Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 samples gallery

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.

Jan 14, 2014*permalink

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.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

King Penguin

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......

Jan 10, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 10, 2014permalink

those Polish better speed up their learning.

Jan 12, 2014permalink

Rude yab very rude as usual.

Jan 13, 2014permalink

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

Jan 10, 2014permalink

I find it hard to prove it worths $600.

Jan 10, 2014permalink

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?

Jan 10, 2014permalink

@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.

Jan 11, 2014permalink

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

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.

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

Jan 9, 2014*permalink

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.

Jan 10, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 10, 2014permalink

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?

Jan 10, 2014*permalink

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

Jan 10, 2014*permalink

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.

Jan 11, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 11, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 14, 2014*permalink

Abaregi

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

real Leica was killed by fake Leica long time ago.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 10, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 10, 2014permalink

Yab rename yourself irrational_leica_hater.

Jan 13, 2014permalink

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

Jan 14, 2014permalink

peevee1

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014*permalink

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!

Jan 10, 2014permalink

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!!!

Jan 10, 2014permalink

Frank_BR

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

peevee1

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?

Jan 9, 2014permalink

Frank_BR

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014*permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

> 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.

Jan 9, 2014*permalink

Frank_BR

> 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.

Jan 10, 2014permalink

> 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.

Jan 10, 2014*permalink

@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?

Jan 10, 2014permalink

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

Jan 10, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 10, 2014permalink

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

Jan 10, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 10, 2014*permalink

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

Jan 13, 2014permalink

zodiacfml

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

HowaboutRAW

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

bcalkins

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

Len_Gee

Is lens made in Germany?

Jan 9, 2014permalink

JDThomas

Nope.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

Leica collects fees as a promotional website.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

JDThomas

The designs are Leica based.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

> 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.

Jan 10, 2014*permalink

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

Jan 13, 2014permalink

Jogger

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

SeeRoy

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

HowaboutRAW

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

Antony John

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

what other websites?

Jan 9, 2014permalink

Marcello Zini

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

Jan 10, 2014permalink

sorry Marcello, already saw pictures there. not impressed.

Jan 11, 2014permalink

jimi00

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

manfroto

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

Stu 5

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

manfroto

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

Jan 10, 2014permalink

rcjim

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...

Jan 9, 2014permalink

samples do not reflect awesome but poor.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

jim stirling

@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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

slncezgsi

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 :) )

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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!!

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

jim stirling

@ 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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

> What exactly is the priority of this lens

what else than cheating?

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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)

Jan 9, 2014permalink

mister_roboto

"what else than cheating?"

You never make any sense.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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/

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014*permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 10, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

rubank

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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!!

Jan 9, 2014permalink

Northgrove

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.

Jan 9, 2014*permalink

Fatalfury

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.

Jan 9, 2014*permalink

jim stirling

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

igorek7

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

Jun2

That's like my kit lens, lol.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

good for you .. share some samples please

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

Peter Gregg

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

Robert Morris

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

ironcam

dpreview testshots never do any piece of equipment justice.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

arbuz

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014*permalink

Leandros S

For comparing performance at different apertures.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

Zeisschen

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

Stu 5

That will possibly be due to flat lighting.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

bobbarber

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

justinwonnacott

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

Digitall

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

BBking83

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. :)

Jan 9, 2014*permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

BBking83

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...

Jan 13, 2014permalink

Oleg Vinokurov

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

Oleg Vinokurov

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

petepictures

It does look sharp wide open

Jan 9, 2014permalink

I expect better from 1,600 lens.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

thinkfat

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

disappointing.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014*permalink

jhinkey

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

c_henry

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

Den Sh

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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!

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

1971_M5

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

reginalddwight

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

Stankus

definitely better....

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 8, 2014permalink

philflashes

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....;-)

Jan 8, 2014permalink

retro76

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

Jan 8, 2014permalink

BarnET

Also jumping ship to fuji now?

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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?

Jan 8, 2014*permalink

attomole

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?

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014*permalink

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.

Jan 9, 2014*permalink

c_henry

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!

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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!!

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014*permalink

tkbslc

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

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

Jan 8, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 8, 2014permalink

tkbslc

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.

Jan 8, 2014permalink

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

Jan 8, 2014*permalink

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"

Jan 9, 2014permalink

BarnET

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.

Jan 9, 2014*permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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!!

Jan 9, 2014permalink

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

Jan 8, 2014permalink

RobertSigmund

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!

Jan 8, 2014permalink

magneto shot

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

Jan 8, 2014permalink

> light gathering is still 1.2

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

Jan 8, 2014permalink

TrojMacReady

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

Jan 8, 2014permalink

> 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.

Jan 8, 2014*permalink

String

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.

Jan 9, 2014*permalink

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!).

Jan 9, 2014permalink

Revenant

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

TN Args

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'.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

> 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.

Jan 9, 2014*permalink

brycesteiner

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

Jan 8, 2014permalink

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

Jan 8, 2014permalink

Joel Benford

Looks nice,

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

Jan 8, 2014permalink

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

Jan 8, 2014permalink

Identity

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.

Jan 8, 2014permalink

Absolutic

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

Jan 8, 2014permalink

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.

Jan 8, 2014permalink

Red5TX

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

Jan 8, 2014permalink

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

Jan 8, 2014permalink

KakoW

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.

Jan 8, 2014permalink

String

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

Jan 9, 2014permalink

berni29

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.

Jan 9, 2014permalink