Panasonic announces Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 (again)

> 42.5/1.2 = 85/2.4

at a certain angle of view, there is a cone/pyramid of light entering into the lens aperture that will be ultimately projected on the image circle/sensor (whatever focal length or format).

the light gathering capacity is then solely decided by the aperture size (area). whatever happens in the lens can only lose light.

As photographers, we are mainly concerned about the maximum F-Stop, FOV ( field of view ), and DOF ( depth of field ) of the lenses we use.

In photographic terms, EVERY lens that has a maximum F-Stop of f/1.2 provides us with the SAME EXPOSURE provided the other main camera settings ( ISO and shutter-speed ) are the same.

In terms of EXPOSURE, all that matters is that the F-Stop of the lenses matches, the ISO of the camera matches, and the shutter speed of the camera matches.

Things get a little more complicated when you want to match the DOF between two cameras that have different sensor sizes.

For example, the DOF of a Canon 5D Mk3 camera using a 50mm lens at f/2.8 matches the DOF of a Panasonic GH3 camera using a 25mm lens at f/1.4. So matching the of the DOF of the 5D camera requires a lens that is 2 F-Stops faster with the GH3 camera.

>>> should I always compensate my exposure on my GX1 if I do manual exposure?

No. Exposure is always the SAME. Same ISO, same F-Stop, same shutter speed.

If you don't need to match DOF, then forget about it and just concentrate on achieving a good shot with the correct exposure.

No photographer is concerned about "light gathering capacity", we are concerned about F-Stop, Shutter Speed, and ISO.

Mr. Yabokkie seems to have absolute "light gathering capacity" and matching DOF on the brain. It's obviously a big concern to him, but may be of no concern to anybody else.

For myself, my main concerns are capturing the moment with sharp focus and correct exposure. This is all that matters to me as a professional photographer.

> what the heck is role of the "light gathering capacity" in this formula?

what will anyone need whatever capacity in the first place? if you say image quality, then you get that capacity exactly the same at a certain AOV and aperture size regardless of formats. this "happens" to also give the same DOF as well as same diffraction and DLA.

same amount of light to the frame, to each portion of the image, be it an eye or a pair of lips, nothing to do with sensor area.

why should anyone need conversion to 35mm format term? ask Olympus or Panasonic who give equivalent focal length for all their lenses, from P&S to m4/3". all the makers use 35mm format term as standard for better communication. even a customer doesn't know well, at least he can use it to compare different product and decide which is best.

for 42.5/1.2 we know it can perform same as 85/1.8 stopped down near 1 stop, that all the photographic effects, including image quality, will be the same.

Hi Guy,

Thank you. You clarified the issue. I have a old Canon 300D (not a FF also not a 4/3 either) and 17-40, 70-200/4. After evaluating the price and weight/size of a 6D, I bought a GX1 and a 14/2.5 for the amount of hiking I plan to do. I found converting the actually focal length to a equivalent 35mm field of view helpful when buying a lens.However, when using a lens, I found the conversion is irrelevant. I got whatever the lens produce.

Then, I saw this formula which list all 4/3 lenses like 20/1.7 = 40/3.4, 25/1.4 = 50/2.8, etc. Because I use mostly A mode, the formula seems indicating that the shutter speeds should have been doubled on GX1 comparing to (or thinking of) a FF camera. Then, the question rises. What if I am thinking of a medium format camera? which makes it funny.

sorry to say you still don't understand the issue.
that format size has nothong to do with light gathering.

the light gathering capacity is decided by the aperture size regardless of the format size. because the aperture sizes of medium format lenses are actually smaller than 35mm full-frame, we won't get better low light image quality going medium format, very likely we will get worse.

e.g., popular standard prime for 645 is 80/2.8, which is 50/1.7 equiv. or at similar angle of view
80/2.8 = 50/1.7 = 28mm < 36mm of 50/1.4.

the quality of lenses is the dominating factor in photography. senser performance is also an issue but more a temporary one. btw, if you want to go back, go back to 6D for better image and value for money.

>>> Then, I saw this formula which list all 4/3 lenses like 20/1.7 = 40/3.4, 25/1.4 = 50/2.8, etc.

This is a DOF formula, so it's only useful if you need to match the DOF of a Full Frame camera.

Most of the time I shoot with Micro 4/3 and APS-C cameras, so I personally don't care about trying to match the DOF with Full Frame sensor cameras.

In terms of EXPOSURE, if the F-Stop matches and the Shutter speed matches and the ISO matches, then you have EXACTLY the SAME EXPOSURE using ANY camera with ANY sensor size.

As I posted earlier, too many people get caught up in trying to match the DOF between different camera formats, when most of the time it really doesn't matter at all.

> This is a DOF formula,

this is formula for all the photographic effects that you can find in the output image that are controlled by the lens aperture. there is only one aperture.

what we want it is image quality. the exposure you are talking about is irrelevant if it gives different image quality on different formats. this maybe the reason some of us get fooled by themselves.

>>> what we want is image quality

Camera image quality is controlled by a number of factors...

- Lens Performance
- Camera Sensor Performance
- Camera Electronic Performance
- Ability of the Photographer Making the Photograph
- Ability of the Person Processing the RAW Digital Image

Overall, the APERTURE of the lens is a VERY SMALL factor in the final IMAGE QUALITY of a photograph, compared to all these other critical components.

keep your cool man and don't lose your mind.

if as you say aperture size is unimportant then why should 42.5/1.2 be sold higher than 45/1.8 when there is nothing we know other than the spec.

aperture size is the single most important factor that decides value of a lens whose job is gathering light and then projecting to the sensor.

>>>aperture size is the single most important factor that decides value of a lens whose job is gathering light and then projecting to the sensor

As photographers we use the F-Stop of a lens to determine the effective photographic APERTURE of a lens. Nobody cares about the physical size of the aperture of a lens, all we care about is the photographic APERTURE.

Thus a f/1.2 lens is a f/1.2 lens, and can be compared to any other f/1.2 lens. This is the photographic speed of the lens, and the ONLY thing we are concerned about when talking about the APERTURE of a lens.

Thus a Micro 4/3 f/1.2 lens has the SAME photographic APERTURE as a Full Frame f/1.2 lens. END OF STORY.

let me answer you in a less confusing manor..

For light gathering capability, it is whats listed... 1.2
Now
that formula you mentioned was to get the equivalents, in depth of field on a Full Frame camera with equivalent angel of view.

>>> stopping down a budget prime 85/1.8 by near a stop
will beat the hell of the this Leica 42.5/1.2.

The whole reason for buying a premium lens like this is for the absolute speed and image quality of the lens.

Very likely this lens will reach near optimal performance at full aperture ( f/1.2 ), and with the benefit of the OIS system you can obtain sharp images at shutter speeds that are 2-3 F-Stops slower than shooting without the OIS system.

A FF 85mm f/1.8 lens can definitely shoot a great image, but NOT at f/1.2, and NOT with OIS, so you will need MUCH MORE LIGHT to achieve correct exposure when compared with this new Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 OIS lens.

then whats the point of buying any lens from m43 is the 42.1.2 wouldnt be a premium lens? maybe in terms of DOF it would be at 85mm 2.4 but its still 1.2 in terms of light gathering. nothing is even remotely close to this speed less it be a voigtlander which is all manual and metal.

>>> this 42/1.2 is no premium lens.

Only according to you, Yabokkie.

This new lens is a high speed "portrait" telephoto lens with a built-in optical stabilization system.

You have to STOP trying to equate a f/1.2 m4/3 lens with a f/1.8 FF lens, because they are NOT THE SAME. The m4/3 lens is 1.1 F-Stops FASTER, and likely reaches close to optimal sharpness WIDE OPEN like the other premium m4/3 lenses do.

I expect this lens will be priced around $1,200 US, and should prove very popular amongst professionals ( like myself ) who don't mind spending this kind of money on a high performance lens. Especially at this focal length which is very useful for still-photos and video work.

a "high speed" lens that gives you lower image quality.
you can have whatever speed if you don't care image quality.

>>>a "high speed" lens that gives you lower image quality

Yabokkie, YOU REALLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT...

If the lens has premium optics designed by Leica, combined with an effective optical stabilization system it should prove to be an outstanding quality lens.

Many of the Olympus and Panasonic premium lenses are state of the art when it comes to camera lens optical design.

Several lens testing companies have called the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 Micro 4/3 lens to be the BEST DSLR lens of ANY brand that they have tested over the past 10 years. It's an extremely good lens that is tac-sharp at full aperture, with very low levels of chromatic aberration, very low levels of distortion, very low levels of vignetting, and it's very fast when auto-focusing. It doesn't get better than this lens.

I expect this new Panasonic lens will be another outstanding lens for Micro 4/3 cameras.

okay, you want low quality and I want high quality
we want different things.

fantasy world if you really believe it would be $280
this lens will sadly be in the $1000+ category :( which makes me a bit sad since i want it LOL

It is an equivilant of an 85/2.4 in DOF not exposure.

exposure at the same ISO won't give you same image quality.
so are you saying, same fast speed, two stops worse IQ?
if you don't care image quality, you can have whatever fast speed at will.

>>exposure at the same ISO won't give you same image quality

It all depends on the quality of the lens, the quality of the image sensor, and the quality of the image processing performed by the electronics of the camera. Physical sensor size may have no relevance if the technologies used in each camera are not the same.

as far as I can tell from what I read: whereas the focal length can be doubled to have an equivalent to 35mm FF, the fstop remains the f-stop because it is the ratio between focla length and max opening of aperture. this does not translate the way you calculated. In optics, the f-number (sometimes called focal ratio, f-ratio, f-stop, or relative aperture[1]) of an optical system is the ratio of the lens's focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil.[2] It is a dimensionless number that is a quantitative measure of lens speed, and an important concept in photography.

focal length won't change either but same focal length won't get you the same angle of view on different formats.

f-number is same. you have to use focal length to calculate f-number and you say f-number is immune from formats? there is nothing in the output photograph that you can find the same at the same f-number on different formats.

at a certain angle of view, if the absolute aperture size (like diameter in mm) is the same, you get everyting the same on whatever formats.

42.5/1.2 = 85/2.4 = 35.4mm

sensor size has zero effect on DOF, aperture size has 100%

there is only one aperture that controls everything an aperture can control (namely 1: light gethering capability, 2: DOF, and 3: diffraction). not a tiny bit can anything step out of line, regardless of the sensor format.

Pana 42.5/1.2 is equiv. to 85/2.4 on 35mm format (42.5/1.2 = 85/2.4 = 35.4mm aperture size). there is no way it can do more (as the spec suggests).

since 42.5/1.2 = 85/2.4 has less than 60% of light gathering capability of 85/1.8, it worths less than 60% of 85/1.8 or less than 300 US if the resolution, aberration, ... are similar.

at a certain angle of view and regardless of sensor format, if you get same DOF, you are guaranteed to get same light gethering capability and diffraction, whatever controlled by the aperture.

@Guy McLoughlin
would appreciate you calculating the aperture size before posting. the infamously ill-designed ZD35-100/2.0 got a maximum aperture size of 50mm at tele-end which is the same as 70-200/4.

>the infamously ill-designed ZD35-100/2.0 got a maximum aperture size of 50mm at tele-end which is the same as 70-200/4

You seem to be stuck in DOF land, when what mostly matters in photography is FOV and EXPOSURE.

The maximum photographic APERTURE of the Olympus 4/3 35-100mm f/2.0 zoom lens is f/2.0.

To match the exposure with ANY other camera at the SAME settings requires an F-Stop of f/2.0.

An F-Stop of f/4.0 on a FF camera is 2 F-Stops darker than f/2.0 and will result in UNDER EXPOSURE if all the other photographic settings are the SAME.

@yabokkie, just so I'm clear-- if you were setting up a 1/350 sec shot at f1.2 on a FF camera at iso 100, you're saying on a m4/3 camera at iso 100 I should be shooting 1/350 sec at f2.4? And on a medium format camera shooting iso 100 slide film, it would be 1/350 sec at f 0.95 or less?

f1.2 is f1.2 is f1.2. It's a ratio. And everybody talking about multipliers confuses newer photos about how exposure works.

same ISO will give you different image quality on different sensor formats.

exposure 1/350s at f/0.95 on 4/3" gives you the same image, same image quality, as 1/350s at f/1.9 on 35mm format, because both got the same amount of light to the frame.

after all, image quality is what we want, not some settings on the camera.

> f1.2 is f1.2 is f1.2. It's a ratio.
whatever it is, no one can find a single thing in the output photograph from different formats that is same at the same f-number. so it cannot be carried accross formats. just like focal length.

> talking about multipliers confuses newer photos
you don't have to worry for others. multipliers are simple straightforward calculation with sound base in physics. we know it for ages only we didn't use it so extensively as now with digital cameras.

since this lens has 0.83 stops less light gathering capability than 85/1.8 ones at 420-500 US, it worths 0.83 stops less or around 240-280 US. it worths even less in Leica brand which means no genuine glass.

sorry it's 0.77 stops difference, worths about 270 US.

Nikon CX 32/1.2 is 87/3.3 equiv.,
this one is 85/2.4, near one stop larger aperture.
should worth twice as much.

That would be my guess, too.

>>> this lens has an aperture of 35.4mm at open,
while Canon/Nikon 85/1.8 got 47.2mm

Yabokkie NOBODY cares about the physical size of the aperture of a lens. All we care about is the PHOTOGRAPHIC APERTURE of a lens. So a photographic /1.2 lens is a f/1.2 lens. END OF STORY.

What we really need is an ignore option in the comments section. Jabermonkey, yabokie or whatever, is making it nearly impossible to read any comment section that has anything to do with lenses that are not FF.

Not bad at all, I love that lens, while dreaded the Canon 50mm F1.2L
But I have yet to try a F0.95 lens :P though it is not necessary...

I forsee myself framing, focusing and thinking before pressing the shutter : "Dammit! Why Nocticron?!?" :D

Nocticron = late night clock. Roughly.

"But if you use something like 85/1.4 on FF (FX) it usually isnt that useful, unless you like very limited DOF in portraits."

Yep, focus on eyes, nose and ears and parts of hairs are completely OOF. Who would think that it is somehow good?
And of course all those contextless passport photos are completely boring and useless to begin with.

starwolfy:

Wikipedia lists a F1.2 Noctilux. (There's no date listed, but I believe I read 1974 somewhere.)

There's more to lenses (including Leicas) than F stops. My Summilux F1.4 75mm was sharper than my Noctilux F1.0, though the Noctilux had better colour.

My 90mm F4.0 was not particularly sharp, and far more importantly for me: It lacked good colour.

HowaboutRAW>
I know the first Noctilux was a F1.2 that is why I wrote "current Noctilux" are F0.95.

I'm not talking about F stop or lens quality here, but about the meaning behind the denomination of this lens which is, as Leica do, based on its F Stop.

I've read somewhere that Leica, when they cooperate with Panasonic, don't design these lenses and don't build them. They just "validate" the optical design and share their Name.
That is why the fact Panny is mixing "Noctilux and Summicron" to define this lens is a bit hilarious to me. Despite it may make sense to some, that is pure Leica-Like Marketing.

Again...I am not criticizing this lens. But its name.

Well if the in-between of a Noctilux and a Summicron becomes a Summilux why is it so ridiculous to have a Nocticron?

...

I agree.

However, I rather enjoy having room in my shoulder bag for stuff other than just camera gear.

35mm so so, might as well go the full monty and medium format or large format. 35mm can't compete with the lens. These crop sensor systems complement a MF system very well...

Please cite your source regarding image quality of this lens.

I take it you are not talking about the Voigtlander 75/1,8. (I admit I don't know enough about MFT.)