Previous news story    Next news story

UPDATED: Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 samples gallery

By dpreview staff on Jan 10, 2014 at 01:37 GMT

We got our hands on the recently announced Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 ASPH OIS at the CES trade show in Las Vegas. It's an ultra-fast portrait prime for Micro Four Thirds that offers an 85mm equivalent field of view. We shot some quick samples mounted on the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3, including an aperture progression series.  

We've just added 16 more images to our previously-published gallery, taken with the new lens attached to an Olympus OM-D E-M5, all of which are conversions from RAW at default settings. 

Sample photoSample photoSample photoSample photoSample photo
1427
I own it
261
I want it
172
I had it
Discuss in the forums
8
I own it
122
I want it
6
I had it
Discuss in the forums
190
I own it
52
I want it
16
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 172
W4YNE 1
By W4YNE 1 (1 month ago)

It would be nice to see a comparison between this lens and the Oly 75 f1.8 lens? Is it worth splashing out the extra for the Pany/Leica?

http://youtu.be/o2CT_vb2h0o

0 upvotes
W4YNE 1
By W4YNE 1 (3 months ago)

A few more samples I found which you may or may not be interested in? I know a couple of the guys in here specifically wanted to see this lenses capabilty when taking portraiture shots, which would probably be It's selling point? rather than that of bricks & mortar!... enjoy!

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/01/10/first-impressions-panasonic-42-5mm-f1-2-micro-four-thirds/

0 upvotes
thinkfat
By thinkfat (3 months ago)

OMGee, it's full of trolls.

0 upvotes
AngelicBeaver
By AngelicBeaver (3 months ago)

I've been browsing through the samples on this and other sites. Even stopped down, I'm not seeing the "stellar sharpness" or "amazing center sharpness" that I'm hearing about. I've got some sharp lenses (notably the 75 1.8) and I haven't seen anything coming close to that in any of the samples I've looked at. Maybe I'm going crazy...

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

think the low resolution sensor contributes at least part of it.

1 upvote
AngelicBeaver
By AngelicBeaver (3 months ago)

Weren't you just saying that lower resolution can make any lens look sharp? A lens that outresolves its sensor should look sharp at 100%. I have lenses like this. They look sharp. This lens doesn't, from what I 've seen.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

a Bayer sensor should never look sharp at 100%.
it should not be real if a pixel peeper sees sharp,
because of noise or post processing.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
fakuryu
By fakuryu (3 months ago)

Funny, when I look at my OVF (or even the LCD screen when I use my m43) I can see the shot I'm about to take, not light gathering equivalency on the sensor and such. Am I doing something wrong?

2 upvotes
Iskender
By Iskender (3 months ago)

>Am I doing something wrong?

Yeah, you're taking photos, what's up with that? I wouldn't show up in DPR forums after admitting that if I were you...

0 upvotes
nekrosoft13
By nekrosoft13 (3 months ago)

post RAW samples, not this JPG crap.

1 upvote
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

Raw won't magically make background blur more pleasing - unless you photoshop it

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

is not RAW or JPEG that makes images crap.
the camera-lens combination does.

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

Well, with the modern level of technology most of the time is the photographer that makes images crap, I fear...

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

well said, what I would not say.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

to be fair, images at lenstip.com are shot in much less challenging conditions (low contrast for example) thus not good as samples.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
///M
By ///M (3 months ago)

These samples are awful, they will not likely sell anyone on this lens. They look like cell phone pics. Would like to see someone with ability use this for a low light portrait, or music event, etc where this lens will shine.

3 upvotes
///M
By ///M (3 months ago)

yes, see lenstip.com samples, much better!

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

see the difference at lenstip.com
they shot with a G6 thus more visible noise.

0 upvotes
al_in_philly
By al_in_philly (3 months ago)

4 REASONS BEYOND DOF & BOKEH WHY IT MIGHT NOT TOTALLY INSANE TO THINK ABOUT SPENDING $1600 ON THIS LENS

1) The optics look incredibly good, although it's a little early to say.

2) The added light hitting the sensor ought to make for fast autofocussing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK3TugwhVtY) in low light situations.

3) Better than 1 full stop maximum aperture than the 45mm f1.8 means that you can shoot any image at slightly less than 1/2 the ISO value--especially welcome in any low light situation.

4) Better than 1 full stop maximum aperture than the 45mm f1.8 means that you can shoot any image at slightly less than 1/2 the exposure duration--especially welcome where it's dim, there's a lot of subject movement, and you don't want to use a flash.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> look incredibly good, although it's a little early to say.

it looks good, and it's early to say.

> better than 1 full stop maximum aperture than 45/1.8

means a lens about 1 stop more valuable or

(42.5/1.2)^2 / (45/1.8)^2 * 400 = 800 US

this is too high a price for such a lens, more than a stop higher than 35mm full-frame lenses but that's a cost performance issue of the m4/3" system.

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

Nokton can do better for less money. also AF in lowlight is always difficult unless you are using 6D camera.

0 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

1) I haven't seen any bad prime lens nowadays. And remember you are looking at 16MP image. Any lens is sharp enough if you keep MP count down enough.

2) Fast prime has shallower DOF and requires more precision for focusing.

3,4) m43 for low light shooting? What?

0 upvotes
Archiver
By Archiver (3 months ago)

@jennyrae - whether or not AF is difficult in low light, the fact remains that it actually has AF, whereas the Voigtlander does not. And due to the Voigtlander's wide aperture glow, even at f1.2, it is not that easy to manually focus, either.

I once shot a job for a chef that involved fast paced cooking, and the difference in ease between manually focusing the Voigtlander 42.5, vs autofocusing with a touch of the shutter button and the Panasonic 35-100, was very noticeable. An external monitor with focus peaking makes manual focus easier, but still not as easy as locking on with one-touch AF.

0 upvotes
W4YNE 1
By W4YNE 1 (3 months ago)

A couple more pictures taken with the Nocticron lens fitted to the Panasonic GM1

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/01/09/hands-on-with-the-new-panasonic-leica-dg-nocticron-42.5mm-f-1.2-lens

3 upvotes
aftab
By aftab (3 months ago)

Great samples (most of them, even though JPEG). The lens look stellar with excellent sharpness and 3D rendering.

0 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

nothing special.

1 upvote
SRT3lkt
By SRT3lkt (3 months ago)

This lens weighs 425 g (much lighter than Canon's 85mm f1.2, 1025g).

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

much less it can do, too, in terms of light gathering capacity.
much less useful.
much lower cost.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 52 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (3 months ago)

@yabokkie don't forget the extra money and weight you have to spend on a FF camera to use it

3 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

Another deluded one here - you cannot simply compare f numbers between different system. You should compare the OUTCOMES.

Now cell phone has 24mm (eqiv) f2.0 OIS lens built in - way lighter than any m43 alternative, isn't it?

And nowadays FF cameras are quite cheap - at least cheaper than this lens.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

people say photography is not about shallow DoF.
they are absolutely correct.

photography is about shallow knowledge,
on which the whole business of current m4/3" is based.

0 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (3 months ago)

Better experience the real thing - save more money, at least get an A7/A7R and 50 Lux APSH.

1 upvote
Jonathan F/2
By Jonathan F/2 (3 months ago)

A7/R? Better off getting a FF/FX DSLR that actually has lenses available right now.

7 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

the best thing that I like of m4/3" is Pana's fast AF.
a serious problem for Sony.

1 upvote
plasnu
By plasnu (3 months ago)

I'm still wondering why the previous samples were so bad...

0 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

because not me is taking pictures.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

and why the new ones are not so good

Comment edited 8 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Soggoth
By Soggoth (3 months ago)

Where are the comments from the "Witnesses of the Equivalent Aperture" sect people?
;)

3 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (3 months ago)

you may have placed the quotes incorrectly :)

0 upvotes
Dimit
By Dimit (3 months ago)

Fact is:Being in MFT,forget bokeh! What you can achieve with this lens you equally can with a much lower budget in APSC and consequently FF.
Not that it's not a good lens but..no reason to exist..45/1.8 is more than fine when you're in mft,simple!

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

How do you know it's not a good lens? Have you shot with it? Do you have raws you want to share?

6 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

How do you know it's not a good lens? Have you shot with it? Do you have raws you want to share?

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

forget bokeh and forget light gathering capacity
try to love small aperture lenses at premium prices.

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

@yabokkie, bokeh isn't just depth of field, just see the Nikon 58mm review. DPR reckons it has much nicer bokeh compared to 50mm f1.4s, despite having almost the same DoF.

0 upvotes
Joel Benford
By Joel Benford (3 months ago)

If very shallow focus was my great interest in life, MFT is not the system I'd buy into. So I'm not really sure who this is for.

Maybe it's for people who don't do shallow focus much, but when they need it they need it bad?

Are there people like that?

Or is for people who like a Leica badge...

8 upvotes
gianstam
By gianstam (3 months ago)

"So I'm not really sure who this is for."
Dear friend, can't you really think of people who can use and enjoy the benefits of this lens? You mean that you saw the samples and your thoughts are 'what a waste of time and money'?

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

it's not for subject isolation and it's not for image quality.

the whole business is now built on f-number cheating for those who love to look at f-number than the output image.

1 upvote
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

@gianstam, pseudo-Leica is waste of time and money when compared with Nokton f0.95. even if Nokton is priced similar at $1,600, I will still buy Nokton over "meh" Noctricon.

1 upvote
jeffharris
By jeffharris (3 months ago)

Fast lenses? Why?

Let's see…
Low, available light, handheld, keeping ISO low and shutter speeds as high as possible?
Wider apertures are made for this sort of situation.

It ain't all about DoF.

19 upvotes
gianstam
By gianstam (3 months ago)

@jennyrae. I see your point and it's valid. The problem is with people who cannot understand that other people have different views. The nokton .95 is a much better value-for-money lens than this panasonic 1.2. But the latter having OIS and AF would be a dream lens for GH3 videographers.

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

@jeffharis .. simple enough ... isn't it?
@gianstam .. you are right mate, but you are telling this to people who already knew all these facts ..

what's that saying? "Haters gonna hate"

1 upvote
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (3 months ago)

85/2.4 does not really mean very shallow DOF. It is considered a "slow" prime.

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

Sorry, but 1.2 is 1.2 and considered fast (indeed the fastet you get natively from Canon). From 1.5 m you get 4cm, from 2m you get 7.5cm, from 3.5m 17cm DoF, fine with me. 3cm DoF at 1.8 at 1.5m is not enough usually for a nice head shot. But depends on preferences.

1 upvote
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

understand point of view @gianstram. just say that pseudo-leica lens is disappointing performance despite AF and OIS. AF and OIS is not reflective of price as very cheap kit lenses have AF and OIS. my say is that Panasonic could have done better with price of $1,600. as mentioned, money is not issue if prove it's worth. I not even mind pay for $4,000 OTUS lens. and we know how and what OTUS is.

also, I'm liking results coming out of Nokton and really really good.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (3 months ago)

@HFLM Sorry, in the FF world, the f/2.4 DOF is considered "slow". The sensor cannot see many of the oblique rays anyway, so it is not so much different than f/2.8. That is a slow prime. The Canon 100L macro can do everything this lens can do, IS including, and more.

0 upvotes
HFLM
By HFLM (3 months ago)

Then you live in an other FF world. Slow/fast relates to f-stop. The canon macro is very good, my friend has it, but autofocus isn't really that fast. Then look at the size and weight. As I said before, if you go to extremes on ANY system, you add either bulk or weight or extra costs. So choose your system according to the needs before purchase.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> but 1.2 is 1.2 and considered fast

only if you ignore and leave the context of photograph.
f/1.2 is not fast "photographically" on 4/3".

0 upvotes
fakuryu
By fakuryu (3 months ago)

f1.2 is f1.2 on any format, its just the DoF is different. When the hell did f1.2 became slow?

1 upvote
Infared
By Infared (3 months ago)

@gainstam....
I am a still photographer and I agree with you...I want the AF and the IS is a plus even though I use Olympus bodies..for my E-PL6 the lens IS will be better than the body IS.
I will not buy the lens at this price...but in a year from now there will be sales and discounts that may make it more attractive.
The lens is overpriced.
@JoelBenford...If you are a decent photographer you can squeeze a really good low DOF shot out of your MFT system..you just have to know what you are doing and make the right lens and distance from subject choice...With FF it is a lot easier(true dat)...but then you have to lug the beasts around..which I avoid these days more and more...FF does have its place...but with most images being viewed electronically...it certainly isn't the "be-all-end-all" any more.

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

> When the hell did f1.2 became slow?

it's two stops slower at the same image quality or
same as fast at two stops lower image quality.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (3 months ago)

People have been making these same arguments for and against the F1.2 or other uber-primes in Canon's collection for years. For most people, they find the cheaper, slightly slower alternatives to be more than adequate. For others, they simply want the best and/or fastest and they pay for it.

Canon 85L is almost $2000 more expensive than the also good 85mm f1.8 for Canon. Canon 50L is almost $1000 more than the 50mm f1.4. People make good pictures with all four lenses.

7 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (3 months ago)

The real issue is that you can get a Nikon D3300 and 50/1.8G and achieve better results for less than half the price of the lens alone.

16 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

I'd say 50/1.8 is inferior than 42.5/1.2,
that I'd like to value 42.5/1.2 more than 1.6 times higher,
or 220 * 1.6 = 350 US.

there is no problem D3200 got a better sensor.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HFLM
By HFLM (3 months ago)

Better a 50/1.4G (->1.35->1.4 on FF). But those are very soft wide open, I have both the 1.8 and 1.4. Problem though: only the 7000/7100 APS-C has AF-Fine tuning which is really important for critical focus with shallow DoF. Sample variation makes this a problem quite often, especially with Tamron/Sigma. http://www.lensrentals.com commented on that. This is why I dumped my D5200. The Leica has a very good lines/mm value (lens tip: 49lp/mm) at 1.2. The Nikon 1.4G 26lp/mm. Scale that to FF equivalent and you see that the Pana is not bad at all.
You can decide whether it's worth it for you or not.
You don't need to buy it, so what the rant for? Extreme solutions for EVERY sensor are expensive or heavy (think of 70-200 zooms compared to 35-100 on m43). As m43 is not for shallow DoF, a lens for this purpose will have a to be bulkier and more expensive. Additionally, all 1.2 lenses for other systems are expensive (Canons 85mm: 2200$, 1kg, minimum focus distance of 1m compared to 50cm here).

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HFLM
By HFLM (3 months ago)

To continue:
It's nice to have options. The 45mm/1.8 is a great all purpose lens if this one is too expensive. How much would a Sony 1.2 be, if the 55/1.8 and 35/2.8 are 1200 and 900 Euros, respectively, already?

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (3 months ago)

@Jogger

I'd bet that the 42.5/1.2 will easily beat those cheap Nikkors wide open.

The real problem with Nikkor 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 is heavy focus shifting. That often makes focusing really difficult in low light situations. At widest aperture they offer mediocre IQ. Compare that to Zuiko 75/1.8, which according to Photozone tops the resolution chart already at f1.8.

3 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

On fullframe it's competitor is the 85mm f1.4g and f1.8g. Those are not your average 50mm pushovers

0 upvotes
HFLM
By HFLM (3 months ago)

Indeed, the 85mm lenses are very good. Nevertheless, they are not 1.2 (although DoF is more shallow), not stabilised, the Nikon 1.4 is similarly expensive, larger, heavier, larger minimum focus distance and you should use them on full frame (larger heavier body, more expensive on average; don't always compare to the heaviest and largest m43 camera).
If I were for shallow DoF, I would go for the 85mm/1.8 on a D610. But I'm happy with my OMD and the Voigtländer I use for this purpose. Mft is not made for extreme shallow DoF, but its good to have options with the Voigtländer, Leica and 75mm Oly.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> although DoF is more shallow

then more capable light gathering capaicty, for DoF and light gathering capaicty are two differect aspects of a same thing: aperture size.

on 4/3" f/1.2 is f/1.2 that can do the same work as f/2.4 on full frame. it's physically impossible for it to do anything more.

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

I've got the 85mm f1.8D, super sharp, 9 bladed aperture, small and light and surprisingly compact when coupled to a D600.........and a lot cheaper!

0 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

FF@f2.4 has SHALLOWER DOF than m43@f1.2, due to different perspective. With smaller format you have to take pictures more AWAY from the subject, which increases the DOF.

APS-C has around 1.5 stop shallower DOF than m43 around the standard perspective - which makes 50mm 1.8 on APS exactly the same as this $1600 lens.

0 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (3 months ago)

I'm not a M43 user (I use FF and primes and no I'm not likely to change) but this is a good lens from the review I've seen.

The Polish site 'lenstip' reviewed a real example and found it outstanding, summarised by saying 'if you can afford it, you will not be disappointed with your purchase'.

If I used a M43 sensor, I'd want this lens!

Nuff said......and their reviews in general are very critical......

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

They are absolutely right mate, but the fact is you gonna buy this lens, if you need it for its prime application, portrait photography. It is not everyone's cup of tea. But I agree you can't go wrong with it if you finally buy/rent it!!

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

give the Polish time to climb their learning curving.
DPReview is still climbing after a decade.

0 upvotes
BorisAkunin
By BorisAkunin (3 months ago)

First review I could find:
http://www.lenstip.com/394.1-Lens_review-Panasonic_Leica_DG_Nocticron_42.5_mm_f_1.2_Asph._P.O.I.S._Introduction.html

Apart from heavy vignetting (-2.23 EV at f/1.2), it seems to perform very well.

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Iskender
By Iskender (3 months ago)

It appears to have awesome correction of coma.

It's a fast, expensive lens with great coma correction which brings all the whiners out of the woodwork. Sounds a lot like a certain Nikon lens, doesn't it? =]

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

really strange performance,
not bad as a low cost small aperture prime.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Iskender
By Iskender (3 months ago)

yabokkie:
Lenstip liked it a lot, so I guess it has to be "strange". Since well, it's apparently very important to you that this lens is something else than good. It's very expensive, yes, but aside from that I don't see why its high quality is so hard to swallow.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> why its high quality

high quality, where is it?

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

Lenstip says:

* high build quality,
* brilliant image quality in the frame centre,
* very good image quality on the edge of the frame,
* very low lateral chromatic aberration,
* practically zero distortion,
* excellent coma correction,
* low astigmatism,
* out of focus image pleasing to the eye,
* silent, accurate and quick autofocus,
* efficient image stabilization,
* good performance against bright light.

3 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

Great these new sample shoots show excellent sharpness at F4
Like M43 didn't have acces to lenses with the same focal length that produced excellent sharpness at F4

All of us want to know whether it's sharp at F1.2-2
That's the range where this lens should be used in portraits.
Having an DOF equiv. of F2.4-4 on full frame is where you want to be.
Even cheap FF portait lenses like the 85mm F1.8G offer sublime sharpness at F2.4. So at $1600 it did better be any good wide-open or it doesn't have an reason to exist

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

Plenty of the sample shots posted are at f1.2

4 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

guess you missed the word "new"
And i am not looking for full body shots. I can get fine full body shots with the 20mm F1.7 as well. I am looking for HEAD AND SHOULDER portraits. That shows the Bokeh and Depth of field. Of course some pointy light sources in the background to check the balls.

There is only 1 real portrait. And that shot has 2 big distractions

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (3 months ago)

Full frame resolution requirements of the lenses are much less since for the same MP count the pixels are much larger. Take a Df or D4 vs m4/3 and the Df can use much lower quality lenses and get same resolution in printed/viewed image. The E-M1 needs a lens that can resolve about 133 lp/mm and the Df/D4 about 68 lp/mm. So even though the resolution in lp/mm isn't as good on the 85mm f/1.8G, the resulting image will be as sharp from a lens that costs a fraction the price.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

it's not the resolution but how we measure it.

from photographic point of view, anything including resolution should be measured against the whole frame, and diagonal is often used as a convenient approximation (like CoC = 1/1300 diagonal for DoF calculation).

DxOMark does it right by using effective pixel count (not pixel pitch or lpmm). it's better than diagonal which has large error for widescreen formats.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

i agree mate, these photos doesn't do any justice to this lens.

0 upvotes
kimchiflower
By kimchiflower (3 months ago)

As a m43 enthusiast, I don't see the point of this lens at this price.

Shallow DOF is more of a benefit of these ultra-bright primes than keeping ISO low, but if I really wanted a thin DOF, I'd just by a camera with a larger sensor and save a shed load of cash.

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

For people already invested in the system it gives them the option to have this though, especially as for video some may prefer working with the GH3 to working with a 5D etc.

3 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (3 months ago)

So, you'd buy a 85/1.8G + D610 instead for $2500 and save how much? Or a D7100 and a 50/1.4G for $2000 and save how much?

0 upvotes
dimap76
By dimap76 (3 months ago)

No, he would buy a D3200 and 50 1.8 you count for how much.

3 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (3 months ago)

@dimap76 but will be a 50 1.8 as sharp wide open as the Leica at f 1.2? I am not sure how the MTF results can be compared between different formats, but Lenstip based on the tests describes Leica as "brilliant" already wide open, while for the 50 1.8G they are writing that "fully useable results are achieved at f2.2 and above."

http://www.lenstip.com/394.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_Leica_DG_Nocticron_42.5_mm_f_1.2_Asph._P.O.I.S._Image_resolution.html

http://www.lenstip.com/308.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_50_mm_f_1.8G_Image_resolution.html

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (3 months ago)

This should sell well among the m43 faithful, but, i dont see many pros ditching their FF cameras and 85/1.4 and similar portrait lenses. (You need that FF and f1.4 DOF control for half or full body shots for example.)

I also dont see the point of OIS.. if you need to activate OIS, it means that you are going to get subject movement in your photo (most people cant stay perfectly still).

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (3 months ago)

You're forgetting video, also at this focal length you can easily be fast enough to avoid subject movement but slow enough to suffer from camera shake.

8 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (3 months ago)

Some of us won't be shooting moving subjects at f/1.2 and OIS can get us a couple extra stops that can really come in handy in low light. You may not see the point of OIS for what you shoot, but for others it's a very useful feature.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

Pana may think OIS is a good idea shooting with strobes.
actually OIS is needed for this is a small aperture prime.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 57 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (3 months ago)

These images show me NOTHING about the lens???? LOL?
Check the images at Camera Labs...they slow off the "f/1.2" wonderfully ...
...but not artfully.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (3 months ago)

I'm curious, what do these sample images /not/ show?

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Infared
By Infared (3 months ago)

Andy..it is just my opinion...The Nocticron (name ref: darkness) is a WAAAAAAAAAAAY expensive lens. & most of the manufacturing costs to justify the whopping $1600 price tag (actually the lens should be about $1200 IMO)are the large glass elements (the # of them:14!) to create f/1.2 and the IS, (you can throw in the 9 aperture blades, too). This lens is capable of "extremely shallow DOF with amazing bokeh...that is the whole point. OK.. these photos here on DPR look like a bunch of snap shots to me that do not show-off the abilities of the Nocti... They could all have basically been taken with the Oly 45 f/1.8. There would not be that much difference...check out these images over at Camera Labs
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Leica_DG_Nocticron_42-5mm_f1-2_H-NS043E
They really show what the lens is capable of. It is still overpriced, but it does some REALLY nice rendering with AF and exhibits REALLY shallow DOF. The review photos should exhibit these qualities clearly.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
1 upvote
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

I check other pictures on other websites including camera labs. I still not see anything special of lens that worth $1,600 for f1.2. cost does not matter, but lens need to prove worth.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

should not expect too much for this is just yet another small aperture 4/3" lens (not too small but smaller than most if not all).

0 upvotes
RomuloRistow
By RomuloRistow (3 months ago)

Here´s a suggestion: Is it possible to show de focus distance in sample pictures? There is no way to compare out of focus bokeh without this information...

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

The line of fork-lifts should give you a pretty good idea

2 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (3 months ago)

A step in the right direction. But until there's an f1 normal, it's no bokeh, no buy, mun.

The lack of OOF backgrounds is the only reason that I don't look at these small sensor cameras.

And sure, you can get a tiny bit of OOF background even with the 25mm, but what I seek at a minimum is what I get at 50/2 using my FF cameras (or 35/1.4 on APS-C). And there are plenty like me.

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Infared
By Infared (3 months ago)

These photos do a poor job of showing the strength's off of the lens. MFT is a great SMALL camera system to complement a FF system...not replace it. When ever I can' I grab my small kit. It gets the job done, and is really fun to shoot wit and get great results. If I think the work is more important or I may need large prints I grab the beasts! :-)

1 upvote
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (3 months ago)

If you need very shallow DOF, then you will pay a very steep price for it. This lens costs even more than a flagship EM1 does.

Personally, the $350 45mm f/1.8 works well enough for me.

If I really wanted to spend $1600, it might be better spent on getting a 12-40mm f/2.8 plus a 60mm f/2.8 macro, or maybe a 17mm f/1.8 lens.

Point being.... $1600 is a lot of money. If the narrow DOF thing is something you only need once in a while, you will probably pass on this lens.

14 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (3 months ago)

You can buy the Canon 6D plus the 85/1.8 for that price, and have even lower DOF.

7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

And good Leica (or PanaLeica) lenses have better colour and generally better image quality than even the very good Olympus 4/3s lenses--and Olympus' best is indeed excellent.

There are reasons for using f/1.2 not exactly related to a shallow depth of field.

Then $11,000 (cost of new Noctilux) sure is more monies than $1600.

0 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

I pay $1,600 for manual focus Nokton 42.5mm versus this AF lens.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> Canon 6D plus the 85/1.8,

not bad but I'd recommend 85/1.8G on D800.
m4/3" may not be able to have this in a decade
their business won't allow it even if it's technically feasible.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (3 months ago)

That would double the price.

1 upvote
Ian Leach
By Ian Leach (3 months ago)

I realise this lens is not exactly aimed at landscape photographers but it wouldn’t hurt putting in one f8 shot with far and distant content. It is nice to see if a lens can achieve sharpness at the edges with reasonable depth of field if called upon to do so.

3 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (3 months ago)

f8 is a bit too much, f4 ~ f5.6 is a more likely interval for peak sharpness.

0 upvotes
Ian Leach
By Ian Leach (3 months ago)

I didn't say peak sharpness, I said sharpness at edge with reasonable depth of field.

2 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (3 months ago)

I'm with you Ian - there are some other shots on the web that are more landscape-like and this lens seems to do extremely well way out into the corners - something many fast lenses fall down on.
I shoot a lot of landscapes, some of them in very low light, so f/1.2 with excellent coma/astigmatism characteristics (like this lens seems to have) coupled with excellent sharpness stopped down seems like a winner technically. The price is a bit hard to swallow all at once for me - sometimes you have to pay for quality!

1 upvote
Vlasty
By Vlasty (3 months ago)

And people complained Nikons 1 system 32mm was expensive. :/

2 upvotes
inorogNL
By inorogNL (3 months ago)

it's good to have choices, one can get outstanding 45mm olympus for much less

1 upvote
agentul
By agentul (3 months ago)

or the 45mm Leica.

1 upvote
retro76
By retro76 (3 months ago)

I bought the Nikon 1 32, and to me it's a steal. A lens small enough to fit in the palm of my hand that shoots at 1.2, has superb bokeh, all metal build, metal focusing ring, nano coatings, and a SWM motor (that is dead silent !) and yet the smaller sensor allows me to shoot wide-open and nail the shot without any effort and the electric shutter that goes to 1/16000 allows me to shoot wide-open outdoors. This new Panasonic will surely be excellant as well, but you do have to pay the Leica tax and it's up to you if you think it's worth it. I had the Panasonic 25 1.4 and 20 1.7 before I switched from my OMD EM5 to a Nikon 1: the 25 1.4 had marginally better IQ (10%) so you paid a big premium for a little extra IQ ( though the 25 1.4 did have a premium build)

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
KrisAK
By KrisAK (3 months ago)

Here's an honest and somewhat goofy question, so everyone please take a deep breath...

Given the amount of in-camera correction that I understand is normal (and in fact one of the benefits of) m43 cameras, then isn't there a point of diminishing returns when it comes to stellar optical quality and the associated astronomical price?

The converse, I suppose, would be it's always best to start with the best image possible. But at some point do expensive improvements to the optics become, I don't know, redundant to downstream processing? (I said it was a goofy question.)

0 upvotes
Mike Ronesia
By Mike Ronesia (3 months ago)

As wit ha lot of things, at some point in the improvement of quality you hit a point of diminishing returns. It happens with things like TV's and cars. Is a million dollar car 10 times better then a hundred thousand dollar car, probably not. These types of lenses give you something extra and even if not much, some people can and will pay for it, just like the million dollar car or the twenty thousand dollar home speakers.

2 upvotes
Coliban
By Coliban (3 months ago)

@Mike,

you are totaly right, but i am unable to see the "something extra" this lens is supposed to offer. All samples are somehow mediocre, maybe it is because of the samples, but i see no extra quality in these samples. Therefore i just do not know, for what i should pay extra.

regards

0 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (3 months ago)

you pay extra for f1.2 with AF and OIS. then there are the small details of metal exterior and hood, aperture ring and hardware OIS and AF switches. the latter is pretty useless for higher end bodies, as those have SAF/CAF/MF hardware switches already. so this lens should be compared against the 42.5 f0.95 Voigtländer lens, which costs $885 on Amazon.com. However, its MSRP is $1200.

As we are discussing the Panasonic's MSRP here, the proper comparison is:
- Voigtländer: manual lens, metal exterior, f0.95: $1200
- Panasonic: add AF and OIS for $400, drop to f1.2

depending on how one uses this lens, that $400 may or may not be worth it. it's 33% more on the $1200 MSRP. in the long run, it may actually be a good investment for amateurs, as it will make up the aperture disadvantage in low light and it will result in more keepers because of the AF (MF is not easy to use in a hurry).

0 upvotes
jeffharris
By jeffharris (3 months ago)

@agentul…
The correct US list price for the Voigtländer Nokton 42.5mm f0.95 is $999, not $1200. The US distributor is http://www.cameraquest.com (scroll down a bit to find it).

I often notice Amazon inflating list prices to give people that "oy, such a deal" feeling.

1 upvote
agentul
By agentul (3 months ago)

oh, yeah, i forgot they do that. i usually only look at what i actually have to pay when comparing prices.

so the AF and OIS actually cost $600. well, there goes my argument.

0 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (3 months ago)

Even at a $600 difference you may still have a valid argument. How much is AF and excellent OIS worth to some people?

0 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (3 months ago)

true. i could have gotten the 20mm lens instead of the 25mm, but fast AF in low light and the extra aperture opening were worth the price difference to me. of course, some people can throw in the extra $600 that they probably saved by not buying a Leica M.

0 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (3 months ago)

There is still a lot of division on the subject of computational corrections. I think this lens is targeting the really snobby users. It's great that there is a wonderful economy 45mm and this, hopefully super-stellar lens. This is an important FL, and getting all bases covered is a good thing for the system.

0 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (3 months ago)

The lens looks very good, and the samples are very appropriate for such a lens; good job dpreview. The images however look bad at 100%, too much aliasing and a "digital look". This has nothing to do with the lens, of course.

1 upvote
jhinkey
By jhinkey (3 months ago)

Yes, I agree. The RW2 files that are available on the web from other sites allows one to adjust sharpening, etc. to one's taste and the images come out even better.

0 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

does not appear worth $1,600.

1 upvote
photobeans
By photobeans (3 months ago)

f1.2 lenses are all very expensive. The build quality looks superb. However, do not judge the lens by looking at the pictures dpreview takes. dpreview takes 'snapshots', not world class photos.

2 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (3 months ago)

I don't know how that appearance looks like. It is a lot of money. I think for 99% of the users the 45 mm f1.8 is all they need, this addresses a tiny part of the users. Pro shooters for portraits etc. Like the Zeiss Otus: 4000 dollar F2.4 lens. Fantastic and expensive to say the least.

0 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (3 months ago)

90/2.4 equivalent lens for $1,600? The Canon version is 20-25% of the price, and collects more light.

1 upvote
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

I not mind paying 1,600. no problem. but lens need prove it really worth 1,600 not only because it is f1.2 I can get lot of f1.2 or f1.4 for lens and perform better than this fseudo leica. I even pay 4,000 for otus if I was not to buy any other for this year. I buy 2 lens and 1 body this year that cover cost of otus.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 59 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (3 months ago)

jennyrae, you're not making much sense.

0 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

I buy lens if prove worth. what is difficult to get sense? with sample I see with NocNoc lens, I see better result with others.

0 upvotes
Zeisschen
By Zeisschen (3 months ago)

wait: "It's an ultra-fast portrait prime"

Why is there still no single portrait shot from this lens? I can mostly see pictures from houses at daylight with focus close to infinity and aperture stopped down. Any of them could be made with a kit-zoom lens. Pictures that could need some subject isolation (horse, buddha statue) are not even taken at F1.2. The horse statue shot has infinite DOF, it could be taken with any point and shoot or smartphone. The only F1.2 "portrait shot" I see is the guitar player statue , but impossible to see any details on that surface, I can't even spot the focus point.
To me all those samples look like a kid running around taking snaps with the camera on automatic-mode. This is a f**** expensive 1600$ ultra-fast portrait lens, remember? I guess I better look elsewhere...

22 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (3 months ago)

I'm not sure exactly what would motivate you to leave such an offensive comment...

We had about 2 hours with this lens, total, over 2 days. At a trade show, in the desert, at which we had a lot of other commitments. We'll be getting hold of a shipping quality sample soon and will publish many more images as soon as we can.

14 upvotes
Zeisschen
By Zeisschen (3 months ago)

There are no people around on a trade show in the desert? Just shoot some close up faces at f1.2 so people can see what to expect from a portrait lens in terms of DOF, sharpness, and bokeh. It only takes 5 minutes to do that, no need to go outdoors.
Sorry for sounding offending, but you publish these shots as a news article and saying this lens is an "ultra fast portrait prime", so people might expect protraits taken at ultra fast aperture.

18 upvotes
jkrumm
By jkrumm (3 months ago)

Still, Zeisschen, you did come across as a D***. A little courtesy helps.

3 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (3 months ago)

FWIW, Cameralabs has a good variety of shots taken with it, nearly all wide open, including several actual portraits at varying shutter speed/ISO. I'm a total novice so I wouldn't know what to make of them, not like I'm dropping $1,500 on a lens like this anytime soon (do have the Oly 45 tho!)...

I did notice slightly oval looking bokeh on some of the wide open shots, Gordon even has a sequence where it's evident the out of focus light blobs get more circular as it's closed slightly (totally spherical by 1.4). Is that common of really bright lenses, a quirk of this one, or maybe environment induced?

2 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (3 months ago)

Meant to say totallyspherical by 1.8 rather than 1.4, WTB edit on mobile site UI.

1 upvote
jhinkey
By jhinkey (3 months ago)

Hmm - I counted 8 portrait shots, some are worth looking at very closely.
I don't get the animosity towards the f/1.2 images - having used some f/1.2 lenses I think this one is pretty darned good. And stopped down it looks to be excellent across the frame.
Is it worth the MSRP - likely not for me.

2 upvotes
Andre Eide
By Andre Eide (3 months ago)

Zeisschen: We all have different needs when choosing a lens, and for me the outdoor images are the most important, and especially those around f/4.5. I look for general sharpness, corner sharpness, chromatic aberration, lens flare, vignetting, distortions etc. I find it a little strange that you have already concluded that this lens does not perform better than a kit-zoom or smartphone. With these lenses Panasonic tries to compete with the general Leica M-system, and if we could get closer quality wise, it would be amazing, even at this price.

1 upvote
Zdman
By Zdman (3 months ago)

@ Impulses. The Oval shape is caused by the angle of incedence on the edge of the front element being so high it is relected instead of refracted. Imagine a point light source at the far left edge of the frame hitting a spherical lens surface. The rays of light would form a cone from the point source to the area of the front element. The angle of lens surface to light ray would be greatest at the right edge which is where the light is reflected. When you stop a lens down you're effectively using a small circle of the front element (so less hash angles) so there will be less area (if any) that is reflected which is why they go rounder (although now you can start to see the blades of the aperture).

The same effected is largely responsible for vingenting as each point at the edge of the frame is just one of those out of focus ovals shrunk down to a point. Items in the centre will not have as hash an angle and will be the full uneclipsed circle and thefore brighter.

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

@ Andre

Fair enough. It's nice to know all these things. But I then they should have taken pictures with sun in the frame or a brick wall or anything. But almost non of the shots serve something really usefull. I don't expect great photography or anything in sample shots, it's just about lens quality.
It's just that an ultra-fast portrait lens is built to take nice pictures of mid to close distances and provide some nice out of focus areas. In these shot's it's really hard to find any charcteristics of the lens. And I just guess you won't buy this lens to get sharp pictures overall at f4.5 at 85mm. On a "portrait lens" even corner sharpness is rather secondary for most (though it's good on this lens)

0 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (3 months ago)

I would not excuse the rudeness of the OP, but up to the last sentence it was valid robust criticism not rude.

But I agree when looking at sample shots I always scan across for a head and shoulders portrait, Other than edge sharpness, its a shot that at low f numbers it gives a great impression of what a lens is all about. It also seems like an easy shot to do you just have to get a compliant subject.

5 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

There are always plenty of good looking women on fairs.
Fine subjects for these types of lenses

0 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (3 months ago)

Portrait shots do not need to be passport portraits. They did take many portraits shots.

0 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (3 months ago)

No no - the non-round out of focus lights are due to mechanical vignetting/cut off of the light cone through the lens by some internal feature in front of the aperture, not by light reflection.
This is completely different from the natural vignetting that a fast lens has.

0 upvotes
Iskender
By Iskender (3 months ago)

Zeisschen:
Get over your huge sense of entitlement. You got more than you paid for already - since you paid nothing. Yet you're complaining.

Swearing over supposed faults in a gallery published for free makes you look totally spoiled. Also, there are plenty of portraits - you're just saying there are none because you're apparently using your own, very narrow definition of the word.

Consider this: someone shared a gallery of photos, and in return it looks like you didn't even try to appreciate it - you're actually telling people they should not like the gallery. Had the photographer had the same attitude, he would probably have said "Screw those posters, I've worked for days non-stop. Now I rest".

But instead we got many sample pictures, and that was a problem for you.

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

I am bit disappointed with these photos, but I have to agree other websites were not taking those samples at any exhibition or show. So thanks guys for taking the pain to do it on such a short time, these are not too bad as photos first impression.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

Thanks for starting out with raw and doing extractions to jpeg, now how about a 5 or 6 raws for download?

0 upvotes
Peter Gregg
By Peter Gregg (3 months ago)

What a difference a day makes. The new images are representative of what I expect - and was hoping for - from this lens. It is pro level and the results certainly look like it. It seems on par in quality with the 85L II by eyeballing these images. Having both lenses in hand would confirm it, or show the deficiencies. The advantage of the 4/3 system is equal light as full frame with a little deeper range in depth of field. For most folks this is an advantage making full frame a disadvantage because of the razor thin depth of field. For most purposes this is a big plus, except for those that are looking for an ultra thin range in their DOF envelope.

1 upvote
Zeisschen
By Zeisschen (3 months ago)

Non of these samples are portraits taken at F1.2. You were really hoping for good pictures of architecture at daylight taken at F4.5 from a 1600$ F1.2 lens?

This M43 vs FF arguments don't mean anything. I want to see Portraits at low light, all taken at F1.2. Otherwise there is absolutely no point for this lens.

I don't say this lens isn't good, but those samples are crap! I think we shouldn't give dpreview the feeling that we are satisfied with these. I would like to see head to shoulder portraits taken at F1.2 at bad light conditions.

9 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (3 months ago)

"This M43 vs FF arguments don't mean anything. I want to see Portraits at low light, all taken at F1.2. Otherwise there is absolutely no point for this lens."

Believe it or not we bought lenses in the 70's that were this fast and low light was where we used them but generally not for portraits. Indoor sports were how we used these lenses and we WANTED more DOF.

2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (3 months ago)

@Zeisschen - with respect, what on earth are you doing taking portrait shots at F1.2...?

8 upvotes
imbimmer
By imbimmer (3 months ago)

You must be kiding, dude ... what do you think Canon built the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 for then?

5 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (3 months ago)

"The advantage of the 4/3 system is equal light as full frame with a little deeper range in depth of field."

This is nonsense. The DOF is determined by the total light. You cannot collect the same light with a smaller entrance pupil.

0 upvotes
Michael Ma
By Michael Ma (3 months ago)

You can if you consider the amount of light collected relative to the size of the sensor.

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (3 months ago)

No, Signal to noise is determined by TOTAL light

2 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (3 months ago)

In other words, you can't.

0 upvotes
In hydraulis
By In hydraulis (3 months ago)

"what do you think Canon built the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 for then?"

To sell to people with more money than sense.

Blur has its place, no doubt, but a solid flash or three is a better investment.

But flashes require knowledge, experience, experimentation and creativity to use well, so they scare people.

1 upvote
Zeisschen
By Zeisschen (3 months ago)

@Barney
"with respect, what on earth are you doing taking portrait shots at F1.2...?"

With respect, YOU call it and "ultra-fast portrait prime". If I want to take portraits at f2.8 I can buy the excellent Olympus 45 1.8 and safe a lot of money.

But you're free to put this in the cons list of your review:

- nobody on this earth needs f1.2 in a portrait lens

3 upvotes
Resom
By Resom (3 months ago)

@Barney - "what on earth are you doing taking portrait shots at F1.2..."

That means, there is no need for such kind of lens, right?

0 upvotes
retro76
By retro76 (3 months ago)

@Barney, love you man, but asking why someone would take pictures at 1.2 - I can give you a million reasons. On a small sensor such as m4/3rds you can keep the entire subject in focus while achieving the type of shallow DOF you can only get on a bigger sensor. I have the Nikon 1 32 1.2 and all I do is shoot wide-open, to me that is the whole point of owning the lens. Stopped down just about every lens on the market (kit, prime, etc) will perform pretty close these days in terms of sharpness, color and contrast.

That being said I understand it was hard to find good pictures, I think people don't understand that during the day in the desert the lighting is harsh and very "unattractive"

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

@Barney you just made a fool out of yourself.
F1.2 with this lens equals the depth of field to F2.4 on fullframe.
So shooting it wide open or slightly stopped down to F1.4 is it's most important region. Guess no one shoots portraits at F2.8 with fullframe right

1 upvote
jhinkey
By jhinkey (3 months ago)

There is such a thing as too LITTLE DOF for portraits - especially up close at times when you want more than just the tip of the eyelashes in focus . . .

2 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (3 months ago)

f1.2 is for half to full body shots. if youre doing head and shoulder, then of course you stop down. with m43, you dont have that option for half and full body shots.

1 upvote
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (3 months ago)

This comment thread is why I come less and less to DPR. Camera people are one rung lower than youtube trolls. Comments need to be turned off on the front page- leave the comments to the forums.

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

It sure was easier when people bought top of the line cameras and lenses in the hope of getting as much sharp as possible. Getting as much as possible out of focus can cost a lot of money these days. You say, duh, it's for portraits but I remember when Popular Photography introduced the term Bokeh to it's readers because it was unheard of, outside Japan. The only time anybody paid attention to the out of focus stuff was with mirror lenses.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (3 months ago)

@BarnET - fair enough (I admit, I was thinking full-frame, after recent experience with trying and failing to get reliable focus with some ultra-fasts) and of course, yes there are plenty of reasons to shoot as fast as you can.

To the initial criticism about the lack of F1.2 shots in this gallery, there are several in our selection, and we'll of course do a lot of fast, low-light work with this lens as soon as we can get hold of one for any length of time.

1 upvote
Total comments: 172