reduced size of lens should be nice!![]()
Well there's a sign of the times!
I just checked the price in Oz at Mainline Photo (our CV distibutor) and it's $1255.00 AUD including GST.![]()
that's about 911,- €
sazerac
Well-known
Now with 20% less!
Now with 20% less!
According to Stephen's site it us about 20% shorter - 60.8 vs. 77.8 of the v1. It seems that the diameter and weight are relatively the same.
Now with 20% less!
it's like what, 2mm shorter than the old one?![]()
According to Stephen's site it us about 20% shorter - 60.8 vs. 77.8 of the v1. It seems that the diameter and weight are relatively the same.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
According to Stephen's site it us about 20% shorter - 60.8 vs. 77.8 of the v1. It seems that the diameter and weight are relatively the same.
77.8 is the length with the included hood attached
it's about 62 without it.
So, how long before people start complaining, whether waranted or not, about how the V1 version is so much better than the V2 version?
Focus shift, bad bokeh, etc. seem to be buzz words when it comes to many CV lenses that are recreated.
Focus shift, bad bokeh, etc. seem to be buzz words when it comes to many CV lenses that are recreated.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Do you even need a hood on a modern multicoated 35mm? Hoods for 35mm are pretty shallow and ineffective anyway.
Don't forget the mechanical protection that a hood offers. And in glancing sidelight, even a shallow hood can be a long way from ineffective.
Cheers,
R.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
If there was just one CV lens I wouldn't have changed one bit, it was the v1. But maybe this one will be even better. I certainly do like my copy of the original.
sazerac
Well-known
No I'm confused
No I'm confused
Huh. So is the lens measured from the mount not including the portion that protrudes into the body? I guess it makes sense that they are about the same length if the weight is the same. Also, I couldn't figure out how they looked proportionally the same from the photos if the new one was that much shorter.
No I'm confused
77.8 is the length with the included hood attached
it's about 62 without it.
Huh. So is the lens measured from the mount not including the portion that protrudes into the body? I guess it makes sense that they are about the same length if the weight is the same. Also, I couldn't figure out how they looked proportionally the same from the photos if the new one was that much shorter.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
Huh. So is the lens measured from the mount not including the portion that protrudes into the body?
yes. including the back element v1 should be something like 70 or 71mm without the hood if I'm not mistaken.
hans voralberg
Veteran
IIRC they should be almost the same length, the 2nd version is not much shorter if any at all.
magicianhisoka
Well-known
Will be keeping an eye out for the performance reviews. But I must say, I enjoy the V1 to bits!
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.