Panasonic announces Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 (again)

As photographers, we are mainly concerned about the maximum F-Stop, FOV ( field of view ), and DOF ( depth of field ) of the lenses we use.

In photographic terms, EVERY lens that has a maximum F-Stop of f/1.2 provides us with the SAME EXPOSURE provided the other main camera settings ( ISO and shutter-speed ) are the same.

In terms of EXPOSURE, all that matters is that the F-Stop of the lenses matches, the ISO of the camera matches, and the shutter speed of the camera matches.

Things get a little more complicated when you want to match the DOF between two cameras that have different sensor sizes.

For example, the DOF of a Canon 5D Mk3 camera using a 50mm lens at f/2.8 matches the DOF of a Panasonic GH3 camera using a 25mm lens at f/1.4. So matching the of the DOF of the 5D camera requires a lens that is 2 F-Stops faster with the GH3 camera.

Thank you for the replies but I am still confused because you were talking about comparing with 5D or FX. Why are we comparing with 35mm not, say, a medium format which may give us another formula 42.5/1.2 = 175/4.8? If the formula is right, should I always compensate my exposure on my GX1 if I do manual exposure?

Matching DOF is even more confusing to me, I can't think of a case that I need to match another camera's DOF when I am using a different one. Oh, does that mean "DOF of 42.5/1.2 on my GH3 == DOF of 85/2.4 on FF"? Then, what the heck is role of the "light gathering capacity" in this formula?

>>> should I always compensate my exposure on my GX1 if I do manual exposure?

No. Exposure is always the SAME. Same ISO, same F-Stop, same shutter speed.

If you don't need to match DOF, then forget about it and just concentrate on achieving a good shot with the correct exposure.

No photographer is concerned about "light gathering capacity", we are concerned about F-Stop, Shutter Speed, and ISO.

Mr. Yabokkie seems to have absolute "light gathering capacity" and matching DOF on the brain. It's obviously a big concern to him, but may be of no concern to anybody else.

For myself, my main concerns are capturing the moment with sharp focus and correct exposure. This is all that matters to me as a professional photographer.

>>>aperture size is the single most important factor that decides value of a lens whose job is gathering light and then projecting to the sensor

As photographers we use the F-Stop of a lens to determine the effective photographic APERTURE of a lens. Nobody cares about the physical size of the aperture of a lens, all we care about is the photographic APERTURE.

Thus a f/1.2 lens is a f/1.2 lens, and can be compared to any other f/1.2 lens. This is the photographic speed of the lens, and the ONLY thing we are concerned about when talking about the APERTURE of a lens.

Thus a Micro 4/3 f/1.2 lens has the SAME photographic APERTURE as a Full Frame f/1.2 lens. END OF STORY.

>>> stopping down a budget prime 85/1.8 by near a stop
will beat the hell of the this Leica 42.5/1.2.

The whole reason for buying a premium lens like this is for the absolute speed and image quality of the lens.

Very likely this lens will reach near optimal performance at full aperture ( f/1.2 ), and with the benefit of the OIS system you can obtain sharp images at shutter speeds that are 2-3 F-Stops slower than shooting without the OIS system.

A FF 85mm f/1.8 lens can definitely shoot a great image, but NOT at f/1.2, and NOT with OIS, so you will need MUCH MORE LIGHT to achieve correct exposure when compared with this new Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 OIS lens.

this 42/1.2 is no premium lens.
it'll get you no better result as an 85/2.4 on 35mm format.
no worse result either, of course. same result.

this 42/1.2 at open can almost do the job as well as
a 85/1.8 stopped down to f/2.2 or f/2.5, so it will worth
near 60% of 85/1.8 in terms of light gathering capacity.

you are correct on IS, which is missing from D800/D600.
though it may be more difficult to make good sensor shift ones for FX, I really hope Nikon and Canon follow Pana to do the right thing.

then whats the point of buying any lens from m43 is the 42.1.2 wouldnt be a premium lens? maybe in terms of DOF it would be at 85mm 2.4 but its still 1.2 in terms of light gathering. nothing is even remotely close to this speed less it be a voigtlander which is all manual and metal.

>>> this 42/1.2 is no premium lens.

Only according to you, Yabokkie.

This new lens is a high speed "portrait" telephoto lens with a built-in optical stabilization system.

You have to STOP trying to equate a f/1.2 m4/3 lens with a f/1.8 FF lens, because they are NOT THE SAME. The m4/3 lens is 1.1 F-Stops FASTER, and likely reaches close to optimal sharpness WIDE OPEN like the other premium m4/3 lenses do.

I expect this lens will be priced around $1,200 US, and should prove very popular amongst professionals ( like myself ) who don't mind spending this kind of money on a high performance lens. Especially at this focal length which is very useful for still-photos and video work.

>>>a "high speed" lens that gives you lower image quality

Yabokkie, YOU REALLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT...

If the lens has premium optics designed by Leica, combined with an effective optical stabilization system it should prove to be an outstanding quality lens.

Many of the Olympus and Panasonic premium lenses are state of the art when it comes to camera lens optical design.

Several lens testing companies have called the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 Micro 4/3 lens to be the BEST DSLR lens of ANY brand that they have tested over the past 10 years. It's an extremely good lens that is tac-sharp at full aperture, with very low levels of chromatic aberration, very low levels of distortion, very low levels of vignetting, and it's very fast when auto-focusing. It doesn't get better than this lens.

I expect this new Panasonic lens will be another outstanding lens for Micro 4/3 cameras.

it only worths 280 in terms of light gathering capacity,
which is nearly 1 stop less than 85/1.8 which is the choice anyone want high performance at a reasonable price.

it'll worth less if using Canon 85/1.8 as a standard.
this is a very good lens that we have been enjoying for more than 20 years.

In terms of light gathering capability, this will behave like a f/1.2 ..
In terms of angle of view, this will behave like an 85
In terms of equivalent depth of field, this will behave like a 85 2.x

DOF is one thing and it varies with sensor size here, aperture is another.

sensor size has zero effect on DOF, aperture size has 100%

Whether sensor size affects DOF or not depends on how you define CoC, circle of confusion. One definition of CoC is based upon resolution of the system, e.g. pixel size. The other definition is a based upon the length of the diagonal, e.g. 1/1600 of the diagonal. But - no matter which one you choose, its absolutely not 100% depending on aperture size.

>a line of small aperture lenses

OK, lets see how things compare in terms of APERTURE, where we are talking about CORRECT EXPOSURE and FOV, NOT DOF.

Micro 4/3 has...

12mm f/1.6 and 12 mm f/2.0
( FF has several 24mm f/1.4, so FF wins here )

17.5mm f/0.95
( FF has 35mm f/1.2, so m4/3 wins here )

25mm f/0.95
( FF also has 50mm f/0.95, so it's a tie )

35mm f/0.95
( no FF equivalent, so m4/3 wins here )

42mm f/0.95
( no FF equivalent, so m4/3 wins here )

50mm f/0.95
( no FF equivalent, so m4/3 wins here )

75mm f/1.8
( FF has 135mm f/1.8, so it's a tie )

150mm f/2.0 ( it's a 4/3 lens, but works with m4/3 )
( FF has 300 f/2.0, so it's a tie )

14-35mm f/2.0 Zoom ( it's a 4/3 lens, but works with m4/3 )
( no equivalent 28-70mm f/2.0 FF zoom so far )

35-100mm f/2.0 Zoom ( it's a 4/3 lens, but works with m4/3 )
( no equivalent 70-200mm f/2.0 FF zoom so far )

So in terms of FOV and exposure, it looks to me that the Micro 4/3 format ( with the assist of 4/3 lenses ) is doing OK.

Just a question... don't you apply the crop factor to the aperture also, so a .95 would be 1.9 on FF?

Only when you are trying to match the DOF. ( depth of field )

Otherwise, in terms of FOV ( field of view ) and exposure, a Full Frame 85mm f/1.2 lens equates to a Micro 4/3 42.5mm f/1.2 lens.

There are pros and cons to each system...

When you want very thin DOF ( aka "paper thin" DOF ), it is much easier to achieve this with a Full Frame system, as your Micro 4/3 lens has to be 2 F-Stops faster to match the FF DOF.

When you want proper FOV and exposure, then all that matters is the actual F-Stop of the lens and that the FOV is equivalent. This gives an advantage to the m4/3 system, as the lenses are smaller and sometimes cheaper than the equivalent FF lens.

In terms of maximum detail, the Full Frame cameras have a big advantage. There is no m4/3 equivalent to the Nikon D800 36 Mpx sensor, so FF systems are the only choice here.

If technology progresses ( it always does ), eventually you will be able to buy a 36 Mpx Micro 4/3 camera while FF cameras will be 70+ Mpx or better.

>Pana 42.5/1.2 is equiv. to 85/2.4 on 35mm format

ONLY in terms of DOF.

In terms of FOV, they are the SAME.

In terms of EXPOSURE the FF 85mm f/2.4 lens is 2 F-STOPS darker, and CANNOT be used with the SAME settings to achieve CORRECT EXPOSURE.

As mentioned previously, you DON'T shoot a head-shot with a FF camera using an 85mm at f/1.2, because all you have is paper-thin DOF. The eyes will be in focus, but nothing else will be, resulting is a sh*tty shot.

...I started shooting professionally in the 80's using Nikon and Olympus 35mm film cameras ( equivalent to todays FF digital cameras ), along with a Mamiya RZ67 6x7cm roll film camera, Sinar 4x5 and 8x10 large format sheet film cameras, Speedotron Black-line 1200, 2400, 4800 watt-second flash packs. So I'm pretty familiar with how camera gear works, though I mostly shoot video these days.

Shallow DOF is a LOT less important than you may think it is.

> after all, image quality is what we want, not some settings on the camera.

yabokkie, if you believe that then why do you constantly bang on that lens prices should be based solely on the physical aperture size and completely ignore important IQ measures such as sharpness, contrast, CA, distortion etc?

Not to mention the fact that FF lenses only have more light gathering capabilities when you pair them with more expensive FF cameras, an 85mm f2.4 lens has half the light gathering capabilities of this 42mm f1.2 lens when they're both used on an m4/3 body.

All Leica did was help design and quality control the lens. They do a bit more than collect a fee, as ignorant people seem to think.

I agree, I like shallow dof portraits, but if it is too shallow, the head looks massive. When we see someone's face with our eyes, everything is in focus. Only on really large objects or something close to our face we see parts out of focus.

> Equivalent FOV is what it's all about. Same F-stop, same exposure.

Misleading. On FT 42.5mm/1.2 on ISO 200 gives same FOV, same DOF and same number of photons per image&time as 85mm/2.4 on ISO 800 on "FF". *That* "is what it's all about".

> have a very fast 85mm FF FOV equivalent

I would not call that "very fast", I'm rather sure I'll call it "very expensive", though.

> I would not call that "very fast", I'm rather sure I'll call it "very expensive", though.

What equivalent lens is faster?

We are talking about lenses that have an FOV or Angle of View of 28 degrees, that provides correct exposure at f/1.2, and also incorporates an optical stabilizer ?

The closest lens that I can think of is the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L lens that costs roughly $2,000 and does not have built-in OIS.

If I'm trying to shoot a portrait of a jazz musician in a dimly lit smoky bar, then I might choose this 42.5mm lens set to f/1.2, set my camera ISO to 3200, and use the OIS to be able to achieve a sharp image at 1/15th or 1/8th of a second.

If I was shooting with a FF camera, I might choose the Canon 85mm set to f/1.2, but without the OIS I may have to shoot at 1/125th or 1/60th second at 12,800+ ISO to get a sharp well exposed image.

...And the extra DOF I get from shooting with the m4/3 format is simply gravy. ( very unlikely I want paper-thin DOF )

> sorry it's 0.77 stops difference, worths about 270 US.

But then if need to add the extra cost of a full frame camera, and the difference in sharpness between your $270 85mm lens and this one.

>>> this lens has an aperture of 35.4mm at open,
while Canon/Nikon 85/1.8 got 47.2mm

Yabokkie NOBODY cares about the physical size of the aperture of a lens. All we care about is the PHOTOGRAPHIC APERTURE of a lens. So a photographic /1.2 lens is a f/1.2 lens. END OF STORY.

What we really need is an ignore option in the comments section. Jabermonkey, yabokie or whatever, is making it nearly impossible to read any comment section that has anything to do with lenses that are not FF.

That may be true, but if you need that shallow depth of field you need to buy a full frame, that is just how it is. The Canon or Nikon cannot compete in size, so there are still advantages to the m4/3 system. It really comes down to where they price this lens. I think it will fit most users demands for a ~28° FOV portrait lens.

viking79 wrote: "The Canon or Nikon cannot compete in size, so there are still advantages to the m4/3 system."

That's assuming that small size is something you want. For many people with average to large sized hands, many of the m43 bodies have somewhat cramped controls, with shallow grips and not great ergonomics vs prosumer APS-C and FF DSLRs.

One thing that Panasonic seems to have gotten right about the new GX7 is the fairly deep grip. But again, a portrait photographer working primarily in a studio or on location wouldn't necessarily make a small size body a priority. Flash system, grip, VF, ergonomics, and DOF control are all going to rate more highly than portability for many.

Re: the CV lenses, it's nice to see the excellent CV 25 f/0.95 dropping in price as I've seen it for ~ $800 new from some of the Hong Kong Ebay sellers.

Hm, I dont think m4/3s are competing against FFs. Not more than FFs are competing against MF. Simply different things for different stuff.

And not sure how you, but Im not shooting portraits wide-open even on APS-C. To have subject reasonably in DOF, you usually need bit more DOF than f1.4 - f1.8 aperture allows.

With for example 75/1.8 from Olympus you can shoot wide-open no prob (tho f2 is better sometimes). But if you use something like 85/1.4 on FF (FX) it usually isnt that useful, unless you like very limited DOF in portraits.

Oh god, more know-it-alls with their equivalency calculators I see... Good stuff!

There's nothing wrong with a little format reality check.

Your name describes your intelligence

They've done this before, though. For lenses between the Summicron and the Elmarit, the f/2.5 lenses, they are Summarit. It's just Leica's thing. Since 'summi' is already used for Summilux, summicron and summarit, and 'lux' is in both Noctilux and Summilux, they did what makes sense: Nocti indicates faster than f/1.4, and the cron indicates that it isn't f/1.

Now, they've used f/1.2 as Noctilux before, but that was before they came out with the f/1 and f/0.95 Noctilux, which is what most people think of when they think Noctilux...so I don't begrudge them the new name.

I like the name, it is catchy. Sure, it sounds more like a giant killer robot, but it is preferable to Touit.

Full frame is undoubtedly the way to go if shallow DoF is a very big priority. However, given the precedence of high quality primes on M4/3, I'm rather confident this lens will beat any 85mm f1.8 prime in overall IQ, even if stopped down to f2.4 or a bit further. Of course, portraiture tends to be one area where technical IQ points don't matter than much.

IQ wise, a 6D with an 85mm f1.8@f/2.4 will almost certainly not significantly outperform a current M4/3 sensor with this lens at F1.2. Once you stop down two stops, FF begins to lose to the more efficient small sensors, and Canon's FF cameras already lag behind newer M4/3 sensors in dynamic range.

Still, want the potential for shallower DoF? It's certainly smarter to go full frame, especially when you start comparing prices.

While it's certainly true that FF has more flexibility when it comes to DOF control, it's less of an issue at these relatively longer focal lengths. Where M43 is most constraining is when trying to shoot wide angle shots of large subjects while trying to blur out the background. That's not really the task that this lens is aimed at.

Yes, I'm sure you can concoct some specific counter-examples, but I suspect that they'd be much more the exception than the rule for the people who'd buy this lens.

You just had to, didnt you.

It's not the lens it's fault but the m43 system for having a tiny sensor. With DOF control you can create great atmosphere in pics. Serious DOFFERS need full frame. On the IQ question. Of course full frame delivers better IQ than m43. Better ISO and better sharpness.

For really serious DOFFERS full frame is just a toy camera. Really serious DOFFERS use medium format.

sure and really really serious DOFFERS use large format.

So you do get the point. Nice. Now stop whining.

congratulations! first dof/equivalence related post. :)

To goshigoo: M43 still has it's value when DEEPER Dof is needed. Low light conditions, a group of people in two rows and no flash permitted - you understand what I'm talking about... So at least you can be sure everyone can be in focus...

For those wanting to compare this lens to a full frame 85/1.8, if you head over to DXO Mark you'll find the Nikon 85/1.8 tied for first overall with the 85/1.4, both slightly edging out the $6000 200/2. I had to look for a while but I eventually found the Olympus 75/1.8. If that lens is any indication, this new 42.5/1.2 doesn't stand a chance.

@joejack951: what you're seeing is not necessarily the lens. DxOMark will tell you that you can't compare lenses by ratings on different camera bodies. For example, that same 85/1.4 drops to a 28 (from 40 on the D600/D800) when you select tested on D700, 25 on D7000 and 22 on a D5000. The Oly 75/1.8 is 23 on a GH2, but 27 on am E-M5. The sensor plays a role in the equation. The lens itself may be just as good. I'm pretty sure that the 75/1.8 on the E-M5 being about as good as the 85/1.8 on a D700 is sufficient for even professional portrait work.

Well, personally I don't care too much about the aperture ring myself, as the OM-D has two dials, but if I were using my secondary body (a G3), I'd be very glad to have direct aperture controls so I can save the other dial for exposure comp or shutter speed. The AF/MF switch is more useful to me as it simply saves me a button.

As for the 42.5 and 75mm focal lengths, I agree and disagree with you. In a general sense, yes they are very different focal lengths. However, for my personal uses, both would generally applied to portraiture. As such, for me having a 42.5 is much more important than having a 75mm as it's more versatile overall. My main reason for going with the 75mm would be greater subject isolation, but this lens should match it or be better in some scenarios. It's virtually impossible this lens will surpass the 75mm's sharpness though, but again that's not a priority to me.

In any case, it looks to be a great addition to the system.

Now if only it were weather sealed...

I might get this because of the aperture ring. It's a definite ergonomic advantage of the Fuji x cameras over other brands and panny seems to have realised that.