Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 samples gallery

those Polish better speed up their learning.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Yab rename yourself irrational_leica_hater.

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.

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

> 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.

> 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.

@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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

@ 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

> What exactly is the priority of this lens

what else than cheating?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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

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

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

> 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.

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.

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'.