Previous news story    Next news story

Panasonic formally launches Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 ASPH

By dpreview staff on Jan 6, 2014 at 20:12 GMT
Buy on GearShop$1,598.00

Panasonic has formally announced the Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 ASPH OIS fast portrait prime for Micro Four Thirds. The lens, first revealed in prototype form back at the Photokina trade show in September 2012, offers an 85mm equivalent field of view and the brightest aperture of any autofocus lens on the system.

The company says the Power O.I.S stabilization built into the lens is designed to compensate for the low-frequency, high-amplitude movements that can plague low-light photography, as well as the high-frequency, low-amplitude movements that make up regular camera shake. The lens has gained even more distinctive Leica styling and will be available during the first quarter of 2014 at suggested prices of $1,599/€1,499/£1,299.

Jump to:


Press Release:

LEICA DG NOCTICRON 42.5mm F1.2 ASPH

6th January 2014– Panasonic is proud to introduce the new LEICA DG NOCTICRON 42.5mm / F1.2 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. (H-NS043) interchangeable lens for the LUMIX G based on the Micro Four Thirds System standard. (35 mm camera equivalent: 85 mm). This incredible lens not only has a maximum aperture of F1.2, but it also incorporates optical image stabilization (POWER O.I.S.) along with full time Auto Focus. Certified by the world-renowned LEICA, exceptional high image quality is guaranteed as well as its sophisticated metal design. The name "NOCTICRON" was newly defined by Leica Camera AG for this lens that achieves a remarkably fast F1.2 aperture among Micro Four Thirds digital interchangeable lenses.

The new lens system is comprised of 14 elements in 11 groups and uses two aspherical lenses, one ED (Extra-low Dispersion) and one UHR (Ultra High Refractive Index) lens. The aspherical lenses suppress spherical aberration and distortion. The ED lens enables sharp, high contrast description without color bleeding to the corners while the UHR lens enables high optical performance that renders an image with uniformed descriptiveness from center to edges as well as downsizing of the lens unit. 

The popular 42.5 mm medium-telephoto focal distance (Equivalent to 85 mm on a 35 mm camera) is perfectly suited for portraits with rich stereoscopic effect. Together with the high-speed aperture, users can utilize the beautiful soft focus for more impressive, creative shots. Nine blades give the aperture a rounded shape that produces an attractively smooth effect in out-of-focus areas when shooting at larger aperture settings. It also captures landscape with an extremely natural perspective. In addition, the aperture ring on the lens barrel allows direct, intuitive control over aperture settings.

Panasonic's Nano Surface Coating technology has been adopted to the NOCTICRON 42.5mm / F1.2 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S.  Reflection is dramatically minimized at entire visual light range (380nm-780nm) by applying the extra-low refractive index coating with nano-sized structure on the surface of the lens. It results in a super clear image with dramatic reduction of ghost and flare.

Due to the shallow depth of field which is unique to the large aperture lens, even a slight handshake can potentially cause images to be out-of-focus. However, the POWER O.I.S. (Optical Image Stabilizer) which is integrated in the LEICA DG NOCTICRON 42.5mm effectively compensates for not only small, fast movement but also large, slow movement, making it easy to capture super clear shots even when shooting in low-lit situations such as in night time or indoors.

It incorporates superior inner focus system, which enables excellent resolution and contrast from close-up to infinity. The inclusion of newly developed stepping motor makes the focusing action smooth and silent for use in both still and video recording. Notably the performance of Auto Focus is far superior to the phase-difference AF when a fast lens with smaller F value is used. When mounted on LUMIX G cameras, users can take advantage of the high-speed, high-precision Contrast AF system.

The sophisticated metal design of LEICA DG NOCTICRON 42.5mm / F1.2 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S., including the hood, deserves to bear the prestigious LEICA name. A highly reliable metal mount is durable enough for repeated mounting of the lens.

Panasonic Leica Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 ASPH specifications

Principal specifications
Lens typePrime lens
Max Format sizeFourThirds
Focal length43 mm
Image stabilisationYes (Power O.I.S)
Lens mountMicro Four Thirds
Aperture
Maximum apertureF1.2
Minimum apertureF16.0
Aperture ringYes
Number of diaphragm blades9
Aperture notesCircular aperture
Optics
Elements14
Groups11
Special elements / coatings2 aspherical elements, 1 ED glass element, 1 UHR glass element. Nano surface coating.
Focus
Minimum focus0.50 m (19.69)
Maximum magnification0.1×
AutofocusYes
Motor typeStepper motor
Full time manualUnknown
Focus methodInternal
Distance scaleNo
DoF scaleNo
Physical
Weight425 g (0.94 lb)
Diameter74 mm (2.91)
Length77 mm (3.03)
Filter thread67 mm
Hood suppliedYes
11
I own it
122
I want it
6
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 ASPH OIS

Comments

Total comments: 349
12
km25
By km25 (2 months ago)

Looks like a nice lens, would want to see some testing. For all you Fuji folks out there, the 56mm F/1.2 should be a buy!

0 upvotes
seans1969
By seans1969 (3 months ago)

I'd like to see some comparisons to the Olympus 45mm F1.8, this lens will have to be a hell of a lot better to justify the price difference.

0 upvotes
acidic
By acidic (3 months ago)

What a sexy lens. But I won't be getting one. I still use my 5D2 for portraiture. Coupled with the lowly $400 85mm/1.8, it does just fine, thank you.

This one sounds nice though, especially for a portrait lens for a travel system. But come to think of it, I rarely traveled with my 85mm when I lugged any of my FF kits around.

Still a drool-worthy lens though.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

I started to use camera when there was no AF and very few plastic lens barrels. almost all the cheap lenses from Japanese, German, or Russian makers were about the same as this Pana 42.5/1.2 -- uncoated metal barrel.

I agree cheap may mean sexy in the sense of attractiveness, especially when the quality is not so bad.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mpetersson
By mpetersson (3 months ago)

It's always nice to have a lens like this one available for your mount, even if most people can't (or don't want to) afford it. It will probably remain a curiosity, no matter how good it is, because of the price. I'm almost always baffled when people say that "I would never buy brand X, they don't even have any tilt/shift-lenses/800mm superteles/other extreme lenses." Because when something like this comes along, not that many people are likely to buy it, even though they are of course incredibly cheap compared to a 800mm lens. It's like people want all the options in the world, even though it's stuff they would never spend money on. Who knows, maybe this lens will still attract some people to m4/3, I think it's a nice system with or without lenses like this one.

5 upvotes
jorden mosley
By jorden mosley (3 months ago)

I know buying great glass is a sound investment, but jeez I could buy an A7 with that amount of money.

...sigh. But it doesn't change the fact that this would be my dream lens for m43 though.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

I'll pay no more than 1/3 of the current price (1,600 US).
plus 100 dollars if they can remove the Leica brand for me.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
jorden mosley
By jorden mosley (3 months ago)

Yeah ultimately I'm gonna pass on it. It's sad too, since I started on m43 for digital photography/video. But when I was looking to upgrade from my gh2, the NEX system seemed offer a lot better value on the lenses, bodies, and performance. I mean the NEX equivalent of this lens is the 50mm 1.8 OSS which costs less than $300. I found myself constantly wishing Panasonic/Olympus had features that Sony had on their cameras, to the point of deciding to just go with Sony. I don't regret it either.

But there was always that bit of hope that m43 could bring me back, and it hinged on a lens like this. After seeing the estimated price, yeah I'm not going back.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

think m4/3" is good as second-line or third-line camera. the cost-performance is low but not too bad compared with APS-C SLRs.

0 upvotes
Alphoid
By Alphoid (3 months ago)

This lens seems like a mismatch for a small sensor. You're right about the A7. Once you get beyond some lens size and speed, a slower prime and bigger sensor just win.

Dream lens for u4/3 might be the Olympus 45mm f/1.8.

1 upvote
mcam
By mcam (3 months ago)

"I mean the NEX equivalent of this lens is the 50mm 1.8 OSS which costs less than $300."

There's Oly 45mm f1.8 for lower budget.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (3 months ago)

Buying a lens is not an investment.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

it's a bit tricky about investment.

it's not for no return in money. it is for return in photo or joy (which may not be from the photos taken but by holding the lens/camera, like some Chinese hold two walnut balls in hand while walking).

1 upvote
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (3 months ago)

Why did everyone 5 years ago say it was impossible to put stabilization into a fast prime?

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (3 months ago)

Because Canon and Nikon didn't bother to do it so it had to be impossible.

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

but 42.5/1.2 is no fast prime.

0 upvotes
nawknai
By nawknai (3 months ago)

What does that even mean? How is it not fast? It's f/1.2.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

f/1.2 isn't fast for 4/3" (it's very fast for zooms).

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

nawknai "What does that even mean? How is it not fast? It's f/1.2."

If you really want to save your time and energy mate then the trick is to just ignore him .. I really wish if dpreview conduct a small test covering Photographic basics before letting anybody write on these forums!!

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

I'm convinced most at DPReview have no photographic background (which explains the serious and obvious flaw in their new test scene) though the site is quite successful.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
technotic
By technotic (3 months ago)

Very rude again yabokkie.

2 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (3 months ago)

I'm impressed with the sharpness, even wide open. Stopped down a bit it looks like it's everything you could as for:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/leica-nocticron-42-5mm-f1-2-analisis-fotos_11255&sandbox=0&usg=ALkJrhg_xDEKQNybgHt7yOO6mkHqRlA-iA

Won't be buying one soon, but I can certainly save up for one . . .

1 upvote
TN Args
By TN Args (3 months ago)

Can someone in DPR please remove all posts in this thread that are about so-called 'full-frame' (44mm sensor) equivalencies?

What a monumental waste of space and repetition in 10,000 different locations. Not to mention that fact that it's trolling. You don't see this extent of trolling on 44 mm sensor articles, with people relentlessly pointing out how superior medium format or large format sensors are, and the lens/sensor equivalencies converted to 8x10-inch, and how poorly the 44 mm sensor gathers light by comparison with 8x10, over and over and over and over and.....

Once that is done, delete this post too. And I will thank DPR for their efforts.

15 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (3 months ago)

One thing that is rarely mentioned is that the MFC (Minimum Focus Distance)* of a lens for m43 is typically one half of the MFD of an "equivalent" lens for FF. This is a significant advantage of the m43 format over the FF.

(*) The minimum focus distance of a lens is around 10x the focal length. For instance, the Nocticron can focus down to 50 cm, whereas the Canon 85/1.2 only to 95 cm.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (3 months ago)

Historically, FF is the point of reference, not MF or LF. Some people like to compare with it; so, tone down a notch your inner dictator tendencies...

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

RStyga as a point of reference its understandable at some point, but I think what "TN Args" point out at folks referring it as if shallower DOF mean better image quality, or if two lenses or systems are equal if they got same DOF!!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

currently there is practically no other way than equivalencies to express specs of photographic lenses but if anyone don't like it, angle of view (in degrees) and aperture size (in millimeters) are good ones to use.

the reason is simple that something we use are no photographic concepts: focal length, f-number, ISO, ... and should not be used when talking about photography.

same focal length, f-number, ISO, ... give us no same photographic result on different formats but equivalencies do, for all and every with no exception.

mathematically beautiful.

(though it's not mathematically accurate when simple quick linear calculation is used instaead of trigonometric).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> if two lenses or systems are equal if they got same DOF!!

for photographic lenses, this is physically inevitable at the sample angle of view.

ligth gathering capacity, DoF, bokeh, diffraction, ... you got one the same, all others will be the same. they can never be separated unless the God regrets and redesigns our universe.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

Thanks for repeatedly stating the same facts in different tones and even involving God and Maths into the discussion!

Yes, as I already mentioned you can use it for a point of reference Deeper or Shallower then this or that (just like focal length etc..) but better or worse is subjective and depends on application!! Let the individual photographer decide what is good for him!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

if you have a point, just name and explain it and we can talk.

people have the rights to make decisions based on ignorance.

actually I know some real professionals do. they make correct equivalency calculations subconsciously with empirical rules sometimes but then make wrong decisions some other times.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

Sorry mate, I guess I was not very clear ...

As a point of reference you can say .. Dof is shallower on lenses covering bigger sensor then the one on smaller sensor! So the ADJECTIVE is shallow or deep.

Not good or bad! individual photographers should decide if for certain application they need more or less DOF.

What I found very common on DPReview forums people repeatedly grade lenses alone on the basis of shallower Dof!!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> Dof is shallower on lenses covering bigger sensor then the one on smaller sensor!

DoF won't change a bit whatever the sensor size. it's decided when the light rays entering the aperture already.

angle of view and aperture size decide photographic effects, optical design or whatever sensor size have no say (they can however make less noise, aberation, or distortion).

basic photographic concepts people learn in the first month.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

well again in more scientific term is .. focal length (not the angle of view) on which Dof depends ..

the angle of view for 75mm on 4/3 and 150mm on Fullframe is same, but Dof is much shallower on fullframe because its longer focal-length require to cover the same view on a bigger sensor! Now re read the sentence that you pointed after >.

I can't believe you writing all those maths equations and data and don't know these basics!! for the rest of the argument, i would rather let you think and learn yourself, as otherwise I can feel from your attitude, I would have to spend months explaining these concepts and you will keep pushing wrong facts one after other in the discussion..

Also I feel sorry for you as all you are trying here is to prove others are wrong ..

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> focal length (not the angle of view) on which Dof depends ..

focal length can decide with other factors like sensor size,
as long as a unique angle of view can be calculated.

0 upvotes
ecka84
By ecka84 (3 months ago)

DoF only depends on focal length (mm), diaphragm (F) and focus distance. Sensor size is a very important factor when deciding on focus distance while framing the shot (bigger sensor = shorter distance = shallower DoF), otherwise it doesn't effect DoF directly.

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

well explained Ecka .. which is concise and to-the-point! but I can bet, few still won't understand!!

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

you two guys have to figure out what's photo first.

0 upvotes
jaygeephoto
By jaygeephoto (3 months ago)

There must be a source of photographic science, physics or high school geometry you can read up on to gain an understanding of this - rather than incessantly grumbling.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

one doesn't have to go to school to see the facts by looking at photos shot by all sorts of cameras from 645 to mobile phones.

deeper the DoF, worse the image quality (noise).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Silent K
By Silent K (2 months ago)

"deeper the DoF, worse the image quality (noise)"

unless the purpose is to get that noise. art can't be judged by technical terms. with deep DoF, the image can provide a spatial relation between the object and the surrounding, giving the viewer a sense of inclusion.

yabokkie, your photographic opinion, while it is an exercise of the freedom of speech, does not render it a photographic gospel.

0 upvotes
ThorstenMUC
By ThorstenMUC (3 months ago)

At last a fast 85mm lens, which has a usable DOF wide open...

Most of the time you have to stop down the full-frame lenses to at least get a whole face into focus at "indoor distance" - which on the other hand means I have to push ISO up to compensate in low light.
Always leaves that bitter aftertaste - having a fast f1.2/1.4 prime, but not using it wide open because only a nose-tip would be in focus.

Will have to get an E-M1 now for that lens ;-)

3 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

why em1 mate, you not Gx7? just asking ..

1 upvote
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (3 months ago)

I have no doubt that the Nocticron is a spectacular lens. However, a lens with a price tag of $1700 certainly is not a product for the masses.

With the Nocticron, Panasonic's intention is to draw attention and bring prestigie to the m43 format, especially among the professionals.

Panasonic's strategy to increase the appeal of the m43 system is almost complete. The m43 system already has fast primes and zooms, macro, ultra wide angle and fisheye lenses. What is missing now are basically the fast telephoto lenses like the 150mm F/2.8.

That said, it must be recognized that Panasonic is charging too much for the Nocticron. Consider, for example, the zoom Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD, which has a more complex optical design that uses 4 or 5 times more material (optical glasses, metals, etc.), but Tamron can sell it for about $1000. From this comparison, it is clear that Panasonic could charge a little over $500 for the Nocticron, and still make a profit.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
al_in_philly
By al_in_philly (3 months ago)

You're absolutely right in recognizing that Panasonic (and Olympus) is trying to court professionals who may have been hesitant to go mirrorless with m4/3.

No the lens isn't cheap, but a better comparison would be with the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM. Its current street price is $2200, weighs 1/1/4 lbs (600g) more than the Panasonic/Leica (the weight of the Canon lens being more than the 42.5 and an m4/3 camera body), doesn't have Image Stabilization, and only employs 8 elements in 7 groups (as opposed to the P/L's 14 elements in 11 groups). Looked at that way, this lens isn't as outrageously priced as it might first appear.

But of course, the Canon will create a tighter DOF at any given aperture, as well provide all of the other advantages which full frame cameras afford. I think that Panasonic is trying to make the statement that it can provide professional level gear and results--especially for professionals looking to lighten their load which the carry around all day.

2 upvotes
TN Args
By TN Args (3 months ago)

IIRC Panasonic plans to match the Nocticron to a new premium camera with pricing to match, in which context its pricing will look fair.

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

well said mate al_in_philly!!

noctocorn is a more affordable, beautiful and arguably more useful 85mm equivalent at f/1.2!

frankBr it is very strange that you comparing this lens with tamron on the basis of how much glass it got!! I remember reading someone here that it is expensive because it is using some rare earth metals ...

1 upvote
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (3 months ago)

> it is very strange that you comparing this lens with tamron on the basis of how much glass it got!!

Make certain that he cost of production of a lens is related directly to the amount of optical glass used in the lens construction. The Tamron 150-600mm weighs almost 2kg, so about half of this weight is pure optical glass. In comparison, the Nocticron uses only 200g of glass…

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Tamron lens uses cheaper glasses than the Nocticron. The Tamron uses three large elements made of very expensive LD (low dispersion) glasses, for example.

Seeing strictly from the cost of production, the Tamron should be considerably more expensive than the Nocticron, but what we are seeing is just the opposite because Panasonic is not interested in selling large number of Nocticrons.

0 upvotes
KrisAK
By KrisAK (3 months ago)

"Panasonic's intention is to draw attention and bring prestige to the m43 format, especially among the professionals."

Agreed, but aren't they courting a DSLR market that's already stagnant if not outright dwindling?

And this sort of price strategy simultaneously put off folks like myself; I can only imagine how the GH4...which would have been my next logical purchase...will be priced.

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

@Frank I can understand mate that Tamy is not using low quality glass but there are many other factors involves then glass/metal etc that we can't judge if not working directly in the industry. if we take your manufacturing cost logic alone, the two Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 should be same price. Pany 20mm f/1.7 should be cheaper than 14-42mm kit etc.

From the superior optical and build quality and additional features that must have come with some complex design all I can say this leica lens deserves more than fast telephotos with more glass and metal in them!!

And now if we take the whole picture into account, there are many other cost factors .. and many starts sometimes more than a year before the manufacturing process starts .. am in an industry other than camera/lens but can tell you this from my experiences too.

Also, this is a niche segment, not many will buy this product but only few professionals. While the R&D and manufacturing cost for first few items remains same high!!

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ecka84
By ecka84 (3 months ago)

Seriously? This vs 85L? I think that you need a 42.5mm f/0.6 to make a statement like that, but then it would be much bigger, heavier twice as expensive.
It's FF equivalent would be nice and small 85mm f/2.4-ish, and for the price, you could easily get a used FF camera with a nice 85/1.8 prime. Even a decent f/2.8 FF zoom lens could compete with it. Let's be honest, it is smaller, but how many f/1.2-f/1.4 primes would you need to compete with something like 70-200/2.8? How much would it cost and weight?

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

Hi ecka if you like to cover the whole 70-200 or maybe the whole 16-300mm at that big physical aperture for any reason, then yes this system is not good for you!

I think the idea is to keep one or two primes at your preferred focal length and cover the rest with couple of zooms like ultra wide or narrow angles and still carry less weight!!

0 upvotes
ecka84
By ecka84 (3 months ago)

Hi Naveed. I'm just saying that there is no comparison between FF and m4/3 systems. For me, 2x crop is in a P&S territory. Therefore I think this lens is "slightly" overpriced, for what it is. I'm using primes only. I have no need for "focal range covering" of any kind. Yes I had some expensive f/2.8 zooms before, but not anymore. With FF I can shoot 85mm FoV using 50mm lens, easily (with some cropping involved), and there will still be plenty of pixels left to put m4/3 to shame. The thing is that m4/3 comes pre-cropped and if you need a ridiculously priced lens collection to make it produce something more than snapshots, then maybe it is wiser to get a real camera instead? I understand that most people only need a snapshot and that's OK. Just stop comparing it to the real thing and pretend like there is no difference. The difference is HUGE. Even if you manage to produce same DoF, same framing, same perspective - bigger pixels would still win. That's physics.

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

No one is comparing it with anything .. its fullframe friends who still feel m43 are not real .. are eventually coming to these news pages and start comparing ... for me m43 is perfectly adequate for my needs. This lens, is already giving very narrow Dof for me, if I would be using it for my current needs, I would be stopping it atleast to f/2. Not to get it sharp, but just to make more sense of my composition.

Also composing an image and then cropping it later to match a longer angle is UNREAL, because this is not what you focused at, and this is not what you metered initially .. I would like to compose when am taking the shot and use my whole camera for it. Now I know Nikon D600 and D800 have some very useful crop modes that you can switch on the viewfinder. That is the only exception and I really admire Nikon for implementing it. Otherwise its not same .. i.e. taking crops from wideangle!

Now the last bit, m43 is not cropped sensor, it's just smaller than the bigger .. period

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

Crop was the term for APSC cameras those were using bigger lenses and then recording the middle crop of it .. 1.5x or 1.6x
And that was cruel .. pity!!

4/3 lenses are drawing the image circle for the sensor size without any crop in the middle. If you are using the fullframe lens and using its sweetspot via any adapter on m4/3 body then that's a different story!!

Hope I made my points..

Rest I agree with you on your choice for Fullframe! you need it and you got it!! Enjoy it and share your photos with rest of us!! I would love to view your flickr account or galleries!!

Best!!

0 upvotes
ecka84
By ecka84 (3 months ago)

I guess that FF fans are just amazed by such shocking m4/3 pricing :). Nothing more really. That's inevitable when you're starting to realize that it is perfectly possible to fit a FF sensor in a small mirrorless body, mount a slow(ish) lens on it (like f/4 or even f/5.6 pancake) and still get better results than a smaller sensor with relatively huge and expensive optics. I'm glad that you are enjoying your gear, and I wouldn't argue if there wasn't so much misleading information floating around about these "format wars".
Cheers!

P.S. I added my flickr link in my DPR user info, nothing special there though :)

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

Hi Ecka your flickr profile is lovely .. love your macro shots!!

I really like 6D as a Fullframe camera even though many would argue IQ is not as good as D610, I feel it more comfortable in my hands and that's the most important factor for me, and I don't like D610 grip and the way my fingers bend along it!! The Dxo high Iso rating or DR doesn't count here!! The main thing is if I like to lift a camera or not!!

One of my main requirement is having a fast LiveView AF system, according to my limited research, the only one with good size and handling, plus a decent live view implementation is Sony A7 with on-chip phase detect AF. But I would like to see its native lens catalog first, so probably in couple of years I am hoping the system will get mature. As at this moment the only kit lens is not that impressive and I absolutely need silent mode on my camera. I hope in couple of years time I will get it in A8/r too. Too bad Nikon or Canon couldn't enter into this market segment either!!

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

m43 always stays ahead of featureSet game and while their eatery level tiny cameras looks like P&S, there are performance is not. And if you get a chance to handle either GH3, GX7 or OMD-EM1 am sure you will see how serious those cameras are.

At the end I am most probably gonna upgrade soon with GX7 as it got all features I would want in my gear plus its IQ at upto ISO level 1600 is very good. And if I look into my Lightroom catalog most of my photos are shot under ISO 400, infact 60% are at base ISO.

Once again, thanks for sharing your flickr .. and I will be following you :~)

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

Oh and this is a very good challenge in case you want to see the difference between different formats:
http://www.camerastuffreview.com/news/try-it-yourself-ff-vs-aps-c-vs-micro-43

0 upvotes
ecka84
By ecka84 (3 months ago)

Thank you Naveed. I do like my 6D, for now :), despite that it has some flaws (like any other camera). Pana and Oly learned to make nicely designed mirrorless bodies. However, I mostly prefer the ones with better grip and ergonomics. like GH# series and the new E-M1 (much better than E-M5). Not sure about the Sony A7, it's design is kind of blunt :) (I should mention that it has 4 native lenses released already, not one - 28-70, 24-70/4, 35/2.8 and 55/1.8). I spent more time handling the m4/3 RAW files than the actual bodies. E-M1's EVF is spectacular, but ... while my judgment may be spoiled by the FF output :) ... I expected better IQ for the price. Many of their optical formulas are compromised by the prioritized "pocketability" features, and the better ones are unreasonably expensive. Oh well, let's wait for the A8 (or A7N or A7T :) )

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

Morning Ecka! Out of 4 announced alpha lenses the only one available is 28-70 kit at this moment!

But I see your point, the system looks promising :~)

Oh and about its looks, it took me more than a month to digest its design too. It's blunt, but very usable. If you really want to like it, you need to see it on flickr! for example:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63271580@N00/10569280756/

:~)

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ecka84
By ecka84 (3 months ago)

Evening Naveed :). The picture is more important for me. I guess I could live with whatever design, if it delivers the oomph :). The Nocticron may be the oomph-factory for m4/3 system, I'm not denying that, but Jeez.. it's expensive. It's like a sports-car - all the cheap ones are crap or too specializes and the good ones are too expensive :).

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

this is a very good lens that tells Pana's business is built on cheating the market. I'm really amazed by the spec they chose, 42.5/1.2 (it really translates to 83mm f/2.35 in solid angle of view and light gathering capacity, not 85/2.4 if the focal length has some meaning error within 0.25mm).

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (3 months ago)

Cool, luxury lens.

But I'll stick with my Zuiko 45mm f1.8 on m43.

1 upvote
thx1138
By thx1138 (3 months ago)

Find it hard to believe a 45 f/1.2 for m4/3 sensor can cost within a a few hundred of an 85 f/1.2 for FF. Priced at a more realistic $1K it would make some sense, but m4/3 is about small cameras at big prices, which is why I only own two lenses and one indeed is the awesome little 45 f/1.8, the other the 12-35 f/2.8.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (3 months ago)

Zuiko 9-18
Zuiko 12mm F2
Lumix 14mm f2.5
Zuiko 17mm f1.8
Lumix 20mm f1.7
Lumix 25mm f1.4
Zuiko 60mm F2.8 macro
Zuiko 75mm F1.8

All well below a grand and welll worth the dough.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> a few hundred of an 85 f/1.2 for FF

(1)
85/1.2 got an aperture of 70.8mm (3,940mm2) while
42.5/1.2 is much smaller at 34.8mm (985mm2).

at the same angle of view this means 42.5/1.2 got 985/3,940 = 1/4 of light gathering capacity, which is decided when the light goes through the aperture, and regardless of what lens optics or sensor formats behind it that can only waste light (like the difference between F-number and T-number).

(2)
then what's the value of 42.5/1.2 as the spec suggests?

using Nikon 85/1.8G as reference,
(42.5/1.2)^2 / (85/1.8)^2 * 500 = 280 US.

using Oly 45/1.8 as reference,
(42.5/1.2)^2 / (45/1.8)^2 * 400 = 800 US.

this tells that Nikon 85/1.8G is a better buy than both
Oly 45/1.8 and Pana 42.5/1.2 by far
though I like the compactness of 45/1.8,
I'm fully aware its cost-performance is low.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
al_in_philly
By al_in_philly (3 months ago)

I just placed my pre-order at B&H. I've seen the specs. I've viewed the samples. I've read what people who've been beta testing the lens have said about it. I've been saving for this lens since it was announced. Yes it's expensive, but sometimes you've just got to say "what the h*ll."

9 upvotes
MrWalrusGumboot
By MrWalrusGumboot (3 months ago)

Good on you, I'll be doing the same soon.

0 upvotes
Joachim Gerstl
By Joachim Gerstl (3 months ago)

Not interested. I have a m43 camera now for size. This lens is big and heavy and still slow when compared to FF.
It's prize is rather optimistic too.

6 upvotes
klopus
By klopus (3 months ago)

How come f1.2 is slow, because it's not f0.95? f1.2 on smaller sensor isn't any slower in terms of exposure than f1.2 on FF, it juts has deeper DOF which has nothing to do with how fast is the lens.

5 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

This is a portrait lens, whose main role is subject isolation (DOF control). f1.8 FF portrait lenses are common and f1.2 4/3 portrait lens is definitely slower compared to them.

2 upvotes
TN Args
By TN Args (3 months ago)

@nerd2, if its main role was a portrait lens, they wouldn't call it Nocticron, hmmm?

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

you may wanna call it deeper or anything else, it will be less confusing then " slower" !?!?

what a nerd :)

0 upvotes
ecka84
By ecka84 (3 months ago)

@klopus How come 500mm f/4 isn't slow? :)

0 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

FF body + 50mm 1.8 lens has better IQ, more control of DOF and is way cheaper overall. Stupid people are stupid.

3 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (3 months ago)

... don't you think it is a little stupid to confuse 85mm with 50mm.

7 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

50mm 1.8 has MORE dof control than this lens, and much easier to use. So why not.

2 upvotes
noirdesir
By noirdesir (3 months ago)

As much as we can compare DOF between lenses of different AOV, the PanaLeica offers more shallow DOF. It offers the DOF of an 85 mm f/2.4 lens on FF. Combine the 50 mm f/1.8 with a 1.7x TC and you get an 85 mm f/3.1 lens.

3 upvotes
klopus
By klopus (3 months ago)

@nerd2 -Will your FF combo be similarly small, light and cheap? It's all about needs and compromises. What really stupid are blanket generalizations.

0 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

Check - unlike common misconceptions, m43 cameras are not that smaller or lighter than APS or FF counterparts (mirrorless cameras, not pro SLRs).

Also you cannot simply double f-number to compare DOF between different formats. I do own m43 and FF systems, and they have way more than 2 stops of DOF differences. In fact, APS-C has almost 1.5 stop shallower DOF than 43 around standard focal length.

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

> you cannot simply double f-number to compare DOF

Well you should not compare Dof at the first place if you are more photographer and less nerd, but for the sake of argument the response to above is: "Yes we can"! and please don't state a false statement, prove it!!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
ThorstenMUC
By ThorstenMUC (3 months ago)

nerd2 - it seem's all you are interested in in your photography-live is DOF.
No interest in light capturing capability for low-light usage, image sharpness, color reproduction,...

Why don't you simple buy a medium-format camera and take your pictures of the mm-thin nose-parts of your models, instead of discussing about FT-gear?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> Also you cannot simply double f-number to compare DOF between different formats.

anyone can simply multiply focal length or f-number with a factor and get every and all the photographic effects comparable (perspective, DoF, bokeh, light gathering capacity, diffraction ...).

the only error comes from the difference between linear and trigonometric calculations but it's simple and good enough for practical photographical use (should use angle and aperture size directly for scientific observation).

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
razorfish
By razorfish (3 months ago)

I'd like it even better if it was called Noctilux like a real Leica. Panasonic should have demanded that. What's a "Nocticron" anyway??

1 upvote
Jogger
By Jogger (3 months ago)

Leica did not want people to confuse this lens with a real Leica.

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

that's even more confusing .. why it's even borrowing it at the first place then ?? to save what confusion

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (3 months ago)

The -cron suffix is used for a lens that is slightly slower than a -lux lens. So just as a Summicron (F2.0) is slower than a Summilux (F1.4), a Nocticron (F1.2) is slower than a Noctilux (F1.0 and faster).

2 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

Leica named an 50mm f1.2 also noctilux.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> to confuse this lens with a real Leica.

for fake Leica means better quality
btw, I think Canon made a mistake to call their top lenses "L".
same stupid as Xxxlux.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

This lens with the same aperture and size could be produced very cheap, maybe half of the price and without leica badge and quality control, but with slightly inferior image quality and build. In that case maybe I could afford to buy it right now, that would be good for Panasonic but NOT FOR ME! because I really don't need that lens that much at this moment! Buying lenses just because they are in your price range WRONG and is silly!!
One day if I will get an assignment where I will need this lens, I won't mind paying this price and I will enjoy its build, badge and IQ more than anything I will trade on it!

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (3 months ago)

Why do you think it would have inferior build and quality control?

Have you seen the tear-apart of the Sigma designed and built 75/1.8.. its all metal inside and out, and its the best m43 lens on the market.. and its not ridiculously expensive, although, the "LEICA" badge could have brought in an extra $500 easy.

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

no mate i haven't tear-apart any lens, that's not what I do. I don't even know Sigma is making or designing any 75/1.8!! I was comparing it with non leica branded Pany lenses.

this is on the basis of my assumption (which can be wrong) that normally Leica branded Pany lenses are build a level above its standard lenses.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> the "LEICA" badge could have brought in an extra $500 easy.

300 dollar should be a reasonable price for this lens.
I'd like to add $100 to have the embarrasing brand removed,
so 400 dollars for this 42.5/1.2.

maybe someone will like to pay 300 + 500 = 800 dollars?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

All these complaints about expense, likely by people who've never used, let alone owned, a good Leica M lens.

As for why this lens costs more than the other PanaLeica m4/3 lenses, well f/1.2 instead of f/2.8. See the faster lens lets Panasonic close a bit of the high ISO gap between APSC mirrorless bodies and 4/3s bodies. In other words, lower ISOs can be used with this lens than would be needed with the m4/3s PanaLeica 45mm lens.

2 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

a) This is NOT a leica M lens
b) This lens only covers 1/4 area of leica M lens
c) Yet this is outrageously priced, just like most other m43 lenses

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

nerd2:

Did I claim it's a Leica M? Optically though it's likely close to a new good Leica M, also a myth that all Leica M lenses were extraordinary--I had a 90mm f/4.0, German made M that wasn't great.

Right less surface to polish perfectly, still needs to be done correctly--also not clear that math works, since there isn't a f/1.2 90mm Leica M. There was a fast Zeiss 85mm M mount of recent vintage, though only f/1.4 I think.

Good lenses cost money to make--I guess that Samsung NX 30mm f2.0 is both excellent and cheap; that's uncommon though and not reflected in the NX 85mm f1.4.

Just saying that what you wish isn't always reality.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mausta
By mausta (3 months ago)

Yo TROLL Boy Nerd2,
one, get a life.
two: The Canon 85mm f1.2 L lens costs over $2,000. THis is the type of lens that Panasonic AND Leica have designed and built. It is all metal, has Image Stabilization, and produces wonderful images with beautiful bokeh.
The beautiful advantage this lens has over Full Frame and even APS-C equivalents is that the DOF is equivalent to f2.4 on full frame, so say your subject's entire face will be in focus. F1.2 on full frame would render the tip of the subject's nose in focus.
So you get all of the light gathering advantages of f1.2 (this equates to faster shutter speed, LESS BLURRING) but the DOF of f2.4 which should allow subject's entire face to be in focus.
This has been reviewed as the finest m4/3 lens produced to date. The optical performance is excellent and the rendering of images is sublime. IF YOU CANNOT afford such things, luxuries to most, then purchase the quite excellent and affordable Olympus 45mm f1.8 lens for under $400.

0 upvotes
mausta
By mausta (3 months ago)

ALSO the image stabilization will allow for even better results. Oh yeah have fun with your tank sized DSLR. I borrowed my father's new Nikon d7100 and was horribly disappointed in the size, the lack of information provided on the Optical Viewfinder, the cumbersome menu layout and button layout, and the overall clumsiness and awkwardness of using such as beast. I guess I have grown accustomed to all of the advantages that m4/3 offers.
Don't criticize what you have not ever tried for yourself and honestly have no true understanding of.
The world will always be full of HATERS.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> F1.2 on full frame would render the tip of the subject's nose in focus.

the sad thing is that DoF is hardwired with light gathering capacity. acturally they are the same thing at a certain angle of view. you know one and you'll know the other, without exception no matter what sensor size.

given an angle of view (solid angle actually) and aperture size, the following photographic results are decided even before the light rays hitting the lens:

light gathering capacity, DoF, bokeh, diffraction, ...
whatever controlled by aperture regardless of sensor format.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (3 months ago)

To put things into perspective. I bought 64" 3D plasma TV with all bells and whistles for less than that. I can buy a used car for less than that. I can buy a house in 3rd world country for less than that.

2 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

This is known as perspective distortion :))

10 upvotes
razorfish
By razorfish (3 months ago)

For the price of a Canon 70-200mm IS, you could buy two of those items. For the price of a (german-made) Leica Noctilux you could buy seven. Your point being......?

5 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (3 months ago)

peevee1

that must be the most ridiculous post in a long time, my hat if off (which you could also have for less than that). Now I will not be able to stop think what all YOU could have for less than that :D

0 upvotes
mausta
By mausta (3 months ago)

IGNORANCE.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423691-USA/Canon_1056B002AA_EF_85mm_f_1_2L_II.html
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Lens costs $2100. This is the type of lens that Panasonic and Leica have produced. The Canon lens does not include image stabilization.
This website seems plagued with ignorant haters that are either 1. jealous of the size advantage of m4/3. or 2. enjoy bashing m4/3 gear for no apparent good reason.
Again nobody from m4/3 is going over to Canon products and trolling to their heart's content with ignorant claims.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

of course people have the right to pay three times premium for a lens that can do no more work than 85/2.4, and with an embarassing fake brand. it's their money and their choice.

0 upvotes
shigzeo ?
By shigzeo ? (3 months ago)

That product shot is quite poor. The could have at least lined up the ribs and focus flutes. All still life photographers should rise up and demand Panasonic look at different portfolios before wasting money and time on such poor work.

;)

While I agree with that, this lens looks hot. Super hot. If I was in the m43 camp, this would be on my short list.

0 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (3 months ago)

"Stereoscopic effect..." Hmm.
£1300... Double-hmm.
I'll stick with my Olympus 45/1.8, thanks.
Edited
to discount the lens down from £1500 to a bargain basement £1300. I'll still keep my Olympus 45 though.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

this lens should not worth 300 pounds.
or maybe it worths 300 pounds at 1 GBP = 1 USD.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
razorfish
By razorfish (3 months ago)

Oh great, yabokkie is here... Weren't you banned?

11 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

it's not 1300 it is £1299 gbp

0 upvotes
SulfurousBeast
By SulfurousBeast (3 months ago)

Seriously Yabokkie. Canon's kit lens 18-135mm, 3.5-5.6f lens costs $400, for a 1.2f leica, msrp is fair I would say, while I myself will not purchase one anytime as I am not a pro or a hedge fund manager...

0 upvotes
Raskolnikow90
By Raskolnikow90 (3 months ago)

Does anyone know if the aperture ring will work with an Olympus body or an old Panasonic llike the gf1?

0 upvotes
paulo79
By paulo79 (3 months ago)

I'd say it will. I just tested my old 25mm f1.4 on a GF1 and the aperture ring worked fine. Never thought to try that before!

2 upvotes
Raskolnikow90
By Raskolnikow90 (3 months ago)

Thank you for testing!

0 upvotes
uberzone
By uberzone (3 months ago)

It will not work on Olympus bodies at this time and I doubt Olympus will ever do a firmware update for this feature.

It is good to know that Panasonic carried this feature over from their 4/3 cameras to all of their m4/3 cameras even though no native lens had this functionality until now.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Raskolnikow90
By Raskolnikow90 (3 months ago)

Its a shame that some mft lens were not fully compatible with their oly/pana counterpart body... snapshot-focus, CA-correction, OIS/IBIS, aperture ring...
its awesome to have such diversity... but there are always some limitations

0 upvotes
paulo79
By paulo79 (3 months ago)

@Raskolnikow90 I just tested 12mm f2 on the GF1, and snapshot focus does work. I was pretty sure it does, as its a mechanical system I tink, but just wan't to be sure.

I would love the aperture rings to work on my OMDs though, but as you say, there are limitations.

1 upvote
quangzizi
By quangzizi (3 months ago)

Again reading the comment section is the best way to lol. So many "experts" here claim that this is overpriced, yet none has seen the actual performance and comparison with the Fuji. If you look up on the web, there are some samples of the Pana and damn they are so sharp and so good even wide open. That bokeh and characteristics are of course "leica".

I was taken back a bit by the price, but looking through the specs. It is more complicated than the Fuji (14 e in 11 groups vs 11 e in 8 groups). It seems to be heavier because it is fully metal as other Leica lens should be (fuji is only barrel and mount metal). OIS is yeah first of its kind for this. Considering all that and the leica badge (it costs), it seems OK at the moment. If further test proves this a lemon then we will know - not now...

1 upvote
goshigoo
By goshigoo (3 months ago)

this is overpriced given DoF is same as 85 f/2.4 @ FF and Fujifilm XF56 is cheaper

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
arbuz
By arbuz (3 months ago)

@goshigoo - does Fuji have stabilisation?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> given DoF is same as 85 f/2.4 @ FF

any photographic effect you get will be the same,
as long as it's controlled by the aperture.

for we have only one aperture and it's the same size,
42.5/1.2 = 85/2.4 = 35mm
everything the same with no exception.

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

quangzizi: ""experts" here claim that this is overpriced

please name one!!

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (3 months ago)

@yabokkie there are other metrics of lens quality such as sharpness, contrast, even the look of out-of-focus background areas. For example the $1700 Nikon 58mm f/1.4 has considerably nicer bokeh than the cheap 50mm f1.4 despite only having marginally shallower DoF.

1 upvote
mausta
By mausta (3 months ago)

Ignore everything Yabookie says. For one his english is always incorrect, which emphasizes his ignorance.
It makes no sense to even read his comments.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> there are other metrics

you are right, but those metrics don't affect lens prices dramatically for the costs won't be very different (I'd value Otus 55/1.4 more than one stop higher than 50/1.4 lenses or more than a grand for heavy glass but this is a rare case).

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (3 months ago)

@yabokkie Things like highly corrected aspherical elements cost a lot more to make than simple spherical elements regardless of aperture size, and DPR through the very expensive Nikon 58mm f1.4 was worth the money in the right situations

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

makers no longer use ground and polished asph glass, for
it turned out they are not only more expensive but also less accurate, like found in some Canon lenses.

GMo asph elements and even hybrid plastic ones are of much better quality at much lower cost.

0 upvotes
Leify
By Leify (3 months ago)

I read every post on here. It seems the price is the biggest complaint. Welcome to 2014 people. Inflation is not going away. China has decreased exports of all precious metals last year. Why should you care? Because 90% of the world's rare earth metals come from China. What does this mean to the rest of us? Price of metals go up and that gives China the upper hand in supply. This is a solid metal lens people. That paired with some superbly polished German Leica glass with new silent stepping motor and not 7, but 9 smooth aperture blades. Be glad Leica isn't sucking you dry for this one. Their M mount glass will run you 2500 to 10k alone. That being said, I love metal lenses. I own a Konica AR Hexanon 50mm f1.7 manufactured around 1970. It cost me $25 on EBay. AR to MFT adapter was $20. It's one of my favorite lenses. With adapter, it's around the same weight, height and width as my Oly 75mm f1.8. The focusing ring is smooth and precise. Filter thread is 55mm. I just can't imagine going wider to 67mm. Yes, that's the drawback to getting an f stop of 1.2. The wider the lens the more light gets in. Thats fine. I think I'll hold on to my Hexanon and pass on the zee Leica. My E-m5 can handle higher ISO and low noise. Plus I don't need OIS. I have IBIS. If I need auto focus, I can pull out my 45mm f1.8 no problem. Altogether, less than $1600. I'll just save my money for an E-M1.

8 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (3 months ago)

" Price of metals go up and that gives China the upper hand in supply. This is a solid metal lens people"

It is NOT made of rare earth metals. Probably just a bit in the focusing motor, just as much as in the $50 Olympus 14-42 II it zoom.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

metal is not a good material for lens barrel,
plastic is.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (3 months ago)

Plastic is a bad material to use in a construct with glass, it has very different thermal expansion from the glass in the lens, causing internal friction and wear in the process (leading to misaligned elements with time). Metal is much closer to glass.
Glass, hard 5.9 (10-6 m/m K)
Glass, plate 9.0
Aluminum 22.2
Magnesium 25
Plastics 40 - 120
Polycarbonate (PC) 70.2

Fiberglass is the closest, after all it is mostly glass. :)
Also, plastics soften (melt) in heat and crack in the cold.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (3 months ago)

peevee1, check out these three datasheets for optical glass and carbon fiber filled nylon and polycarbonate:

http://www.schott.com/advanced_optics/us/abbe_datasheets/schott_datasheet_all_us.pdf

http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=9e8b61428dd94173a55cf9023f709d8d&ckck=1

http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=0d3f660de69341bb91d6aa544e4b4db4

It appears to me that these composites are close to a perfect match (10-14 m/mK) for optical glass. Certainly far closer than any metal could come to matching optical glass. Not all plastics are created equal.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

peevee1 got a point but put it upside down: metal should be avoided because of their bad thermodynamics.

we'll not only have better plastic (carbon or polycarbon, resin, nylon, whatever) lens barrels but also hard and soft plastic and liquid optical elements which have a lot of wanted characteristics.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

bird shooters usually shield their long lenses (all metal ones) to prevent distortion of the lens barrel (heated by the sun or cooled by wind from one side).

double sleeves are prefered for better thermal insulation (foamed plastic under camouflage).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Paul S Churcher
By Paul S Churcher (3 months ago)

Great addition to the Panasonic stable! Sure it's not everybody's cup of tea and the price is high but compare all the lenses to their equivalents in Nikon and Canon and you save a bucket load of cash. I am looking forward to a super compact 300mm/f2.8 (600mm/f2.8 equivalent) from the Panasonic Team....will be the perfect lens for Surf, Football, and Wildlife. I have been using G Series since it's inception with no complaints....love it!

3 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

Though this lens will look better on EM-1! It is a very good candidate for GH series too as they don't have IBIS!

1 upvote
SulfurousBeast
By SulfurousBeast (3 months ago)

Pair it with the OMD EM-1 and you have a pro rig as pro as it can get for less than $3000 !

4 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

lens is big and heavy for m4/3. very expensive. also need very big expensive filter. panasonic need to make compact lens for compact m4/3 cameras. not this. cannot pocket camera with this lens. need light pancake. right @jorge?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
tjobbe
By tjobbe (3 months ago)

Yes, combine this new lens with the GH3 and you get a real compact combination....

wait....

@jorge: do you now start a thread about the fact that m4/3 is way to large and to heavy and that the argument that you can get pancakes applied to m4/3 as well as to other mounts ?

I guess what Pana correctly shows here is that a real superior optics can hardly be small and light with fast aperture at same time so I believe that this one is still a reasonable extension to the m4/3 lens set.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

m43 already got plenty of cheap and light lenses!! I am sure you were kidding mate, but on a serious note .. for this bright aperture and focal length .. this lens is good size-wise with 67mm filter and 425g! can't wait for its reviews!!

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (3 months ago)

DPR thought the Nikon $1700 58mm f1.4 was worth the money in the right situations, if the quality is good then I can't see why this lens would be any different.

0 upvotes
Chanthis
By Chanthis (3 months ago)

$1600 for a m4/rds lens? LOL, there's one born every minute.

5 upvotes
razorfish
By razorfish (3 months ago)

In a few years, when mirrorless medium-sensored cameras have 95% of the system-camera market, you'll realize how ridiculous your comment is.

3 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (3 months ago)

How is this different to a, say, a $1700 58mm f1.4 SLR lens?

0 upvotes
mausta
By mausta (3 months ago)

YO CHANTIS
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Lens costs $2100. This lens is of similar specs. and build quality. IT also includes image stabilization.
Obvious when people are envious. They need to needlessly attack.

1 upvote
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (3 months ago)

Hello razorfish

Your chain of self gratuitous and generally disrespecting comments relative to the subject matter and posters, are non value added retorts wielded by an individual whose writings appear at best, to be emanating from a source not ever formally educated or trained in optics, in effect wearing your lower sphincter like some sort of chic turtle neck sweater.

Park McGraw

0 upvotes
Matz03
By Matz03 (3 months ago)

so I can get then new fuji 56mm and an X-E1 or just the panasonic? or a 6d and the 85mm f1.8 for a tad more? Pricing here is absurd

5 upvotes
razorfish
By razorfish (3 months ago)

Well get the Fuji then. No need to whine about it in here. Guess you really want the Panasonic, right?

2 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

Yes we do razorfish. It saves us buying an new camera that we have to learn inside out. But i don't want to pay this much premium for just an badge.

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

Hi BarnET .. I am quite sure even without seeing test results that it would be a great lens optically and mechanically; so it's not just badge!! The main thing is if you need it! I am still not sure if I really nead that shallow Dof or that bright aperture, as am mostly in Landscape photos or portraits with some emphasize on backgrounds. But I wanna experiment more with this setup and maybe I like it who knows. 45mm f/1.8 so far is good for my needs; also I got some Nikon AI old primes that I can mount with Lens Turbo AI-m43 on Pany GH1.

1 upvote
goshigoo
By goshigoo (3 months ago)

Spec-wise, it is even worse than fuji's one....except OIS

for $1600....it's better to get D610 + 85 f/1.8G
which is only ~USD $2000 in HK....

3 upvotes
greenarcher02
By greenarcher02 (3 months ago)

You do know there are Nikon and Canon lenses MORE EXPENSIVE than this, right? Reeks of bias.

1 upvote
quangzizi
By quangzizi (3 months ago)

Fuji: 11 elements in 8 groups - 7 blades - metal barrel and mount only
Pana: 14 elements in 11 groups - 9 blades - OIS - all metal

Yeah... it's worse...

3 upvotes
razorfish
By razorfish (3 months ago)

More whining. Just shut up and vote with your wallet.

2 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

So that's what you want. People voting fujifilm and Dslr's with their wallet, Panasonic and olympus will get broke and your stuck with an dead system like 4/3rd before.

yeah great logic

2 upvotes
razorfish
By razorfish (3 months ago)

Point is, Barnet, this lens is not really overpriced. It's expensive, yes. Not everyone will be willing to pay for it. I'm not sure I am, though I probably will get it at some point. Regardless it's nice to know there is such a lens available in the system.

But overpriced it is not. Consider what you're getting: The brightest aperture available in an AF lens, for any system. OIS in an f1.2, a world first. Premuim, all-metal build. Supreme sharpness wide open (most likely), extremely rare in an f1.2. Silent AF that works just as well for photo and video. Also, you have to consider the system. m43 is (in my opinion) the most attractive system right now. People will pay more for a premium lens in a well-supported system with access to a range of nice camera bodies.

Look at the best lenses for Canon and Nikon. Pricing is just as steep, maybe even steeper. Look at Leica. Their lenses are not even AF, but many pay for them anyway.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

How can you say it's not overpriced.
Yes it's the brightest af lens. but so is the fuji 56mm and the nikon 32mm. gives it no right to be 60% more expensive as a lens that covers an bigger image circle.

premium build. have you seen the fuji lenses.the R line feels very nice as well. only difference is an metal filter thread yawn.

supreme sharpness wide open. we don't know if it's any sharper wide-open. it should be considering the 60% premium but is it

The the system. Well the µ4/3 system is not that attractive anymore. It lost it's unique form and the bodies with viewfinders are very expensive. unless you goo with the G6 but that has an outdated sensor that get's spanked by the cheapest NEX.

looking at the Nikon lenses they are not really that much more expensive. Do not compare an 35-100mm F2.8 to an 70-200 F2.8. compare it to the 70-200 F4. that still has some DOF advantage and also resolution and dynamic range. And it's the same price

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

razorfish:

Leica S lenses are AF.

But right, there's good reason to pay more for fast optically excellent lenses, which this PanaLeica is very very likely to be.

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

But no thanks dude, D610 + 85mm lens is plan big and weird. I tried to like it but seriously I felt strange even walking with it in my office where my colleague asked me to try it! No question about its IQ though .. if you need that extra bit of DR that you don't wanna deal in post processing or any other reason ... but is definitely not for me .. not any more!! 4-5 years ago if you would have given it to me .. I would be very happy (after D90) .. call me spoiled if you like!

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (3 months ago)

One could buy the new Fuji 85mm and get a body as well at this price. Pany is paying too much for the Leica logo. Is the Leica logo worth that much? Is it $600 better than the Fuji? Time will tell.

1 upvote
John Motts
By John Motts (3 months ago)

The new Fuji is 56mm actually.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (3 months ago)

I'm not on MFT, but MFT sure gets a nice lens.

Bring out a 20mm f1.2 (40mm equivalent) and I might just take a look at the MFTs.

1 upvote
undergrounddigga
By undergrounddigga (3 months ago)

the Panasonic 20mm F1.7 not good enough? I know it's not f1.2 but it is a legendary lens - and it is pancake as well.
there is so many options for mFT it's crazy
upcoming PanaLeica 15mm F1.7
Oly 17mm F1.8
Voigtlander 17mm F0.95
Pana 20mm F.1.7
PanaLeica 25mm F1.4
Oly (upcoming) 25mm F1.8
Voigtlander 25mm F0.95
Sigma 19mm F2.8
SLRMagic..
heck there is even a 30mm F1.4 coming from Schneider

4 upvotes
undergrounddigga
By undergrounddigga (3 months ago)

On the other hand, what I would like is high quality 8mm prime (non-fisheye)..

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

4/3" will need f/0.7 to compete with f/1.4 primes,
f/1.4 to compete with f/2.8 zooms.
this lens should be at least better than f/2.8 zoom.

> the Panasonic 20mm F1.7 not good enough?
it's good as a m4/3" lens, not good otherwise.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Silent K
By Silent K (3 months ago)

you can never satisfy an Image Quality purist.

1 upvote
MichaelJP
By MichaelJP (3 months ago)

If your equivalency statements are referring to the light gathering performance then you are incorrect. f/1.4 is equal to f/1.4 on any system
If you are referring to depth of focus then you have a mild argument as a depth of field at f/1.4 or f/0.7 are both very shallow.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> f/1.4 is equal to f/1.4 on any system

it could be, if you ignore anything photographic.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

undergrounddigga:

Well done Leica (or PanaLeica) lenses optically surpass almost all other camera lenses, including the only serious challenges from Japanese lens makers, that's Fuji and Olympus. Colour from good Leica lenses doesn't look dead.

0 upvotes
paulo79
By paulo79 (3 months ago)

Maybe instead of spending all your time disparaging others for what they choose to spend their money on yabokkie you could instead just go out and take some pictures. I notice you have nothing in your galleries and no challenge entries. It might cheer you up, photography is actually fun if you give it a try I hear.

0 upvotes
wy2lam
By wy2lam (3 months ago)

MichaelJP, it is not just about how shallow the DOF is, it is also about the subject separation and bokeh. Even if the background is out of focus on both the f/1.4 and f/0.7, the f/0.7 background is creamier all else being equal.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
mausta
By mausta (3 months ago)

Yabokie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bokie

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (3 months ago)

Boy ain't dat purty. Pretty speechless, what a nice looking lens. It's gonna be a crack performer too, I just know it. Almost gets my smile as big as the 28-90mm f/2-2.4 on my LC1. Almost. :)

Carl

4 upvotes
kimchiflower
By kimchiflower (3 months ago)

With the 3 highest-end m4/3 bodies being weather sealed, and this being the most expensive lens, it has to be weather sealed, right?

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (3 months ago)

Are there any weather sealed portrait lenses for any system?

0 upvotes
BorisAkunin
By BorisAkunin (3 months ago)

@Andy Crowe

Nikon (FF):
85 f1.8 AF-S
85 f1.4 AF-S

Pentax (APS-C):
DA*55 f/1.4

1 upvote
draleks
By draleks (3 months ago)

-

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Jan Chelminski
By Jan Chelminski (3 months ago)

Folks, it's a luxury, top level lens, at least for Panasonic. Oly top lens still cost far more but this is P's top lens. Why cry? There are so many choices here, from the excellent and affordable MZ 45mm f/1.8, all the adapted legacy MF 50's, the great Nocton and the cheap yet sensationally sharp Sigma 60 f/2.8, why gnash your teeth and wring your hands? Surely there's something here for everyone?

9 upvotes
RPJG
By RPJG (3 months ago)

It's because DPReview seems to have more whingers than photographers.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (3 months ago)

1 of 4

Are the lens reviews published by dpReview purposefully attempting to dumb down the readers, habitually 60% correct, or are the writers at dpReview simply and habitually working beyond their subject matter comfort zone and or technical level of proficiency?

This article being another disappointing report and or supplied text that arbitrarily disrespects industry established verbiage, thus convoluting the subject matter of optics and photography, apparently encouraged and or escaping past a management accustom to low performance standards (a.k.a. more apt at providing excuses for mediocrity and ultimately bad behavior).

1] "... portraits with rich stereoscopic effect ..."

No monocular system, forming a singular imaging upon a single focal plane, such that any given point on the focal plane sees an identical image (aperture), does not produce "stereoscopic effect" but rather the "perception of depth".

0 upvotes
draleks
By draleks (3 months ago)

The formulations that you deservingly criticize have not been written by the DPReview stuff, but have been copied by them verbatim from a Panasonic press release. Not to say that this makes the matters any better, arguably it makes them much worse.

3 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (3 months ago)

Again, get over yourself. People talk about lenses yielding a "3D rendering" all the time on these forums.

1 upvote
razorfish
By razorfish (3 months ago)

Not a review... Moron

1 upvote
joejack951
By joejack951 (3 months ago)

He might not be a moron but he isn't paying attention to the description of what he is reading.

0 upvotes
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (3 months ago)

2 of 4

2] "... uniformed descriptiveness from center to edges ... beautiful soft focus ..."

This claim is a contradiction. The process of soft focus, less an area specific aperture mask, affecting the entire field of view of the imager, including the principle axis. Hence, no lens that has a soft central field can also claim to have "uniformed descriptiveness" more professionally and less pretentiously addressed as "uniform image quality" for the entire "field of view" (FOV), or focal plane.

3] "... shallow depth of field ... unique to the large aperture lens ..."

Is not a correct statement as "shallow depth of field" is a product of "lens or optical speed" (f ratio, i.e. solid angle), apparent or real and not just the diameter of the aperture. The optical speed, thus depth of field of a system being a ratio of "lens aperture diameter" and "lens focal length", e.g. Large Aperture, short focal length, shallow depth of field; Large Aperture, long focal length, deep depth of field.

0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (3 months ago)

2. "beautiful soft focus" likely refers to "bokeh." Go look at images from any high quality portrait prime. Very sharp where it matters with very soft looking out of focus regions.

3. Get over yourself. You clearly know what they mean.

1 upvote
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (3 months ago)

Hello joejack951

Your reply to my posting is an indication that you do not understand or comprehend the full nature and differences between "bokeh" and "soft focus".

Bokeh (out of image plane) and Soft Focus (in plane) being two completely different optical factors.

For your benefit, "soft focus" deals only with the formed spot diameter properties of "in focus" images at the image (focal) plane.

Bokeh deals with the bisymmetry of focused spot diameter properties "in front of" and "behind" the image plane, hence the "out of focus images" formed.

In short, a soft lens is soft for the entire field of view, including the on axis image, and point that escaped you having given little contemplation to the posting I shared.

In addition, your are arrogant to understand that it is your place to tell anyone "get over it". Rest assured, you'll not be performing optical duties in any of the labs I supervise.

In closing, no name, no creditability.

Park McGraw
www.phisicalpsience.com/about

0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (3 months ago)

Park, calm down. Read my words, "beautiful soft focus" likely refers to "bokeh."

Did I say bokeh is soft focus or vice versa? No. I know the difference, and for the sake of correctness I'll add that bokeh refers to the quality of the out of focus image, not the image itself.

0 upvotes
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (3 months ago)

3 of 4

4] " ... slight handshake ... images ... out-of-focus ... POWER O.I.S. (Optical Image Stabilizer) ... effectively compensates ... easy to capture ... low-lit situations"

Rubbish, focus (minus atmospheric turbulence and high approach rates) is typically a longitudinal function between the subject and focal plane. The emphasis of O.l.S. is for compensating orthogonal motion of the focal plane, and not longitudinal motion.

Changes in longitudinal distance to the subject, due to orthogonal translations being a very small cosine theta value on the order of mm or less, minus imaging in the extreme near field (e.g. macro).

Shake induced errors, or blurring of the image, regardless of lens design and speed, being controlled by exposure time relative to the velocity (motion) of the image across the focal plane, and not the trivial mm scale longitudinal translations induced from orthogonal (linear or circular) motion about the optical axis separating the camera from the subject.

2 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (3 months ago)

With DOF measured in millimeters, it is easy to lock focus on an eye then end up focused on the ear or nose due to accidentally moving the camera before the shutter is released. Do you have much experience with ultra-fast lenses?

2 upvotes
ack231
By ack231 (3 months ago)

So joejack951 -- please explain how OIS would compensate for moving the camera closer to (or further away from) the subject?

0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (3 months ago)

First off, it's Panasonic's claim, not mine. Maybe they actually use the focusing group to hold focus with a moving camera. Second, parkmcgraw has claimed that out-of-focus images don't result from moving the camera closer or further from the subject which he claims is a "trivial mm scale." That is the comment to which I was responding.

0 upvotes
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (3 months ago)

Hello joejack951

You ask if I have experience with fast systems.

As an Astro photographer with 35 years experience and former freelance for weddings to Budweiser speed boat racing, YES.

Spanning from "noct" lens, Global Hawk EO (optical integration and characterization optical facility Engineering Design Lead - Hughes/Raytheon), 10m Keck Telescope, to coupling the worlds brightest weapons grade laser (Northrop Grumman).

What is your experience set or are you just a loose pen?

0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (3 months ago)

Since you asked, I have a 35/1.4, 85/1.4, and 105/2.8 Micro lens all of which can yield DOF measured in millimeters. If you think that moving closer or further from the subject can't affect focus, then all of your experience has not taught you much about fast lenses and/or close focus.

0 upvotes
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (3 months ago)

4 of 4

5] "... superior inner focus system, ... excellent resolution and contrast from close-up to infinity. "

The correct terminology, as appose to "inner focus" is "near field", the inverse term being "far field". The verbiage "inner focus" already assigned to describing the optical region just forward of the image plane, and does not refer to the object distance, near or far field.

In the future, the process for selecting optical (lens or imaging) reviewers and or responsible editors at dpReview, doing well to question the potential candidate if they have actually made a lens, camera body or worked in a professional optical facility for two decades or more.

Until then, I kindly suggest that the individual(s) leading dpReview acquire competent subject matter experts/mentors for the dpReview writing staff, sending the "undisciplined, make stuff up on the fly" chalk board or consumer only candidates down the road.

Park McGraw

0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (3 months ago)

"inner focus system", known as "IF" in Nikon-speak, just means that the lens does not extend when focusing (it uses a rear focusing group internal to the lens vs. a front focusing group.

And as noted already, those are Panasonic's words, likely translated from Japanese.

4 upvotes
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (3 months ago)

Hello Joejack951

The IF by Nikon stands for internal focus, not inner focus.

Pretentious people such as yourself, confusing non education and experience for competence being much of the problem with such technical subjects.

Do you always make erroneous excuses for bad behavior.

Most of the people that I know which speak Japanese, including my mother and girlfriend, and to some degree myself, with ESL skills not making such translation mistakes.

0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (3 months ago)

Yes, Nikon says "internal" instead of "inner". You are acting like it's a translation mistake when it's likely just marketing changing words so that they aren't copying another competitor's language. Care to share the huge difference in meaning between "internal" and "inner"?

I'm pretentious? That's rich. If English is your second language, I applaud your ability to write it. It's far better than my Japanese or any other language besides English for that matter. However, your punctuation, grammar, and sentence structure are far from perfect so I'd lay off on the criticizing of others for far less obvious mistakes, if they are even mistakes at all.

0 upvotes
harold1968
By harold1968 (3 months ago)

Strongly admire Panny for just going for it and making the best lenses they can.
Hope this one does well and leads to other leading edge designs.
Folk should understand the inverse square law of optics design. For the highest quality glass and materials its logarithmically more then cheaper stuff.
The chief lens designer at Leica said last year that their best ASPH elements now cost more then the purest silver.
IMHO Zeiss is ahead in lens design now, but just look at the Optus size and cost, just to eliminate the last 2% of flaws ....

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
12 upvotes
Dimit
By Dimit (3 months ago)

Will you be suprised telling you that this lens needn't exist??
Sure it'll be excellent but on an Oly or Pana body with an in-body stabilization,why not simply get the Voigt o.95 without ois????
I guess

1 upvote
Archiver
By Archiver (3 months ago)

The Voigtlander is an excellent lens, but the Panasonic appears to pick up where the Nokton lacks. Wide open at f0.95, and even stopped down to f1.2, the Nokton exhibits softness and veiling, while tests shots suggest the Pana is sharper and lacks this 'veil'. And of course, the Pana has autofocus.

4 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (3 months ago)

Its called auto focus . . .

6 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (3 months ago)

... and built-in stabilization, for those Panasonic bodies that don't have IBIS. and that's most of them.

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

all of them other than gx7!

and all bigger lenses sits better on GH series where you have a bigger grip! GX7 should still be fine though IMHO!!

0 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (3 months ago)

Well... at least it comes with a lens hood.

6 upvotes
SunnyFlorida
By SunnyFlorida (3 months ago)

Memo to Panny - Fuji 56mm F/1.2 APS-C lens is $600 cheaper, good luck selling these

6 upvotes
razorfish
By razorfish (3 months ago)

The Panasonic has OIS, the Fuji don't...

7 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (3 months ago)

This is a Leica ..

2 upvotes
HDF2
By HDF2 (3 months ago)

You know after reading your post I said "he's so right" and I ran out and bought that Fuji lens and saved myself $600!

Oh, wait, I own a m4/3 camera and that "inexpensive" Fuji is actually a very expensive paper weight.

This pathetic recurring argument of X is so much cheaper than Y even though X isn't actually comparable to Y because they are for two different systems is so assinine.

It's kinda like saying that the engine pistons for a Toyota are so much cheaper than those of a BMW - problem is they are useless for the BMW and thus its an irrelevant comparison.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
18 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

The price difference is the same as a new xm-1.
So what was your point.

1 upvote
Oleg Vinokurov
By Oleg Vinokurov (3 months ago)

How about comparing optical qualities first? Cheaper doesn't mean better. Apart from different optics i think pana will have more smooth and pleasant bokeh because of 9 aperture blades, where fuji has 7.
If need something cheap, m4/3 also has rather excellent oly 45 f1.8

3 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (3 months ago)

The Zeis Otus 55 mm F1.4, not even F1.2m costs 4000 dollar. Do you have any comment on that. The Nikon 50 mm F1.4 costs 339 dollar. Instead of the Fuji F1.2 at 1000 dollar. The Nikon fits on the FF bodies, given better DOF. Which is what it is all about it seems. So the Fuji is expensive it seems..or it is cheap...or the Zeiss is overpriced...or the Panny is cheap...or or or...

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

SunnyFlorida:

That new Fuji is likely optically good, but not extraordinary like a well done Leica lens, we'll have to wait until both have shipped anyhow.

It's simply wrong to assert that the best Fuji lenses equal the optical quality of the best PanaLeica lenses. And yes the good Fuji lenses are plenty good.

1 upvote
photogeek
By photogeek (3 months ago)

I predict that at this price, they'll sell three, maybe as many as four of these.

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
DerpyWebber
By DerpyWebber (3 months ago)

Oooh, oooh, if any Panasonic reps are reading through this, hire this guy! He knows what he's talking about!

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (3 months ago)

Right, depends on the performance of trust funds for the trust fund babies.

0 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (3 months ago)

It will be very interesting to see how this lens will stack up against the Oly 45/1.8 (which is great and much cheaper and probably smaller and lighter). OK - there is 1 stop of a difference.

I personally think that it is great to have more choices.

But the price is STEEP for this one. With most of high end m43 bodies having built-in IS, having in-lens IS brings little advantage and just adds to price.

2 upvotes
razorfish
By razorfish (3 months ago)

Remember, Panasonic m4/3 is as much about video as it is about photo. Without OIS, this lens would be pretty useless for handheld video...

6 upvotes
naftade
By naftade (3 months ago)

This lens would be perfectly usable for viedeo without OIS. At least for Oly-users

2 upvotes
razorfish
By razorfish (3 months ago)

Kidding? Olympus video?? Really??? Have you seen Olympus video???

6 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

It's the same as Fuji video..........
Jittery artifact loaded crap to be honest.

2 upvotes
felicity
By felicity (3 months ago)

This lens is a beast next to the Oly (weighs nearly 4X). It sounds very impressive (and the IQ and bokeh might make you swoon) and if I was toting a big 4/3s camera (like the Oly E-M1) I would save my pennies to get it. But it would make my little GM1 look like a wart and handle like a ____ (fill in the blank), so I will be happy with my sweet lil Oly lens on my Pany. That's why I got the pair in the first place. That said, if it turns out to be da bomb and the cost gets reigned in at all... I could just go against everything I just wrote.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
razorfish
By razorfish (3 months ago)

I lucked out with the filter mount coming in at 67mm. I own a Heliopan vario-ND (cost $353 new) in just that size. An ideal filter to use with such a lens, both in photo and video.

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (3 months ago)

Great fun reading here. We have not seen a test of the Fuji. we have not seen a test of the Panny (I saw a review). But we all know one or another is better, overpriced. We can't know that, we only now seem o know what we want to spend or not and cheaper is better if it looks the same otherwise. Is that so?

How about this one: Nikkor AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G. F1.4. better DOF than the FUji and surely the Panny. Must be great. Costs only 400 dollar! Who dared to say the Fuji was inexpensive? It is more than twice the price and has less doF control also....

13 upvotes
completelyrandomstuff
By completelyrandomstuff (3 months ago)

better yet, one of those C-mounts 50mm F1.4 lenses. They can be bought for $50 a pop, so they surely must be even better with the same DOF control :D.

2 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (3 months ago)

And whose the fool buying a Zeiss Otus Distagon 55 mm F1.4 for...4000 bucks? No one here I think; they should sue Zeiss!!

3 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

Have you seen the resolution of the Zeiss on an d800.
Dxo claimed 29p mpix. That's insane.

3 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (3 months ago)

How do Panny and Fuji score?

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

they can't get above 16 becouse their sensors don't have that many pixels. the best lens of µ4/3 now has 12mpix.

that is the 75mm F1.8 olympus on the em-1.
2.5 times the resolution gives you the right to ask an premium

3 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

True but then its more about what is enough for your needs .. how many mega-pixels are there in an HD video? and how sharp the fullframe lenses are wide-open and the sharpest lenses when measured, how much they were stopped down to get that 29PP! I would suggest again, these prices and mediums all make much more sense if you need it, otherwise friends you are wasting time over another territory, discussing someone else equipment or slowly converting!!
being a m43 user I feel its worth every penny! it's another thing that am not going invest on it, not yet .. maybe later if will get an application, and at that time, I wont consider cheap Nikon fullframe or expensive Zeiss Otus 4k$. I will get this one, because this sits on a camera system which I am more experienced with!!

1 upvote
Infared
By Infared (3 months ago)

Please...please...get my nitro-glycerin pills...hurry!!!!

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (3 months ago)

$1600 = DOA

6 upvotes
jeffharris
By jeffharris (3 months ago)

For $1600, I guess I'll be sticking with my Voigtländer 42.5mm f0.95 for $999.

http://cameraquest.com/voigt_M43_42.5.htm

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
15 upvotes
BBking83
By BBking83 (3 months ago)

*clears throat*

Excuse me but did you just sensibly compare this lens to one of the same format and focal length? AND when both stopped down to f/2.0, might yield similar results and saying that it's a third of the price?! HOW DARE YOU!!!

To be honest, though, I think the Voigtlander will have less contrast in colours than the Panasonic/Leica but we are yet to see any comparisons. :)

5 upvotes
Archiver
By Archiver (3 months ago)

As much as I love the Nokton, the softness and veiling at f0.95-1.2 isn't the best. And the need to focus in rapidly changing conditions could be made much easier with autofocus, even one-touch AF. I'm very interested to see how this new lens performs, particularly for video work.

4 upvotes
jeffharris
By jeffharris (3 months ago)

@Archiver
With the Voigtländer 42.5mm the amount of veiling has to do with your distance from the subject.The close focusing distance (9" - 30cm ±) can exacerbate it, too.

At f0.95 and close distances, it's very gauzy looking, but as soon as you step back a few feet, veiling pretty much goes away.

It's truly is a joy to use and image quality is wonderful.

I look forward to a head-to-head comparison with the Nocticron!

1 upvote
b534202
By b534202 (3 months ago)

I would like to see Olympus tackle this FL & aperture and see what they can come up with w/o OIS.

They haven't try to sell one MFT lens for more than a $1000, unlike Pany.

1 upvote
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

The 40-150mm f2.8 will probably break that rule. But that range and speed is worth it.

0 upvotes
razorfish
By razorfish (3 months ago)

Just wait for the 40-150mm f2.8

Olympus have been deadly afraid to make quality m4/3 products after that strategy failed with 4/3. Just now they're coming around with the E-M1. Just now they realize they should have made high-end m4/3 products from the get-go. Live and learn...

1 upvote
Jogger
By Jogger (3 months ago)

Do you really mean Sigma? Because they designed the 75/1.8, the best m43 lens currently available.

2 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

They just announced an 50mm f1.4 art based on the optical design of the 35mm.

2 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (3 months ago)

@ Jogger. We mean Oly. The designers of the SHG lenses. According to Reichmann there are virtually no equals to that lenses period. Nothing against Sigma, but implying that Oly somehow remotely needs Sigma is not doing Olympus justice.

7 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

True look at the f2 zuiko zooms for instance.
But we do need more sigma lenses in m4/3.

1 upvote
Iskender
By Iskender (3 months ago)

Razorfish:
"Just now they realize they should have made high-end m4/3 products from the get-go. Live and learn..."
More like their early strategy succeeded and made the system the most successful in the segment, and gave it the momentum which FT probably never had.

The E-M1 is a great camera, but it just wouldn't have been the hit the E-P1 was. And had they released a $7,999 MSRP lens alongside the first camera like they did previously, people would have laughed at them.

They're releasing more advanced lenses now because they already gave the entry-level products their best shot. I think this was their plan all along.

5 upvotes
BBking83
By BBking83 (3 months ago)

"They haven't try to sell one MFT lens for more than a $1000, unlike Pany."

You mean, like the 45mm f/1.8?? That is retail for about $400?

Oh... You HAVE to have a f/1.2.

I will admit, though. f/1.8 is Olympus' forte.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 349
12