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.

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

well said, what I would not say.

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

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?

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

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.

@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.

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.

> 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".

@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.

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.

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).

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?

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

> 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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

> 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.

@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

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

jennyrae, you're not making much sense.

@ 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.

@ 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)

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

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

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.

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.