The lens resolution chart (Source: Lenstip)
Lenstip (Click here) is the first site posting a full Panasonic Leica Nocticron 42,5mm f/1.2 lens test. These are some of their key findings:
– The tested stabilization efficiency is about 3.5 EV (which is a good result says Lenstip).
– The resolution at medium aperture is almost as high as the best lens of the class, the Nokton 25mm f/0.95 (80 lines per mm vs 82 lines per mm)
– At f/1.2 aperture the center performance is said to be “brilliant” and on par with the Voigtlander 0.95/25 and the Olympus 1.8/75.
– At f/1.2 the corner performance is “positive”
– Chromatic Aberration is present at wide apertures while the lateral chromatic aberration and spherical aberration are well corrected.
– Negligible distortion
– The lens corrects the coma in a splendid way. The astigmatism is not a problem either.
– Bokeh is pleasing and at f/2.5 the bokeh effect is very similar
– at f/1.2 aperture the lens shows a very strong vignetting (-2.23 EV)
– it has a good resistance against ghosting and flares.
– Autofocus is fast and very accurate
Overall the only big negative is the high vignetting at f/1.2 aperture. That said I would have loved to see a comparison between the Nocticron and the 42,5mm Voigtlander to see who delivers the best image at f/1.2 aperture! Maybe some reviewer is reading this and will make a comparison for us š
78 Responses
Just a correction, the review never said the lens had the same resolution as the voigtlander and olympus at f1.2. From what I read in the review (and the corresponding graph) f1.2 yields “useful images”. By stopping down to f4 you get those “brilliant” results that match the maximum results of the two other lenses (which would also be achieved around f4 I’m assuming??)
If checking the results of the CV(at f/1.2) and the Oly(at f/1.8) the values are about the same of the 3 lenses, so compared with those lenses on a par, when you talk about resolving power at similar aperture setting.
In fact, using Lenstip’s resolution test charts for comparisons, this lens is not as sharp as the $200 Sigma 60mm from f/2.8 to f/11. The Sigma is either just as sharp, or in most cases for those apertures, sharper.
Check for yourself.
So, if you are going to stop this expensive lens down to f/2.8 most of the time to shoot due to DOF, then then you can save yourself more than $1000.
The main justification for non-pros to buy this lens instead of the alternatives, is to get the image stabilisation if they are Panasonic camera users. However at this price for this Leica lens, it seems better to just buy an additional E-M5 or E-M1 and use the Sigma or the other cheaper lenses with IBIS. This is still an excellent lens of course, but at this price, it is more jewellery than good buy for most people.
As mentioned elsewhere here by someone, the stat sharpness is not necessarily the only factor for a lens to buy. I can agree that it makes no sense to buy an expensive extreme fast lens if you use it stopped down most of the time. Seeing the reactions here on the forum, I think most users on this forum dont need this lens, in many case because they expect max performance wide open, or they dont like shallow dof. It would be sad if buying this lens as “jewelry”, but it happens alot I am afraid.
I do not understand the mania that some people seem to have for these super-fast lenses.
With SLRs and DSLRs, there was a practical reason for really fast lenses in that they gave you a very bright viewfinder image. I have an Olympus Zuiko 50mm f1.2 and it enabled a very bright viewfinder on an Olympus OM4-Ti with one of the extra bright series 2 focusing screens they made. But that feature is not needed on M4/3. At f1.2 it is a dog, like most super fast lenses. At f5.6 and 8, though, it exhibited superb sharpness across the field of view and really high contrast – which were the features I acquired it for.
People usually say super fast lenses are great for low-light situations. That was definitely true with MF SLRs – but that was mostly about better enabling you to see to focus, but I think that is more wishful thinking than real in terms of actually shooting at the maximum aperture. Ok, if you are shooting focused at infinity you can make use of the extra light gathering, but at close ranges, the depth of field will likely be too shallow for most subjects. With film, unless you committed the whole roll of film to a higher ASA, you were stuck at the native film speed. With digital, bumping the speed by two stops will give you far better image quality than the difference in image quality between wide open and two stops down.
I am yet to be convinced of the need for lenses on m43 faster than f1.4, but if someone has some jaw-dropping image samples shot at f 0.95, I’m all eyes.
by using the word “jawdropping” it seems you expect the step from 1.4 to 1.2 or even 0.95 to be a spectacular on in rendering qualities. It is not, it is a subtle one. Just like the step from f/2.0 to f/1.4 is. If people keep this in mind, they know what to expect. And the using the Zuiko 1.2 as example is not a very good one, well its better then the 55mm in terms of resolving but old fast lenses like these behave not in ideal way on sensors, as the sensor gets too much light incoming, causing bloomin etc.I adapted a Nokton 50mm 1.1 and used it for modelshooting:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5186/5553015166_62eea177ba_o.jpg
Again, the gain in shallowness is subtle compared with a 50mm f/1.4, but if we take care of the content/subject/background/light in a effective way, then its more clear that any extra stop or a halve can be useful, in this case for people photography. If you dont like shallow style, well thats another story.
Those who argue that this lens is worth it for the bokeh at f/1.2 should realise that the 75mm f/1.8 can give just the same or better bokeh at f/1.8 due to its longer FL. This lens is very ordinary at f/1.2 (vignetting and sharpness) and given the limited usefulness due to the paper thin DOF at that FL, its usefulness at max aperture is questionable when you have the 75mm f/1.8.
So, spending the money instead to buy an OMD is better than “investing” in this lens for most non-pros, who cannot get their assignment to pay for it and who have to have something in a Panasonic body.
It certainly can, or at least close enough. The 75/1.8 is a very nice lens too, unfortunately its a very long focal length for general purpose use at 150mm and requires a lot of working distance.
The Nocticron on the other hand gives you the same subject isolation (a small bit more actually) at shorter working distances.
If you’ve got a large studio space to shoot in, the 75/1.8 would be the better choice, if you need to shoot in normal interior spaces, the 42.5/1.2 will likely be more versatile.
I would not call a 85 f2.4 equivalent DoF paper thin. I certainly have no problem managing my Nikon 85 f1.8. However the DoF is thin enough for most purposes and the combination of OIS and an aperture at f1.2 certainly makes this lens a very useful tool for serious event and portrait photographers using mft (and don’t give me that old crap that no serious photographer uses mft, the world is changing…). If mft was my only system I would be in the market for this one since I find the focal length more useful than the 75. However since Mft is my lightweight travel system the Oly 45 is my choice. However with EM-1 and the upcoming 40-150 f2.8 I am almost tempted to go all in for MFT.
Per the comment about 75mm 1.8 being equivalent to the 42.5mm at 1.2: this isn’t true depth of field is only dependent on aperture, field of view, and sensor size. So if you take a picture of a person from the top of their shoulders to the top of their head at f1.8 it doesn’t matter if its a 20mm lens or a 75mm lens, depth of field is the same. What changes is the distance the camera is from the subject and the perspective distortion (apparent distance between the subject and objects in the background). The 75mm lens will flatten the face and the 20mm will deepen the face due to the perspective distortion.
You’re wrong about depth of field, but only in the way most people think about it. The fact that you don’t have to be 4 inches from someone to get the same depth of field is what gives you greater control with longer focal lengths. You’ve controlled for everything in the most un-intuitive ways.
Focal length is actually the single most important factor for DoF control. How much is in focus scales as an inverse square of focal length. So the hyperfocal distance on a 75mm f1.8 is actually over twice the hyperfocal distance on a 42.5 f1.2. This gives you a good idea of how much control you have over depth of field. Meaning you don’t need to be so close to control background blur (with the 75mm). In fact, a 60mm f2.4 has the same control over DoF as the 42.5 f1.2. Yes, the 60mm will give you a more cropped picture at the same distance, so you have to take pictures of smaller things… etc.
Anyway… you can’t reason away focal length’s role in DoF with convoluted reasoning….
The 75/1.8 has a very similar ability to blur the background as the 42.5/1.2, that is certainly correct. The 42.2/1.2 will get you a little more subject isolation/background blur, but the difference isn’t really worth arguing about.
The Sigma 60/2.8 on the other hand, no, not any way you look at it, the slightly longer focal length does not make up for the 2 and a half or so stop difference.
http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-2x-43mm-f1.2-and-2x-60mm-f2.8-and-2x-75mm-f1.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject
while the 75 can be great for portraits,its compression of perspective can make a shot sometimes look a bit flat because the impression of distances gets reduced. But then again, it can also be a very useful stat.With the 42.5 This effect is less pronounced.
Interesting review, thanks to LensTip!
In chapter “10. Autofocus” (http://www.lenstip.com/394.10-Lens_review-Panasonic_Leica_DG_Nocticron_42.5_mm_f_1.2_Asph._P.O.I.S._Autofocus.html), does the Panasonic G6 seem to correct the chromatic aberration of the lens better than the Olympus E-PL1 or is it just me?
If the former is the case and the lens CA is better corrected on Panasonic cameras compared to Olympus, I think this might be worth noting (maybe even in the review itself).
The E-PL1 does not correct CA at all. The first Olympus camera with automatic CA correction is the E-M1.
Interesting, not as sharp as my Canon 85/1.2 II so I think I’ll pass, which wasn’t the plan previously (gotta like it being under half the weight). Not at all bad though… really doesn’t suck at f2 and smaller! On the “up” side that makes a GH4 much more likely for my future š
Oh, and my 35-100 is pretty competitive from f2.8 (note centre and edge are in separate graphs) and I already know I like its bokeh…
http://www.lenstip.com/368.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_G_X_VARIO_35-100_mm_f_2.8_P.O.I.S._Image_resolution.html
P.S. remember when comparing FF results with m43 to double the lp/mm numbers as (i) that’s what you get in the actual picture and (ii) if the FF camera had smaller pixels you’d get a better number anyway (although by how much is impossible to tell, just that it’ll improve, as you don’t know how close to the lens’ limit you are – see http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison for more).
BTW the summary isn’t in the ballpark to the one for the Canon, which is a work of art (the writing, okay the lens too, the internal engineering is just amazing)…
http://www.lenstip.com/189.11-Lens_review-Canon_EF_85_mm_f_1.2L_II_USM_Summary.html
“It was a dark, cloudy and misty morning. It drizzled. The autumn in Japan was nasty that year. Mr. Daisaku Kato, the chief Canon optics specialist, switched on a lamp on his desk.”
Yes, that’s an excerpt from the summary for the Canon lens…
Not saying the Panasonic isn’t a good lens, it really is, just commenting on the review summaries…
The lens is not sharper on full frame (there is no magic). It just projects the image on a larger sensor area and therefore more resolvable line pairs fit on the sensor area. It boils down to resolution sensor generation anti-aliasing filter… So a 12 Mp FF is not necessarily sharper then a 24Mpix APS-C (Compare the same lens on the D700 and D7100 on DXOMARK). And then, it depends on how large you print to see the difference.
For A4-A3 prints it will be hard to see, depending on the fine details, but if you only watch images on your monitor, you would be better off with the VoigtlƤnder anyway, in case you need shall DoF, since its way cheaper than the Panasonic.
All I was saying is:
(1) They give lp/mm and to compare picture sharpness you have to allow for the FF camera having more mm in the picture. Doubling the FF numbers gives a reasonable idea of what you’d see if you photographed the same scene with both cameras/lenses from the same vantage point. (Aspect ratio differences are in the noise for this sort of approximation.)
(2) The FF pixels for the Canons are a lot larger than m43 pixels, so it can’t resolve as many lp/mm regardless of how good a lens might be (the AA filter effect and de-bayering effects are on a much smaller level so you don’t really care). Hence you can’t say anything about how sharp the lenses are in absolute terms, not that you care anyway as that’s no use to you unless Canon release a high-MP camera.
You are just mad that your bulky “full frame” DSLR does not support this lens combination :D. Good luck with your full-equivalence-disorder.
Troll’s thread removed (thanks), you can delete my reply, Admin.
According to Lenstip the vignetting for the CV 25mm f/0.95 is -2.08EV, for the Canon EF 85L f/1.2 its -2.1EV. The Olympus 75mm f/1.8 is “only” -0.98EV. So the very strong vignetting is prob hard to avoid in the fastest designs?
Seems a good point. May be there are other similar lenses in the same price range? We of course can wonder how the Fuji 56 mm will do…
the moderate fast Oly 45mm f/1.8 shows a -0.7EV value. And it resolves a bit higher then the 75mm wideopen, which does break the 80 barrier when stopping down. Sometimes comparing values is fun.
Not having a go, just commenting, but one of the more interesting developments in lens design in recent years is how with modern software even quite cheap lenses can be made really pretty sharp.
Alas many people don’t look harder to quantify features that really do that matter, like bokeh, micro-contrast, astigmatism, coma, etc. Actually they probably matter even more so these days when less people use the full resolution of the lens anyway (still, gotta love all the 800×600 = 0.5MP posts “look how sharp my new lens is”).
On the positive side if you stick to primes and zooms up to 4x ratio there is a pile of good stuff out there for all systems (probably even NEX, well maybe)… š
Agree.
> – At f/1.2 aperture the center performance is said to be ābrilliantā and on par with the Voigtlander 0.95/25 and the Olympus 1.8/75.
wrong, at this aperture the center performance is acceptable and far away from “brilliant”
> – Chromatic Aberration is present at wide apertures while the lateral chromatic aberration and spherical aberration are well corrected.
but, longitudinal Chromatic Aberration is not well corrected
> – Bokeh is pleasing and at f/2.5 the bokeh effect is very similar
the Olympus 45mm is even better at f/1.8
> – at f/1.2 aperture the lens shows a very strong vignetting (-2.23 EV)
the problem becomes moderate at f/2.0 and even at this aperture higher compared to Olympus 45mm/1.8
Welcome to the world of fast primes: high aberrations, vignetting etc. This is the price to pay for speed. Do we still need that sort of speed with modern sensors? Not really, even tiny 43 has decent high ISO (not very good, just good enough).
Those aberrations are hard to fix in post, much harder than a little extra noise.
The other plus of fast lenses is thin depth of field (if at all required): if you want it, 43 is simply the wrong choice. Any cheap 50 F1.8 or 85 F1.8 on 135 will have thinner DOF, and the cam + lens combo will be cheaper than this toy + a decent M43 cam.
After several years, M43 is still a toy, an abortion from not being able to make properly sized sensors. Instead, it should be small and fast, and an amazing tele + macro machine. What do those imbeciles do? An uber-pricey accessory, targeted at a market where the format shows its weakest side. Ridiculous.
Search Flickr for “Noctilux”. Beside the aberrations, you will see some of the worst pictures ever taken (content-wise); tagged with “noctilux”, to be sure. This is the same, on a much smaller scale.
The reality is that many people buy exotic brands for the boasting right. The more expensive, the better. Sure those products are high quality but not necessarily the highest, but with a famous brand name, they can be 10 times the pricier. In fact some of them have to maintain that exclusive image by making only products with prices or else they may be ignored by that type of buyers. Get 2 % better performance here and there and pay 500% more. Of course these type of products all have fantastic looks too.
Hmmmā¦ on F1.8 is on par with Olympus 45/1.8 wide open.
Comparing both wide open the Olympus is obviously and visibly better.
So why this lens is considered to worth its astronomical price? Just because it has an 1 EV advantage over Oly 45/1.8 and has such an unusably thin DOF wide open as it always has to be stopped down?
So oly’s strategy by releasing f1.8 primes ain’t so bad after all.
No worries, nobody needs more than F1.8. The rest is marketing experiments.
I would love to have a f1.2/17.5mm lens for low light. Also at that angle the DOF will not be to thin.
You can have a 17.5mm f0.95 nokton if you don’t mind manual focus.
No, on par with the 75mm f/1.8; The comparison to the 45mm was only for physical size, for resolution it was to the 75mm.
“Comparing both wide open the Olympus is obviously and visibly better”
This is ofcourse only based on data about resolving power. I wonder if we can see an obvious difference in a portrait shot in 48 lpm or 66 lpm. If so, maybe other stats like microcontrast are the reason?
Certainly. After this review I expect everyone to run and buy the… Olympus 45mm 1.8.
The Panasonic’s IQ is very good, and its OIS is very good too. If the price was $700 people would be torn about which one to choose: The quite cheaper, much smaller and lighter Olympus 45mm, or the f/1.2 aperture and OIS of the Panasonic? For people with a Panasonic body it would make sense to pay the extra bucks and extra bulk for having OIS + f/1.2. For Olympus camera users probably not.
However, at $1600 I’m afraid it’s simply not able to compete.
>>kesztiĆ³
When you compare 45mm F1.8 and 75mm F1.8, you can say same things, What do you think about this.
People love to pay up for fast glass, always have and always will. Vintage lens market is the same for example Minolta 50mm f1.7 $12 and Minolta 58mm f1.2 $450, at f4 both produce virtually identical images. I think there are two reasons for this fascination with fast glass. First any f1.2 or faster lens is a very impressive piece of glass and metal and it great fun to hold and use (at least for a little while). Second in the age of cell phone cameras bokeh is the most visible difference in an image produced by a camera and a phone.
I think it is great this lens exists but I will not be rushing out to get one.
A common purpose of insanely and expensive fast lens, besides taking photos in moonlight and getting totally blurred background at max aperture (and suffering consequences like vignetting, flare, aberations and low resolution) is to be able to stop it down and getting fantastic sharpness at f/2 or f/2.8, i.e. better sharpness than slower lenses. In this case, the lens is not as sharp at those apertures than slower existing lenses, some of which are significantly cheaper.
Which existing lenses are less expensive and perform better at f/2.0 and f/2.8? Voigtlander 25 mm f/0.95 performs similarly at f/2.0 and only slightly better at f/2.8. Panasonic 25 mm f/1.4 not as good at f/2.0, only edge better at f/2.8 center is not as good. Olympus 75mm f/1.8 not quite as good at both f/2 and 2.8. This is based on LensTip’s reviews.
Lenstips reviews seem rather limited, since they don’t talk about microcontrast, macrocontrast and use 1st generation bodies to boot.
I’m thinking differently. The ultimate output comes from the matching combination with body and lens. According to Lenstips and Dxomark, we always see the different score from various bodies with the same lens. From this Nocticron test, my humble theory is that it is one of the greatest 85mm lens, but none of m4/3 sensor deserves to pair with this lens and cannot handle to resolution from this lens. If we have better sensor, the output will get better and better, which Oly 45/1.8 cannot deliver the same performance.
I think you’re correct. This test simply shows the unreadiness of sensor, not the actual performance of this lens.
However I disagree that E-M1 can handle monstrous power of this lens nicely. I’m so sure that the combo with Noct and E-M1 will be able to deliver world-record resolution score and may blow away every 85mm on Earth.
You are nearly right. Why nearly? Because DXO, Photozone etc are as reliable as a drunk 6-years old. Sure, dearer lenses perform better, but – as you say – not by much. Good light, good technique and good composition make much more difference.
Another point is: brighter lenses are NOT better – they are brighter, that’s it. The compromises involved necessarily make brighter lenses worse than darker ones. Example: Any F4 macro, even the very old ones, craps on these toys, and costs a fraction.
Besides, an ultrafast lens and an ultratiny sensor don’t really make the best combo.
So now we have to wait for a new sensor in order to benefit the resolving power of this lens? Please enlighten me where did you get this information? The graph does not show this, unless there is a hyperjump between 2.8-4 breaking the 86/88 border. And dont forget that an older 12 mp sensor was used.
Interesting to compare resolution to the $400 Oly 45/1.8.
http://www.lenstip.com/316.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_45_mm_f_1.8_Image_resolution.html
F1.8 – they are similar. Both center and edges.
F2.8 – The Noc kills it in centre, but the Oly is better in the edges.
F4.0 – The Noc still killing it in the centre thought on par with the Oly in the edges. I would argue that at F4 (on M43), i would prefer the edges and centre to be closer in resolution.
F5.6 – Very similar though the Noc is slightly better in the edges.
F8/11/16 – both similar.
So, based on resolution only, is it worth it? If you want the F1.2? Maybe could be justified if you are convincing enough. Otherwise 4 times the price – no way.
Exactly. 4 times the price, and 4 times the weight. For same performance at 1.8. No way.
Also if you see samples of this lens at f/1.2 and f/1.8 (same subject), you realize that even the DoF difference is hardly noticeable.
Admin Sais: “That said I would have loved to see a comparison between the Nocticron and the 42,5mm Voigtlander to see who delivers the best image at f/1.2 aperture.”
I LOVE THAT IDEA!!!
Glad that Lenstip can finalize the review so quick .
Positive but no quite up to that high price tag according to the review .
Let’s wait for other reviews especially DigRev to conclude if Nocticron worth of buying .
Let’s wait and see how dxomark, photozone, dpreview publish the review of this lens.
CameraLabs has to finish their review which should be interesting, as well…the photos posted there were the best so far at exhibiting the strengths of the lens.
I prefer to wait for some miracle shots from Flickr sources. Or maybe Steve Huff can pull some off. Most technical online sites are not able to show the true strenghts of a lens like this, as it shines only with enough artistic input.
This lens is called “nocticron”, obviously a lens to be used in low light. And it’s a focal lenght made for potraits.
Why Is there no single low light sample picture where one could “need” F1.2?
What is the point of taking boring pictures of houses at daylight with a 85mm FOV F1.2 lens? And why portraits from some random sculptures with no detail? It’s not even possible to see the focus point in those pictures.For all those pictures one could use the a kit zoom lens, they are okay stopped down.
The only usable sample picture is the 3rd last picture of the girl, a portrait with the eyes in focus, looks okay to me, but not jaw-dropping. I also don’t see much contrast or microcontrast in all of those pictures and no comment about it in the review.
+100
…it’s like the reviewer went out with a $1600 lens that is GREAT for low-light, and for isolating subjects with low DOF….. and COMPLETELY disregarded the unique qualities of this beautiful piece of glass on the front of his camera and instead just shot some mindless snappy pics.
Same as it ever was.
š
In lenstip.com they usually shoot the same photos with all lenses, I believe for easier comparison…
If this lens was priced at a $1000 everyone would be singing songs of praise but now it’s being rubbished by some because it’s price may seem unreasonable and out of reach for most, secondly because the 45f1.8 has comparable performance and I’m sitting here wondering why that’s a bad thing when the 45 1.8 has performance off the charts……oh, of course it’s because it’s so much cheaper.
If you want the 45, then bloody buy the 45 f1.8
(I own & love) but you won’t get that entire stop of extra light at f1.2, you won’t get infinitely better build quality, won’t get that aperture ring, won’t get that in lens stabilisation and you won’t get that level off DOF control.
If anyone is convinced that there isn’t anymore DOF control with this lens over the 45 or even 75 then you need to check out the samples over at
cameralabs.com and see the quality for yourself,
For me the samples are amazing!
The charts tell me this lens is the equal to a voigtlander in image quality from f1.2, in build quality, with an aperture ring except it also adds IS and AF and WHY shouldn’t that incur an additional cost?
I look at the cameralabs image sample and I see a very high end premium product, I’d even say it’s m43 answer to canons 85 f1.2L.
I estimated this lens would cost retail between $1199 and $1499 and street price would be an average of a $100 less, I was a little off but the prices will settle eventually and in time more m43 users will come to appreciate this stellar optic.
I have every intention of being one of those people.
@lone.samurai:
Thank you for clear perspective.
The so-called āinfinitely better build qualityā means 425g versus 116g (Oly 45/1.8).
Oh, God, thanks a lot I can have a MFT prime of 425g! Just FYI: the Panasonic 35ā100/2.8 weights 65g *L*E*S*S*!!!!
@ KesztiĆ²
Does the Oly 45 f1.8 have an f1.2 aperture?…no
Does it have built in IS?…..no
Is it made ofmetal or cheap plastic?…..plastic indeed
Does it have an aperture ring?….again no
I guess some of that stuff must account for the weight difference, don’t you think?
I respect that you like and appreciate light weight primes as you’ve expressed many times before on this forum but don’t allow that personal bias to stop you making a balanced judgement that these are ultimately two very different lenses for different customers and evidently you are not that customer and that’s not a bad thing either.
On that last rather moot point you made, the 35-100 as good as it is has an aperture of f2.8 and while impressive for a zoom, it’s TWO AND A THIRD stops slower than that other light vacuum which sits at f1.2!..did you just conveniently forget this crucial detail for the sake of making your point?
I’ve been using Olympus for years now and I own a collection of both classic four thirds and micro 43 lenses and have owned a long list of Olympus bodies in case you think I’m Oly bashing here. Very little of my gear consists of Panny gear and I’ll make no excuses to anyone for whatever lens or body I buy, be it heavy or light or whatever else.
This is a public forum after all and you have your right to your view but when you ridicule others choices because it doesn’t fit your criteria than attempt to back it up with a bias one sided argument based on what suits you, well expect to
be debunked. In the mean time enjoy your m43 equipment,
I know I am.
Your welcome occam, honeslty just relaying what I’ve observed.
People who are spending this kind of money on M43 stuff are truly blinded. EM1 and Noctiflux combo for 3000 euro. You get a big kit with old sensor, medium photo quality, bad video, no big prints, still not a good controle of dof, no good iso performance etc etc. M43 has completly lost it…..but i am happy for Oly and Pana there are still people (not that smart tho) who are buying these gadgets.
I think youāre joking.
The āoldā sensor and āmediumā quality youāre speaking about beat all current Canon APS-C gear, incl. 70D.
The Nocticronās DOF is as thin wide open as itās almost unusable for portraits. Just check the sample photos.
I donāt claim the Nocticron would worth the 1500 USD or whatever but please donāt exaggerate.
No i am not joking. The sensor is at least two years old and keep on dreaming about better performance than APSC. For example a NEX3 with decent lens will outperform every M43 combo in every way.
Well, some fanboys are Leica wannabes and not smart enough to know the difference between real Leica lens and Leica counterfeit… LMAO. Basically they are spending $1600 in a Pana-made lens to boost self confidence.
whats the point of giving such negative comment?
Olympus will sell a lot more of 45mm f1.8. This lens is very overpriced, no doubt. Yes, it has a good, even performance at f1.2 corner to corner, but it’s a hard pill to swallow to pay $1200 more for one stop vs the 45mm. Yes, it has OIS, but OIS doesn’t help with subject movement. And people tend to move (unless they’re dead…or wax models)
and least but most important: this is a 85mm f2.4 equivalent lens. $1500 for that?? Very hard pill to swallow, folks.
No, itās a 32mm f0.9 equivalent lens (Nikon 1st standard). So it worths all of the money!
It’s an f1.2 lens, what part of that don’t you understand?
By your logic your Canon L f1.2 isn’t an f1.2 because when mounted on a medium format it’s f2.8 bla bla whatever crap crap………
You kidding me?….this lens is made for a m43 mount at f1.2 aperture, try very hard to fathom this cold hard reality.
Calm down folks. Your little cameras and lenses are getting increasingly more expensive and that’s harder to justify. However, more and more folks will realize over time they’re getting less for same or more money than FF. Example: when they examine pictures from this Nocticron and find that it’s not the same effect as f1.2 on full frame. It’s a matter of time.
On 135, a lens with 85mm focal length and F2.4 would have the same field of view and depth of field as this 1.2/42.5. If you need more light, add 2 ISO stops: it’s not going to be worse than 43 anyway.
The same applies to zooms: a cheap 28-135 IS F5.6 is equivalent to those uberpricey F2.8 zooms you got for M43.
And guess what? Slow lenses for 135 are small and cheap.
Learning the basics always saves a lot of money, particularly with M43.
I agree –
Nikon D800 + 85mm f/1.8 = 1350 grams, $3300
Olympus E-M1 + 42.5mm f/1.2 = 935 grams, $2850
I am a m4/3-only user myself, but this setup needs a reality check
brilliant results at f8 ib real terms = panasonic fail
I have a good idea .
Rent it first before buying it .
Fr there , you can decide whether it worth or not .
Depend on individuals , of course Pana cameras get more than Oly cameras when come to Nocticron .
This lens, like the 75mm 1.8 and the 25mm 1.4, offers a signature style that I find very appealing.
I can’t wait to add the 42.5mm 1.2 to that collection of fine lenses.
Fuji has such an impressive roadmap witha pair of f/2.8 zooms coming this year. The 56/1.2 is $500 less than this lens – which gets me a pretty nice Fuji body, I’m moving from M43 to Fuji X. The price of higher end M43 lenses is ridiculous.