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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

> 4/3 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.

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

Leica collects fees as a promotional website.

The designs are Leica based.

> 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.

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)

dpreview testshots never do any piece of equipment justice.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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"

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.

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

> light gathering is still 1.2

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

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

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.

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!).