Previous news story    Next news story

Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 samples gallery

By dpreview staff on Jan 8, 2014 at 21:53 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.  

Sample photoSample photoSample photoSample photoSample photo
11
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
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.

Comments

Total comments: 178
Marcello Zini
By Marcello Zini (3 months ago)

Maybe it's me but I can't really understand this strong, generalized need for shallow DOF that emerges from some posts. It is desirable effect, sure, and sometimes it can help taking superb images. Personally, I thought small DOF was a must have when I had no idea on how to compose the background but I ended up closing the aperture on APSC to shoot events and portraits to make sure to get more than one eye in focus. I won't buy this lens as the Olympus 45 1.8 and 75 1.8 can give smaller DOF than I need (and plenty!) but, judging from the low aberrations I see on the sample P1090035.acr on the left side, it may be a great tool for some. My Nikon 50 1.4 was not as good at f1.4.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

the problem is that we want more light gathering capactiy, which always comes with shallow DoF.

DoF and light gathering capacity are two differenct aspects of a same thing, two sides of the same coin, the name of which is called aperture.

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

paring of DoF and light gathering capacity are one-to-one correspondence at a certain field/angle of view regardless of sensor size or f-number.

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......

4 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

I buy cheaper manual focus nokton 42.5mm even for $1,600. cost is no matter but prove of worth of lens go beyond namesake. you can check nokton 42.5mm pictures. compare pictures taken with both, pseudo Leica does not have character and overall impressive result to justify price. if they make nokton AF, I even buy it for more amount than pseudo-Leica.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

those Polish better speed up their learning.

0 upvotes
technotic
By technotic (3 months ago)

Rude yab very rude as usual.

0 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

I not mind spend $1,600 on lens. but need to prove it is worth $1,600.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

I find it hard to prove it worths $600.

0 upvotes
Cameracist
By Cameracist (3 months ago)

You did some intense testing or what? Or do you judge just from the first samples published here, handheld in low light? Or from our warped theories obout prices being connected to amount of glass surface?

0 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

@cameracist, I look samples already from other websites and pictures does not strike me with amazement. as mentioned, cost and price does not matter to me. I don't care if pseudo-Leica is priced higher like $2,000 but need to prove worth. I even prefer Nokton 0.95 over this pseudo-Leica lens not because it is cheaper because I'm willing to pay even if it is $1,600. what I'm liking is result I see from lens, not numbers. if Pana only did pricing basing on brand sake, then it is big disappointment for brand sake.

1 upvote
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

I just googled around and found out this portrait taken with 50/1.8 lens and D5100 body (which costs around $600 for the set) - which obviously have better background blur and good enough sharpness, at least for portrait.

http://photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Sample-2.jpg

Also,
D3300+50mm 1.8G lens weighs 430g+185g = 615g, around $600
GX7 + 43mm 1.2 = 402g + 425g = 827g, around $2600

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
AngelicBeaver
By AngelicBeaver (3 months ago)

I'm curious why you hate this lens and camera system so much. It obviously isn't for you. I shot with a Canon for years and, while the image quality from my T2i at higher ISOs is a bit better than what I can get on my EM-1 or E-PL5, I chose to switch over completely to Oly for the following reasons:
1. I love the lens selection. I get small, fast pancake lenses that are nice and sharp. The 20mm f1.7 really floats my boat and the 12-40 2.8 is a great little lens. My 70mm 1.8 blows the Canon 85 1.8 out of the water, especially given that it focuses correctly.
2. The AF is better than what I was getting from my Canon. I can autofocus with the 75 1.8, wide open, where I could not with the T2i.
3. Most of Canon's top of the line lenses are way more expensive than the m4/3 equivalent. The 24-70 2.8L is $2300 and doesn't even give me IS. I bought my E-M1 AND 12-40 for less. The Canon 50 1.2 is $1600, so it's about the same.

3 upvotes
AngelicBeaver
By AngelicBeaver (3 months ago)

The bottom line is, I've been shooting digital cameras for ten years. I like the lenses that are available for the M4/3 bodies, which will continue to improve. I knew the tradeoffs and I still bought into the system. I think it's great that they are offering an f1.2 portrait lens. Will I buy it? No. I have the shallow depth of field thing taken care of with the 75, and I can shoot in daylight wide open and it's still razor sharp (and in focus). Different cameras suit different people. I don't want a full frame or APS-C cam. I'm not going to crusade against them. There are some great benefits and drawbacks for both. I bought into m4/3 for the lenses, and they keep delivering.

1 upvote
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

It is downright absurd to compare m43 lenses to FF ones, as they are on totally different league. Yes 24-70L is expensive, but it is a huge professional grade lens that is very useful for many situations. For example you can take great portrait with its tele end, actually WAY better than this $1600 portrait prime. I think even midrange f4 or f4.5 lenses are still way better in terms of sharpness and DOF control than top of the line m43 lenses. And there's an affordable, vert decent f1.8 zoom for APS-C by the way.

I've been shooting DSLR since 2.6MP D1, and currently own both m43 and FF system. My father also uses m43 and has actually bought all of $$$$ m43 lenses, I have seen every images he took in 100% magnification, so I know what I am saying.

Take a look at P&S cameras - some has 10X f2.8 zoom lens with big brand name on it (leica, schneider, zeiss etc). You won't compare them m43 lenses, will you?

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

it's a good choice to go with Nikon f/1.8G primes for both high image quality and good cost performance but I highly recommend D800, more expensive but many 4/3" users end in spending more money on low quality high premium cameras.

50/1.8 on D5100 works as a 39/1.4 lens on 4/3"
so it's slightly shorter and slightly slower than 42.5/1.2

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

The idea that two lenses aren't comparable is laughable. I can compare the 24-70L and the 12-40 because they have the same field of view. Each lens has its strengths and weaknesses. The m4/3 lens is smaller, cheaper, and image stabilized. The 24-70 on a full frame gives you the best image quality, shallower depth of field at a greater cost in terms of weight and money. And no IS. Smaller, lighter, and cheaper sways me over to m4/3. There. I just compared them.

0 upvotes
AngelicBeaver
By AngelicBeaver (3 months ago)

As far as your P&S lens comment, the lenses are comparable (because they can be compared) but I don't compare them because the cameras they ride around on don't meet my needs. The m4/3 system and full frame would fall into the "meets my needs" category, thus the comparison.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

it may be a subjective issue someone wants or doesn't want to compare, but the camera and lenses always line up straight and are prepared for anyone who wants to compare.

the comparison is a simple and straight forward thing.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Abaregi
By Abaregi (3 months ago)

Smells of rebadging, not even an DOF scale on the lens and reports of the focus barrel not being the high quality silky-smooth like one would expect from a real Leica.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

real Leica was killed by fake Leica long time ago.

0 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

reason why I don't sell my old leicas. funny of this new lens is named as leica and price liked Leica but does not look like leica.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

Leica products are not valued by their performance as photographic tools. Japanese made Leica lenses of the same optical design perform better but German ones are more expensive.

0 upvotes
technotic
By technotic (3 months ago)

Yab rename yourself irrational_leica_hater.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

renamed or not Leica means third-class Japanese now.
maybe second-class Korean or Chinese tomorrow.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (3 months ago)

Seems DoF @f/1.2 is too short for head-and-shoulders (photo 5, hair and ears are very blurry).
I guess Panasnoic does not expect to sell many.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

the DoF is not too bad at f/2.4 equiv. and
the light gathering capacity is okay as a low cost lens.

the sensor is small for even in adequate light 4/3" doesn't have the capacity at base ISO to accommodate enough photo-electrons for higher image quality, which is well illustrated in DPReview's sample shots.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Cameracist
By Cameracist (3 months ago)

Your "light gathering ability" is an ill concept and the aperture hole and its size is not everything. It is hard and expensive to make sharp and properly corrected lens for any format, and you do not know the manufacturing process of the glass elements, the amount of output control and the production run of this lens - there are more important (and expensive) things than size of aperture hole. Every chinese company can do an F.0.95 lens for cheap, but the quality of the leica is in something else!

3 upvotes
Cameracist
By Cameracist (3 months ago)

Look at your own logic: Like, how does it come the pentax FA limiteds are so expensive? They are just 1.8 or 1.9!!! Their "light gathring ability" is the same as of the lowly canon 50 1.8!!! And the F2.8 macro lenses? Outrageous prices, look at their tiny aperture holes!!!

0 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (3 months ago)

LensTip has tested the Nocticron and the resolution numbers they got are simply phenomenal. Compare, for example the corner resolution MTF50 for the Nocticron to other first-class lenses:

Nocticron 42.5/1.2 @ F/1.2 – 47 lpmm
Canon 80/1.2 @ F/1.2 – 20 lpmm
Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 @ F/1.4 – 28 lpmm
Leica APO Summicron 75/2.0 @ F/2.0 – 24 lpmm

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (3 months ago)

Yes, it is very good, but it is better than Oly 45/1.8 only at f/4, and by not very much. But maybe edge resolution is not very importand for portrait lens wide open?

0 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (3 months ago)

According to LensTip the edge resolution of the Olympus 45/1.8 is 46 lpmm @ F/1.8. This number is excellent and on a par with the Nocticron but at the much larger aperture of 1.2. However, remember that it is infinitely more difficult to design a super-fast lens with aperture 1.2 than a lens with aperture 1.8.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

at 47 lpmm the 42.5/1.2 is the worst one for photographic lenses should be measured against the photo frame, not lpmm, and compared at equiv. f-number.

at very different aperture or light gathering capacity (42.5/1.2 is the lowest) we have (lp2 can be thought as pixel):

42.5/1.2 (f/2.4 equiv.) on 225mm2 sensor: 0.497 million lp2,
85/1.2L (f/1.2 straight) on 864mm2 sensor: 0.346 million lp2,
55/1.4 (f/1.4 straight) on 864mm2 sensor: 0.677 million lp2,
75/2 (f/2 straight) on 864mm2 sensor: 0.498 million lp2,

should adjust the worth of the lens down below 300 US.
Leica 75/2.0 is the second worst lens from the data.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Cameracist
By Cameracist (3 months ago)

yabokkie: Please stop trolling. It's boring and stupid.

7 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

Comparing LP/mm is DELUSIONAL as smaller format requires higher LP/mm to get the same image resolution. In fact, 4/3 requires DOUBLE LP/mm of FF lens to get the same image resolution.

That's the reason why medium format lenses have LOWER lp/mm numbers than 35mm counterparts yet results in sharper outcomes.

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

which other 42.5/1.2 you know and talking about, even in the similar range if not same!!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> 4/3 requires DOUBLE LP/mm of FF lens

anyone will know it if reads Oly or Pana's document,
4/3" lovers are those who have least knowledge about 4/3"

btw, I don't know much about LensTip's test method thus I only speak based on the numbers given. 42.5/1.8 could be a better or worse lens in real but I don't expect it'll be bad as a 85/2.4 equiv.

designers at Pana are no fools. no one should assume they are.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (3 months ago)

> 4/3 requires DOUBLE LP/mm of FF lens

Even if you divide by two the resolution of Nocticron, it still beats the Canon 85/1.2, virtually equals the Summicron 75/2.0, and is only a little worse than the Zeiss Otus. Remember, too, that the Nocticron is 1/2 stop faster, has AF and IS, is much smaller and lighter, and costs only 1/3 of the price of the Otus.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> it still beats the Canon 85/1.2,

it doesn't for at open it can only do the work as an 85/1.2 stopped down to f/2.4 for light gathering.

btw, Frank_BR, thanks for telling us that the center resolution at open is not good.

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

@frank, you aware you are comparing smaller sensor lpmm versus bigger sensor lpmm, yes?

you do not think that if you put OTUS lens on m4/3 camera, result will not be better?

this is danger when people make comparison of lpmm without understanding. maybe ask why corner and dof of 2/3 and 1 inch sensor is better than m4/3. is it because lens is better?

0 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

you like assuming this Leica is much better than awesome OTUS lens. laugh.

0 upvotes
Cameracist
By Cameracist (3 months ago)

He says "is only a little worse than the Zeiss Otus". And he is right, in equivalency terms. In absolute numbers, the lens is actually better (if "better" means better resolution, which is not everything), but on a smaller area.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

whatever term it should be linked to photographic output or is nonsense here.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

these lpmm numbers are not directly comparable for they are tested on very different cameras and I think the real performance of 42.5/1.2 may be better for it's really an easier lens to make.

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

Hey yab you are here and you are nonsense so how do you explain that?

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (3 months ago)

Nah, too long for low light photography and price is at Leica levels, not even twice the price of the 45mm.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

Could we get some raws for download? A variety of ISOs and some really bad lighting situations, like things directly adjacent to a fluorescent light source, please.

It's not like file extraction should be any real barrier for GH3 raws.

0 upvotes
bcalkins
By bcalkins (3 months ago)

Looks like a great lens to rent, in the same way that I could never justify buying an 85mm, 50mm f/1.2 or tilt-shift lens when I shot a dSLR... Nice addition to the MFT system.

1 upvote
Len_Gee
By Len_Gee (3 months ago)

Is lens made in Germany?

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (3 months ago)

Nope.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

Pana does the market research/planning, design, manufacture, marketing, and service of the lens.

Leica collects fees as a promotional website.

2 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (3 months ago)

The designs are Leica based.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> The designs are Leica based.

Leica in photographic lenses is like Newton in physics. both are dead but the difference is no one pays Newton any fees while Leica still has a brand holder.

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

More yab rubbish. Now he fancies himself as a physics luminary. No yab. Stop making ridiculous bombastic posts.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (3 months ago)

I dont see how this is worth $1200 more than the Oly 45/1.8 or $600 more than the Fuji 56/1.2. The Leica tax accounts for maybe $500.. but $1200 is crasy.

0 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (3 months ago)

It has the name "Leica" printed on it.
"Never give a sucker an even break"
W.C. Fields

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

Jogger:

Get examples of all of those lenses and test them out, then you may see a difference and reason. Even good Fuji lenses lack something in colour.

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (3 months ago)

Some of the shots on other websites are excellent. Sharpness and creamy Bokeh in abundance. One thing for sure is that Leica seldom design shoddy lenses.
m4/3 certainly looks interesting these days

1 upvote
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

what other websites?

0 upvotes
Marcello Zini
By Marcello Zini (3 months ago)

This one, for instance http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Leica_DG_Nocticron_42-5mm_f1-2_H-NS043E/

0 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

sorry Marcello, already saw pictures there. not impressed.

0 upvotes
jimi00
By jimi00 (3 months ago)

The samples from Cameralabs are very eloquent and the lens seems quite sharp. But the bokeh is far too creamy for my taste, even at f1.8.

1 upvote
manfroto
By manfroto (3 months ago)

Here you have full review with quite better samples, enjoy :)
http://www.lenstip.com/394.1-Lens_review-Panasonic_Leica_DG_Nocticron_42.5_mm_f_1.2_Asph._P.O.I.S..html

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (3 months ago)

Shame then did not put the lens onto a better body.

0 upvotes
manfroto
By manfroto (3 months ago)

It's not a shame but a purposeful method because of equal AA filter in both axis.

0 upvotes
rcjim
By rcjim (3 months ago)

The bottom line is that this is an awesome lens. Though I'm hearing noise from the FF supporters who can't accept that m4/3 is here to say and from the typical Oly fan boys who won't and never will give any props on Panasonic products. Miserable people...

5 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

samples do not reflect awesome but poor.

1 upvote
jim stirling
By jim stirling (3 months ago)

@rcjim , I have both Panasonic and Olympus lenses. The noises from some of the FF crowd relate to paying £1299 for a lens that gives you less DOF control than an F1.8 lens on APS or an F2.4 FF. The irony is we see numerous posts in the mFT forum along the lines of who need shallow DOF, shallow DOF is a crutch etc etc. A 50mm F1.8 lens on Nikon APS gives you a 75mm equiv AOV, with the same DOF as an F1.2 on mFT , or maybe you want a longer lens the 85mm F1.8 on APS gives you the equiv AOV as a FF 125mm with the same DOF control as an F1.2 mFT lens.
To put that £1299 price into perspective I can get the D7100 { a well featured weather sealed, camera with better C-AF/tracking than any MFT, a better sensor than any MFT with both the lenses above for just £40 more. There are great lenses in mFT among them I have the 25mm F1.4,60mm macro, and the 75mm F1.8 .The truly excellent 75mm is literally half the price of the new Panasonic.

0 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (3 months ago)

From the samples I have seen I have no doubt about the IQ this lens can deliver - crisp & sharp. But I for some reason expected more in the DOF department.

If I were in a market for a fast portrait lens for m43 I would have hard time to pick this lens over the Voigtlander 0.95 one - if I would be able to get by without AF (I would, none of my cameras have AF :) )

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

if you like very thin Dof .. check cameralabs samples!!
Dpreview samples were taken in an exhibition and in a very bad lighting and conditions! or wait for their final sample gallery!!

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

DoF or light gathering capacity are not the priority of this lens but they should not too bad.

0 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

not too bad for $1,600 lens? you joking?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

it should not be too bad as a 42.5/1.2 lens
which may worth 300 dollars or something.

0 upvotes
jim stirling
By jim stirling (3 months ago)

@ yabokkie "DoF or light gathering capacity are not the priority of this lens but they should not too bad."

What exactly is the priority of this lens if not DoF or light gathering

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> What exactly is the priority of this lens

what else than cheating?

0 upvotes
Cameracist
By Cameracist (3 months ago)

yabokkie: 42.5/1.2 is worth 300? Since when? And where? I want one!
(I know what you mean - you try to calculate the price only from aperture hole size. That is one of the absolutely most stupidest things I read for a very very long time)

1 upvote
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (3 months ago)

"what else than cheating?"

You never make any sense.

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

Cameralabs just published some of the most amazing shots and specially for DOF lovers .. http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Leica_DG_Nocticron_42-5mm_f1-2_H-NS043E/

2 upvotes
ThorstenMUC
By ThorstenMUC (3 months ago)

here is another gallery shot under controlled conditions (not mine):
http://deadwolfbones.smugmug.com/Other/Nocticron-Samples/

1 upvote
wy2lam
By wy2lam (3 months ago)

Stand back! This and the cameralabs shots are too close to the subject.

This lens is designed as a 85mm equivalent - quite a few people would love to see compositions where half the subject (from waist up) is included and evaluate the bokeh for those shots wide open.

head and shoulder portraits and close distance shots are not enough. Almost any lens can throw the background OOF nicely when sufficiently close to the subject.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

Not many lenses will let you go closer and focus, at the first place!!

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (3 months ago)

I agree, while close up and Head shoulders portraits are important to showcase for this lense, half body and full body portraits should also be possible @ F1.2. Though the sample shots from CES are plain bad lighting and often too far back.

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

More than any quality test, what I like is how usable this lens is wide open at f/1.2 + OIS; even in that unprofessional lighting setup giving a fast exposure of roughly 1/200 sec at base ISO .. across the gallery.

0 upvotes
rubank
By rubank (3 months ago)

Seems a nice lens, BUT:
the exposure is exactly the same at f/1,4 as f/1,2 in the truck series, and I can´t spot any difference in the background blur.

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

exposure timing is same .. 1/2500 you are right .. but at this speed to me @f/1.2 image is slightly brighter, don't you think!

also the focus point / metering might have been also slightly different.

but once again, I won't take these images very seriously!! they were all handheld, as you can notice slightly different framing in all of them ..

that's why I said earlier .. I won't take these shots for image quality comparison or to judge the out of focus blur characteristics etc!!

1 upvote
Northgrove
By Northgrove (3 months ago)

Ouch, wow... That price. Yes, it's probably of high quality (awaiting better quality samples for that), but still... I think I'd rather get a Fuji X camera and that 56/1.2 here in case I hadn't already bought myself into a system. This lens is more expensive than even that lens, and then you'd get the lens for a larger sensor, a lens that is said to be sharp even wide open by La Roque and of pretty astounding quality.

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

Looking good for the nonflash snapshots shot in badly lit area.
To those who say m43 doesn't give enough depth of field control, check this out: http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=58189 And these were shot with slower lenses.

The price should be cheaper imo, around 1000€.

Just got myself Canon FD 85mm 1.2 L for 300€. If i add the speedbooster, i can get better dof control than any APS-C dslr.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
jim stirling
By jim stirling (3 months ago)

Just got myself Canon FD 85mm 1.2 L for 300€. If i add the speedbooster, i can get better dof control than any APS-C dslr.

Unless one of those pesky NEX APS shooters gets the same lens and puts it on a speedbooster

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> The price should be cheaper imo, around 1000€.

a reasonable price should be about half of that or lower.

0 upvotes
igorek7
By igorek7 (3 months ago)

This sample, unfortunately, doesn't demonstrate a beautiful bokeh of the lens, neither tell us much about the effectiveness of its O.I.S. which together with f/1.2 aperture makes this lens unique. This lens is designed also for video, rising the question if the lens "breathe", change focal lengths slightly while racking focus? Fortunately, there are already more image galleries to argue that the lens is outstanding for both still- and video-imaging, see links here, http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/4612/panasonic-42.5mm-f1.2-and-150mm-f2.8-mft

3 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (3 months ago)

That's like my kit lens, lol.

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

good for you .. share some samples please

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

42.5/1.2 is a low cost lens for casual snaps.

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

The processing on these shots is poor. I have a hard time believing these images are representative of what this lens can do. If they are, then it is disappointing. I shoot heavily with the 25mm 1.4 and the images are absolutely beautiful.

Don't forget lighting inside these venues can be pretty poor. I would like to see some shots from some people who can control the image process from beginning to the final image display some shots. The contrast is way too hot in some images and the clarity seems to have a a veil over it. I shoot EM-1 and GH3 and if I returned and displayed shots like these to my clients it would be pretty poor.

Those folks on a full frame campaign are just bloviating. The size of the sensor or the number of megapixels will have no effect on image quality for images displayed on the web like these. I shoot 800e in my bag too, and the client would have a hard time telling what came from what camera.

4 upvotes
Robert Morris
By Robert Morris (3 months ago)

I was thinking the same thing, but was playing nice and not complaining, anyway see this.

Full test and some samples images here:
http://www.optyczne.pl/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=316

Also Cameralabs has some real nice samples photos up, Enjoy.

3 upvotes
ironcam
By ironcam (3 months ago)

dpreview testshots never do any piece of equipment justice.

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

take these images as initial testing .. it only demonstrates this lens works!!

0 upvotes
arbuz
By arbuz (3 months ago)

@Naveed - as if Panasonic woudl release and bring to CES lens that doesn't work.

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (3 months ago)

why are there 6 photos of forklift trucks almost exactly the same.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (3 months ago)

For comparing performance at different apertures.

2 upvotes
Zeisschen
By Zeisschen (3 months ago)

not so impressed, the pictures look very "flat" and quite soft to me. Background separation is there and bokeh smooth, but for a real "pop" I still feel a bigger sensor is needed.

4 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (3 months ago)

That will possibly be due to flat lighting.

2 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (3 months ago)

First, this lens is WAY out of my price range. I shoot m43. I agree that it's overpriced.

Second, it's interesting how the trolls from non-m43 manufacturers have changed their tune from "can't isolate the subject on m43" to "IQ isn't good enough at base ISO."

The reason? Clearly the subjects are isolated in these shots.

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

I noticed that mate ... it is also out of my price bracket and needs. I don't need this kind of high degree of subject Isolation. But if I need it, I won't look any further and grab it for what it gives, I was expecting it to be in this price range.

0 upvotes
justinwonnacott
By justinwonnacott (3 months ago)

Lens speed has a price in terms of reduced quality when compared with another of the same focal length and with a smaller aperture design. Using it strictly for the appearance of out of focus backgrounds is ok if that is all you are going to do with it but it sure limits what and how you can shoot if you want to take advantage of it.

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (3 months ago)

For the price, I'm unimpressed with this test shots.

0 upvotes
BBking83
By BBking83 (3 months ago)

I know! How ridiculous!! Check out this photo: http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj524/picrumors/picrumors001/Bildschirmfoto2014-01-07um121412_zpsc083a830.png

Can you believe that the 5th skin pore on her nose is still slightly in focus!?!?! I mean, look at her cheeks and eyes! They could be WAY more blurred if you used a FF camera!

This lens is JUNK!

EDIT: Because a whole lot of people will argue against it, it's from here: http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/leica-nocticron-42-5mm-f1-2-analisis-fotos_11255

Can't read Spanish? Google translate can help you. :)

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
wy2lam
By wy2lam (3 months ago)

It has a lot more to do than what is in focus and what is not. The more important thing is for things that are out of focus, how blurry they can become.

0 upvotes
BBking83
By BBking83 (3 months ago)

And it has a lot more to do with how blurry they become. The photo I posted was to demonstrate the results, but it's not a good photo because more than half the face is out of focus...

0 upvotes
Oleg Vinokurov
By Oleg Vinokurov (3 months ago)

Seems most people here concerned only with sharpness and equivalence of dof on FF. Well, it's sure sharp and has more than enough dof control, but hey, don't miss this awesome bokeh. Saw other samples with rather busy background, but bokeh was still really smooth and soft, seems 9 aperture blades do help here.

3 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

I don't see any bokeh at all even though all the sample shots used the maximum aperture - it looks like they are shot using $80 f5.6 kit lenses.

2 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (3 months ago)

I think poor Background choices (indoor) poor lighting and just poor framing (i.e. wider than Full body shots) adds to the disappointment. 85mm "portrait" lens should not be used as a wide shot to demonstrate "DOF" or bokeh.

2 upvotes
Oleg Vinokurov
By Oleg Vinokurov (3 months ago)

2 nerd2
Maybe it's time to clean your display? Far from best use of f1.2 of course, but still really clearly visible.

More samples http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/leica-nocticron-42-5mm-f1-2-analisis-fotos_11255

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

I won't try to judge its IQ from these samples ..

0 upvotes
wy2lam
By wy2lam (3 months ago)

pdelux, wider than full body shots are not appropriate for demonstrating subject separation...as is head and shoulder shots. 85mm is used quite often for half body portraits from waist level up. Wide open this lens should demonstrate a good degree of subject isolation with that composition.

0 upvotes
petepictures
By petepictures (3 months ago)

It does look sharp wide open

2 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

I expect better from 1,600 lens.

4 upvotes
thinkfat
By thinkfat (3 months ago)

So, what do you expect exactly? If you look at the test at photozone and see how much effort went into correcting aberrations you'll understand where the price comes from. Would you spend the money on the new Nikon 58mm prime? If yes - this PanaLeica lens is in the same IQ ballpark.

0 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

disappointing.

3 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

Even with misleading f1.2 aperture the DOF control (or lack thereof) looks worse than lowly 50mm 1.8 on APS-C camera. If you're after portrait, save your money and go to larger format period.

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

"misleading f1.2 aperture"?
Are you saying it's not really a f1.2 lens?

5 upvotes
c_henry
By c_henry (3 months ago)

You know that APS-C is closer in size to m43 than it is to FF right? I keep seeing posts by APS-C users talking about the 'tiny' sensor in m423 cameras and how they'll stick to their "huge" APS-C sensor.

f1.2 on m43 is like f1.4 and a bit on APC-S. Not sure the difference would be noticeable at any focal length.

5 upvotes
Cameracist
By Cameracist (3 months ago)

An aperture is not connected to the image size, only to image brightness, so an 1.2 aperture is true 1.2 even on nikon 1 or m4/3.

2 upvotes
Den Sh
By Den Sh (3 months ago)

Nope, f/1.2 on m4/3 is exactly f/1.6 on APS-C. f/1.4 on APS-C is f/1 on m4/3. Just to the math.

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

in terms of exposure or impact on shutter speed, same f stops on different formats are all equal! no maths needs here .. just common sense and experience!

1 upvote
ThorstenMUC
By ThorstenMUC (3 months ago)

Don't feed nerd2 - he's just FF-trolling in every FT-posting.

Doubt he ever used more than an iPhone-camera and does not know, what challenge a shallow DOF can mean.

2 upvotes
wy2lam
By wy2lam (3 months ago)

Naveed, f/1.6 is equal sure for a particular focal length and if you don't worry about composition and subject distance. for real photo taking...Den Sh is right.

0 upvotes
Cameracist
By Cameracist (3 months ago)

Den Sh: You are speaking about DoF equivalence, but an aperture (in F stop) means somethong different in its original optical sense: it is a ratio between focal lenght and aperture hole size and means how is the image bright - an image of F1.2 lens on4/3 is just as bright as an image of 1.2 lens on FF.

0 upvotes
1971_M5
By 1971_M5 (3 months ago)

Looks OK but nothing that makes me think I need (or want) to switch systems. I keep thinking about a lighter, more compact set-up (mirrorless). But for now, I'll keep my APS-C camera with a mirror and the lenses I have.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

it's okay for casual snaps, timetables for trains & buses ...

0 upvotes
reginalddwight
By reginalddwight (3 months ago)

I clicked through just to see the girls. What lens are we talking about again?

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

these are better samples http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Leica_DG_Nocticron_42-5mm_f1-2_H-NS043E/

1 upvote
Stankus
By Stankus (3 months ago)

definitely better....

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (3 months ago)

To be honest the Sigma 60 F2.8 looks better than these photos. With exception of the low light capability of F1.4, this is very dissappointing. I think the sample photos are not using the Focal length for its intended purpose, which is Tight Head and Shoulder shots.

3 upvotes
philflashes
By philflashes (3 months ago)

Man, this must be one of the nicest image galeries I've ever seen on DPR! That lens is simply amazing. If I had a MFT camera (e.g. Pana GM1, love that little thing!) this lens would be the one I want since I'm a portrait shooter.
And those images of that fork lift truck were great. Quite some DOF control!
Oh yeah, almost forgot, the models were not too shabby, either....;-)

0 upvotes
retro76
By retro76 (3 months ago)

Maybe it's the gallery, but I not as excited as I once was.

4 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

Also jumping ship to fuji now?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

small sensor doesn't necessarily mean lower quality in low light. 4/3" should be able to compete with 35mm format with f/1.4 zooms (12-35/1.4 and 35-100/1.4) and f/0.7 primes (18/0.7, 25/0.7, and 43/0.7). someone will make them for us, Pana, Oly, Sigma, or Tamron.

but still from these shots we can see the image qualities are not good at base ISO. smaller sensor means lower quality in adequate light (same ISO means shallower wells on smaller sensors, thus more noise, lower quality).

shoot at ISO25 with a 43/0.7 lens on a 4/3" camera,
when will we be able to do it?

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

yabokkie, I always see your posts on these MFT and APSC new lens posts taking about equivalence and stuff.
And I am wondering what system you are using yourself,? are you a fan of MFT/ APSC and just think that the manufactures have to step up to the plate to match what is available on 35mm full frame?

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

APS-C need f/1.8 zooms and we got one already.
I'd love to have f/2 zooms for APS-C or f/1.6 zooms for 4/3"
if they are more compact, high quality at open, and cheaper.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

Smaller sensor requires FASTER and SHARPER lens to make the same result, which is their inherent disadvantage (Bear in mind that m43 is still stuck at 16MP, mainly due to the lens resolution issue). Your phone may have f2.2 28mm prime lens with OIS, but that does not mean it's better than 28mm 2.8 prime for FF. Some people are just too deluded by marketing BS.

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

What's wrong with 16MP? Isn't the D4 16MP? The 1Dx is 18MP. Someone on the Fuji forums just posted a picture taken with a 16MP sensor that was blown up to 18' and put on the side of a building!

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

nerd2 the purpose of m43 is not to match pixel level output of FF. It is to fit the needs of its target audience. Please find out what those are and then tell us why you think it doesn't fit the bill :)

Now that would be useful!!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

m4/3" is for those who value compactness over image quality, which is much better than smart phones.

Comment edited 9 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (3 months ago)

It's definitely priced like a real Leica.....

APS-C camera with a relatively basic 50mm f1.4 would give similar images.

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

Maybe not, after all DPR reckoned the $1700 Nikon 58mm f1.4 was worth the extra over a cheap 50mm f1.4 for some situations, and to me the sample images look more like the former than the latter.

4 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (3 months ago)

I don't think the lighting and conditions at the tradeshow were good enough for me to be impressed. Maybe I'll come around after seeing some "real" pictures.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

real Leica died half a century ago.
fake Leica beat the hell of them.

btw, the factor between APS-C and 4/3" is 1.28, so
42.5/1.2 will be the same as 54.4/1.54 on APS-C

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

If you want a "simple" lens in that focal range there are cheaper alternatives.

It's like you are stating: "don't buy Canon L lenses - you can find cheaper Chinese NoName lenses with the same specs cheaper. They will take similar images"

3 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

That is an bad statement.
Fujifilm is no Chinese knock off and announced an comparable lens for $600 less. An nikkor 85mm f1.8g which does the exact same job for an 3rd of the price.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

if you want high performance go with 85/1.8G,
if you need cost performance go with 85/1.8G.

2 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

No, much BETTER images with more sharpness and more subject isolation.

0 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (3 months ago)

Fuji 35mm 1.4 is actually better than canon 35mm 1.4L in terms of sharpness.

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

BarnET .. I love Fuji mate .. and it took me more than a month to decide if I should go for EX-2 or upgrade to GX7, also I really like its 85 equivalent 1.2, it looks good and am hopeful it will perform excellent! But I beg to differ that ThorstenMUC statement in general is not bad. Higher quality lenses generally cost and priced lot more, no matter what manufacturer you chose.

From where I am seeing things .. (from UK :)) Fuji is £999.99 and Pany/Leica is £1,299 and this is RRP! Now if tomorrow I will get a need for this portrait lens I will go for Pany and ignore the price difference. No, its not because I am rating Pany over Fuji or vice versa. It is because I don't have to buy and learn another camera and additionally the OIS will help me little further, another plus is little size and weight advantage!!

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

Background blur looks nice, seems to render it similarly to the Nikkor 58mm f/1.4 (costs the same too...)

0 upvotes
RobertSigmund
By RobertSigmund (3 months ago)

I have no doubt: this is a superlens. But the samples also show: FF cannot be replaced by 4/3. Even at F 2, a FF 85 mm lens gives blurrier backgrounds than this 42,5 mm lens at 1,2. Quite interesting!

4 upvotes
magneto shot
By magneto shot (3 months ago)

blur is at 2.4 equivalent to FF, thats why. But bear in mind light gathering is still 1.2 :-)

8 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> light gathering is still 1.2

it's f/1.2 that can gather same light as f/2.4 on 35mm format.

4 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (3 months ago)

Light gathering per unit (sensor) area, yes, total light gathering is similar to FF 85mm f/2.4 still.

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> per unit (sensor) area

since totally different image projected on unit area of sensors of different formats, unit area is no photographic concept and is irrelevant here (we used it for chemical reasons, for film development).

from photographic point of view, we should compare areas with same image projected on them, the whole or part (say 1%) of the frame.

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

m4/3 was never (ever) meant to "replace" FF so not sure why they are still compared. If you need the shallow DoF that FF allows, then you're not looking at m43.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
ThorstenMUC
By ThorstenMUC (3 months ago)

Is it just me - or is this "total light gathering" discussion total nonsense?

Take the lens off your camera and you can gather even more light in the body... though it doesn't make the image much better.

I'm no professional photographer - but just from a physics point of view f1.2 on FT means brighter (more low light capability) image than f2.4 on FF.

The light brightness focused on the sensor is what counts... your argument is like stating a light bulb is the same as a laser, as long as it has the same power (please don't try proving it by looking into a 60W laser!).

4 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (3 months ago)

The amount of light per unit area is certainly relevant, since it determines exposure. When taking a photo, one usually tries to achieve a certain exposure, rather than trying to achieve an image that is equivalent in all aspects (DoF, noise, diffraction blur etc.) to an image that one would have taken with some hypothetical reference camera, with a different sensor size.

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

Light intensity and DOF is the same as a 42.5mm f1.2 on a FF sensor! Only the circle is different!

This is the most stupid and relentless debate I have ever been witness to.

Full frame trolls, please stay out of this thread, or I will come over to every FF lens thread and troll it with 'inferior to MF' relentless, boring, ongoing trolling.

And it won't take me long because all I have to do is cut-and-paste all your stupid boring posts, with 'FF' where you write 'm43' and 'MF' where you write 'FF'.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> since it determines exposure.

which is no photographic consideration if it's unit area.
everything will have to be measured from the frame,
if you want to talk about photography.

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

This would compete well against the Oly 45 1.8. I wonder what the price is.

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

$1600, it's gonna be a niche lens this one

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

Looks nice,

Any chance you could get some OOF background highlights, to check the bokeh balls, next time?

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

The first image (the DJ) has some light sources in the background, they're not quite point light sources but them seem pretty smooth.

0 upvotes
Identity
By Identity (3 months ago)

I'm sure this is a lovely lens, but I was expecting shallower DOF in an F/1.2 lens. For me, APS-C is still the best balance of size, image quality, cost, and DOF control.

11 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (3 months ago)

Add $400 to the price of this lens alone and you can have yourself XE2 and 56/1.2 Fuji lens. Or don't add anything and get a XE1+56/1.2 for the price of this lens alone

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

If the sample image I found on fujirumors is correct then the 56/1.2 renders the background slightly harsher, especially point light sources. Bit like the Nikon 50mm f1.4 vs 58mm f1.4 in the recent lens review.

4 upvotes
Red5TX
By Red5TX (3 months ago)

Interesting. I had the opposite reaction to the Fuji's rendering.

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

Source? I only managed to find one sample image myself.

1 upvote
KakoW
By KakoW (3 months ago)

Considering you could grab a 50mm f/1.4 and a D7100 for the price of this lens, you really have to need the smaller camera.

2 upvotes
String
By String (3 months ago)

Actually no KakoW, you need (or want) the smaller SYSTEM.

2 upvotes
berni29
By berni29 (3 months ago)

Hi, you could not pay me to lug a D800 and equivlent glass around when I could use a much smaller m43 and this lens and get results that are good enough for me.

If I felt I needed this lens and could afford to buy it then why not? Photography is a hobby for me, and over the number of years I would likely use the lens it is not unreasonably expensive.

I could drive a Toyota, but I like my Porsche.

2 upvotes
wy2lam
By wy2lam (3 months ago)

berni29...since you bring this up. I have had used all of MFT, APS, Fuji X and FF and I can tell you that the "equivalent lens" is smaller on FF.

Body size: smaller format wins
Lens size to achieve the same composition: larger format wins

0 upvotes
Total comments: 178