Image courtesy: ePhotozine.
Just try to forget the high price tag of the lens and watch these image samples posted at CameraLabs (Click here) and Dpreview (Click here). Great lens…no doubt! And now back to the price talk: UK readers can preorder the lens at Wexphotographic (Click here) and US readers at BHphoto (Click here). Damn, if it would be $500 less Panasonic would sell 3-4 times more of them and make more money….don’t you think so?
P.S.: Dpreview also posted a set of images from the Panasonic stand. You can see the next new lenses, the 35-100mm and 15mm Leica.
76 Responses
Yes, and it the Olympus E-M1 was 500 EUR less in Europe, they would also sell more. And so on…
But unfortunately Panasonic and Olympus both seem to be keeping prices really high these days. Although Panasonic seems to be a better value these days with the discounts they give on their camper equipment.
I guess that is the premium we all have to pay if we want the latest, and “best” gear.
If not, you can wait a year or two, when prices will drop.
Buy the E-M5 if the E-M1 is expensive. Only for the build quality and the ergonomy and the E-M1 price is competitive compared to cameras like the GH3, E-M5 or GX-7. Not all cameras have to be cheap. Some guys want that all MFT cameras be cheap because of the sensor…come on…Mini is not cheap and it’s not a Jetta regarding space 🙂
I think is good that we have very inexpensive MFT cameras along expensive ones and cheap lenses along very expensive ones like this new Panasonic. We all have different needs and budgets!
AndyNew wrote:
“the E-M1 price is competitive compared to cameras like the GH3, E-M5 or GX-7”
In which part of the world is this true? Here in the UK –
GH3 body: £829
EM5 body: £729
GX7 body: £689
EM1 body: £1199
That is almost double the cost of a GX7 – and for all its good features, it is not in any way shape or form double the camera.
It’s competitively priced against the Nikon D4. 😀
None of those cameras are built or handle like the E-M1. I think it’s priced just right. If anything the others started out a little high.
The E-M5 or GH3 compared to the E-M1 regarding materials and build…it’s like comparing a Renault or Chevy dashboard buid and quality to an BMW one 😀 Cheap vs premium!
Those 3 camera’s have a very similar “premium” build, so that’s nonsense.
I agree with Andy i own those 3 cameras and the EM-1 is in a different league !
AndyNew wrote:
“The E-M5 or GH3 compared to the E-M1 regarding materials and build…it’s like comparing a Renault or Chevy dashboard buid and quality to an BMW one 😀 Cheap vs premium!”
All three cameras are made from a magnesium alloy, the GH3 and EM1 are both weathersealed.
Maybe learn a bit more about the subjects you are commenting on?
Only the E-M1 is freeze proof and has better materials and build quality than the others. I wasn’t referring to the magnesium alloy interior which all of them sport. The feel is more premium.
Premium feel and freeze-proof. What do you want more?
Wait… I hear you can buy cameras with a sensor four times the size for the same price! And better and cheaper lenses, too. Naaah, I am the idiot here.
A7 is in the same price range. Few lenses, small body, poor AF and ergonomics. Put ff lenses and the size advantage vs. DSLR ff is nil. Wait for next generation if one want a good body (Sony is not very commited to their lines so nothing is sure about the lens roadmap and future bodies)
Canon 6d is in the same price range. Put some L glass on it and see the costs (some f4 zooms or even f2.8 ones). Not to mention the L primes and their weight/size. Also no 100% viefinder, few focus points and poor placed – recomposing is bye bye focus for most subjects – cheap body 🙂
Nikon D610 is in the same price range. Same as above only it has 100% viewfinder coverage and more focus points (bad placed like those in the 6D). Hope it won’t have oily sensor 😀
And remember: the sensor is just one part of the camera and the camera is part of a system which is the most important equation finally. Don’t think the american way: big is better or I can buy a bigger sensor for the same money. Nowadays the differences between the sensors are not that dramatic that they were 5 years ago. See what Fuji is doing with their APS-C sensors compared to the FF ones. Not much difference regarding quality (one stop ISO and DR advantage for FF) but regarding size and weights (2 to 3 times advantage for Fuji).
Well it turns out that bigger is better, it’s a matter of physics neither you nor I can change.
Recipe: take a 6D or 610D and mount any cheapish lens; add flashes to taste. If you have a minimum of skill and patience, you will see how it vomits on any M43. And it might save you money, too.
Viewfinder coverage, oil spots, weather sealing, freeze proofness… It’s all marketing junk. Shutter shock, on the other hand, is a very real issue.
“Viewfinder coverage, oil spots, weather sealing, freeze proofness… It’s all marketing junk.”
Ya, who cares about oil spots on the sensor, or about seeing the picture you are going to take or such silly things. You should care instead about your camera being advertised as ‘full’, else it can’t be any good.
The EM-1 with is premium quality, features and speed with a sony A7r sensor will cost over 3000 $ for sure. so i think is price tagis pretty Ok right now !
The EM-5 was north of 1000£ on introduction, so was the GH3’s price.
Just wait a year or so and the EM-1 will drop as well.
Prices may drop for bodies, but not lenses. :/
Prices of lens always drop too, albeit never half as dramatically. After a year, you are looking at a then stable price, about 10-15% cheaper with some occasional discounts.
Anyone thinking their might be some Micro Four Thirds lenses announced that will work with Android smart phones …you just leave rear lens cap on and flick a switch on the lens to establish connection with your smartphone, when using a mft camera remove lens cap and mount as normal.
Would seem like a low risk winner?
Looks great. Gordon Laing reported very good corner performance at 1.2, too. It’s the first stabilised 1.2 lens so far on the market, am I right? Nevertheless very expensive.
I will wait a year…price will come down some and there will be sales…no rush to purchase a great lens at this too-high intro price. Silly.
BTW… I think that the images from CameraLabs are especially well done to show off the attributes of this exceptional lens. Most often image samples are so lame…but not these!
I should not have seen those pictures, Bob, it makes me want to buy that Nocticron :D.
BTW when an OIS lens is paired with Olympus body which stabilization should be turned off?
You can use either, just not at the same time. Which one you should use depends on what camera you use, and what you are using it for, and obviously on the OIS implementation in the lens.
there’s also a test at optyczne.pl (with samples):
http://www.optyczne.pl/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=316
Well, I’ve just made my decision: at this price tag I’m happy with the also great, but much less expensive 45/1.8 and I’ll spend my little money on something much more useful, like 35–100/2.8…
Sorry, but is it me or my monitor? The sample images don’t show how stellar the lens is. Even at F1.2, the 3D separation looks normal and is not clearly different than 45/1.8.
Your monitor.
It’s time to calibrate your monitor. Those images clearly indicates that this is proabably the best 85mm equivalent that ever exists on Earth.
+1 Indeed. I don’t see any special differences with 45/1.8
1 stop difference is mostly only a subtle difference in looks/seperation. The lens will surely shine i the hands of someone who knows how to make the most of the combination lens/composition/location/color or BW and light, but some people think they get the magic the moment they have such lens.A big part is up to the person behind the lens. Even on large format you see people havin trouble to maximize the effect of seperation (wrong background/distance)
If I was doing lots of weddings, this lens would definitely be in my bag–along with the 25mm f1.4 and the 75mm f1.8.
For a working pro the extra cost should be easily justified for the 1 stop of subtlety.
Well, well, well. What I can see here!
http://www.optyczne.pl/316.4-Test_obiektywu-Panasonic_Leica_DG_Nocticron_42.5_mm_f_1.2_Asph._P.O.I.S._Rozdzielczość_obrazu.html
and
http://www.optyczne.pl/240.4-Test_obiektywu-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_45_mm_f_1.8_Rozdzielczość_obrazu.html
Even compared on F1.8 the Olympus 45/1.8 not only keeps the pace with the much more expensive Noctricron but seems to be very slightly better! I haven’t even known what a little jewel I do possess. 😀
For Olympus users the extra stop is not much compared to what Panasonic users get from having OIS.
From my point of view (I will get the E-M1 this april) i will stick to the future 40-150 f2.8 PRO for portraiture because it will offer me more versatility (I like Danube Delta birdwatching and hiking also) and it won’t cost more than 1300-1400 euros.
If 2.8 is enough for you than why not Sigma 60/2.8? It’s definitely much cheaper.
I will get also the Oly 60 f2.8 macro because I love macro and it is also a good lens for portraiture.
The 40-150 f2.8 Pro is also better for birdwatching and hiking than a prime simply because when you’re in a boat or near a cliff you simply can’t zoom using your legs 🙂
The Olympus 40-150mm is not out yet, but I highly doubt it will produce images as nice and sharp as the Sigma 60mm. Zoom lenses almost never do. I have the Olympus 60mm(which I use for macro only) and the Sigma 60mm, and the Sigma produces better/nicer images(for portraits).
Not that I would use the 60mm Sigma much when I also had the 40-150mm, but the Sigma is a bargain for what you get.
False logic. The DoF at 60 is much bigger than at 100 or 150. 60 2.8 makes a decent portrait lens but you need to zoom in more than that to really get the pop at f2.8.
Sharpness is the least important aspect of such lenses. Look at the CameraLabs samples. The Nocticron has a pronounced Leica character (you can see it in the structured rendition of out-of-focus surfaces). Many will prefer the more diffused, Zeiss-type nature of the Olympus lens, but you cannot deny the 42.5 is quite special.
I agree, the images are Leica-like.
I’d be interested to see how your Oly 45mm performs at F/1.2
Regardless of how great it may be, if you want or need better low light performance and even more subject isolation, the Oly cannot deliver. For me the Noctiron is too expensive, but for those that want the extra capability, it’s there for the taking.
In my experience, the maximum aperture you want to use for formal portraits on (m)4/3 is about f/2. Any wider than that and you start blurring away some facial features. Low light photography has a visual “language” of its own. Some motion blur and grain are not only acceptable but preferable. In other words, you buy such a lens because you want it. Not because you need it.
imo there is no fixed rule for this; blurring away facial features is very desirable if you want to add more mood and/or fixing the point of attention to the eyes.
but then again, you say “formal” portraits…ya, maybe
Or get the Voigtlander and save $600.
For me the low light capability doesn’t represent an issue at all. In such situations where the F1.8 isn’t enough you cannot make really good portraits anyway.
I also don’t care about metallic construction (actually I hate it) and I’m also not really happy just for having Leica badge on my lens (instead of Zuiko or Lumix).
The thinner DOF is the only really interesting feature which makes this lens attrative for me.
BUT.
Look at the samples: the F1.2 has such a shallow DOF as you barely can use it for portraits wide open. Moreover, a 100/2.8 has even a better background separation without blurring e.g. the mouth when the eyes are in focus.
That’s why I consider buying the 35–100/2.8 instead of Nocticron (for less money, obviously).
http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-2x-43mm-f1.2-and-2x-100mm-f2.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject
42.5/1.2 gives more background isolation than even a 100/2.8, plus you don’t need to use excessive working distances that you would with a 200mm equiv lens. 100/2.8 is close to 45/1.8 in terms of background blur.
A 100mm with its more narrow angle of view will require a bigger working distance, but will also include less background. This makes it a fair bit easier to find a little bit of less/non disturbing background. Additionally, the page you linked to seems to be making assumptions about working distance. Combining the 2 makes that page misleading in my opinion.
One more pointless comment… But you say “in my opinion”, so it’s ok then.
i prefer to think the reverse way, that extreme fast lenses like voigtlaender and this nocticron give similar /better values wide open. In the past it was normal we accepted fast lenses to be less impressive wideopen. But yes, if you need high resolving power as most important aspect, then the 45mm is best value.
for english readers:
http://www.lenstip.com/2075-news-Panasonic_Leica_DG_Nocticron_42.5_mm_f_1.2_Asph._P.O.I.S._-_lens_review.html
To be fair, it’s a nice lens. However, the issue remains. It is not necessary to invest $1600 to reach that level of IQ performance. There are other cheaper options.
The Nocticron costs just a little more than 1.000 EUR in Japan:
http://shop.kitamura.jp/パナソニック+LEICA+DG+NOCTICRON+42.5mm／F1.2+ASPH.／POWER+O.I.S.+［H-NS043］/pd/4902704066985/
This is an acceptable price for such an high quality lens, IMHO.
If thats incl. tax then i combine it with a visit trying to meet Haruka.
The price tag also helps to get more attention. And people can just go to the shop and ask for that 1600 $ lens. You mean the Panasonic 42.5 1.2? Yeah, that one.
Regarding an attention effekt for a 42,5 Portraitlense this will only result in encreased sales for Olympus 45 1.8.
It may, also.
Pretty sure they could not meet the demand if they sold it for $500 less. In any case, it’s always good to get the money off from the early adopters who’ll buy it regardless, then later on drop it somewhat so it’ll seem like a good deal to get the next batch of people buying.. 🙂
+1 Very smart comment which floats nearly alone in this sea of frustrated (maybe right) protestations !!!
I agree with B.Bob , wait for the price to drop a bit .
No rush for the lens although I really like to have it for the coming lunar new year .
This is a specialty lens and would not sell that much better at $1200. Still photographers that need the smallest possible DOF and best low light performance have the choice of this lens or for $2400 they can buy a FF SLR with an 85mm f1.8 lens. The SLR will have a full stop less DOF and while OIS is nice it does not help much when your subject is moving. The 85mm focal length is commonly used for people, not landscapes or building interiors and people tend to move. The so big and heavy it loses most of the size and weight advantages that lead me to choose m43.
Maybe this lens is aimed at video users that sometimes buy crazy expensive cine lenses. Compared to some of those this lens is a bargain and OIS is useful for video even when the subject is moving.
I have the 45mm f1.8 and am not in the least bit tempted or excited by this lens. The extra stop of speed is not worth the extra size and weight, let alone the cost. It looks like a great lens for those that need it but that is a very small group of videographers and photographers. I doubt there are many people willing to pay $1200 for this lens that would not pay $1600.
You are right because:
1.You can use the 85mm equiv with a flash of falshes (even studio flashes) so no need of OIS
2.85mm equiv is not for lanscape or architecture (indoor/outdoor) and shooting moving subjects without a flash in poor light means increasing the iso which is ok on a ff cameras (in the 1600-6400 interval) but not so ok for mft cameras (which excel at values in the 200-800 interval)
So OIS add much to the price (400-600 euros/$ for sure) and from the user point of view there are no real benefits!
The reviewer at
http://www.optyczne.pl/316.4-Test_obiektywu-Panasonic_Leica_DG_Nocticron_42.5_mm_f_1.2_Asph._P.O.I.S._Rozdzielczość_obrazu.html
found the lens to perform great (see resolution charts) with already very good performance wide open. It missed the editors choice barely due to slightly too high vignetting. But all my photographer friends take portraitures using the 85/1.8 lenses
with an aperture of about 4 on FF. The 42.5 will deliver performance in the Voigtländer regime (over 70 lp/mm MTF50 at 2.0 over 80 at 2.8 already) and provides shallow enough DoF for me. But unfortunately quality is expensive, too expensive to me.
Upon reviewing the OUTSTANDIND photos from Nocticron 42.5mm f1.2 lens which are up on DP Review and Camera Labs, I am sold. I WILL buy this lens as soon as I can afford to.
I won’t be taking any RISK with my “precious” money, because as I use the lens the money will devalue faster than the lens. When I get tired of using this FABULOUS Lens and have had as much fun as I can stand with it, I will sell it and recoup much of my investment” and will have rented it on the cheap.
It’s easy when you buy the GOOD STUFF!
“Damn, if it would be $500 less Panasonic would sell 3-4 times more of them and make more money….don’t you think so?”
Well, no, I DON’T think so. If you look at people who actually BUY and USE lenses (as opposed to people who just post complaints on forums about how much they cost) the $500 isn’t that much of a difference. Yes, a $1,600 lens is very expensive, and only the fortunate few will be able to afford it. But the same would be true of an $1,100 lens.
I suspect that of all the people who would really buy this lens if it cost $1,100, most still will buy it at $1,600. Very few people can afford to spend more than $1,000 on one lens… and for those who can, an extra $500 isn’t much of a hurdle.
People who need this type of lens but can’t afford (or rationalize) those prices will buy the Olympus 45/1.8 instead (if they don’t have one already.) For those people, the price difference between the Olympus and the Panasonic IS big enough to make the difference between “can’t afford” and “can afford.” And all they’re giving up is a full stop of maximum aperture, which really isn’t that significant for most users.
Another way of looking at it: Fuji also has just announced a medium-tele lens with an f/1.2 maximum aperture. If you shoot Micro Four Thirds and you do a type of photography for which you could really use this type of lens (such as performing arts or indoor sports) you now have an interesting choice: (1) Buy the Noctocron at $1,600, or (2) buy the Fuji lens AND a Fuji body such as the XE-2 for about $2,000 total.
The Fuji option has some interesting potential advantages — but it does mean learning a different camera body, and it also means giving up image stabilization, which is a fairly big deal in low-light shooting. Which to choose? Well, if you’re otherwise satisfied with your current Micro Four Thirds camera, it probably makes more sense to bite the bullet and give Panasonic your $1,600. I don’t like that answer either, but there it is.
I disagree with the statement that 500$ is trivial, it is not. Even when I have a lot of money to buy an item I still care about price/performance and raw price, even when I use company money I care, even for 500$, especially since it’s in this case 33% of the price, that is huge unless you spend your dad’s money or you have no buying skills or are a dumbutt when it comes to managing your money, 500$ like you said could be another lens, who will buy this and not even evaluate how that money could be better spent. I buy projectors that cost around 85000 dollars and I still try to get the 500$ training for free, imagine on a 1600$ lens, it’s huge.
I have looked at Fuji 56mm 1.2 samples and this Nocticron sample and subjectively speaking I prefer the Fuji offering by far, the bokeh, resolution, micro-contrast and overall character of the lens has something far more unique on the Fuji side of the fence.
When it comes to DoF control the Nocticron is not that spectacular (85mm 2.4 eq.), it is not a walk around lens (well, usually) you don’t need more light you need more DoF control, that’s why speed is used here and 1600$ for a very sharp lens with an ok DoF control is not money well spent.
Voigtlander has a superior offering imo. Do you really need an ultra fast AF for portraits? I don’t think so, it’s useful but not crucial, therefore a manual lens with better DoF control for less money seems a better, more reasonable choice.
Or like you said, get a fuji and open another world of possibilities to complement your m43 system. The lens is made for a larger sensor, is all metal, has better rendering qualities AND is cheaper.
On a side note: m43 is not a reasonable system anymore, it’s overpriced, a lot. I still bet a lot on the GH4k because of the 4k part, which is a blessing in the large AV event world, but as far as stills are concerned m43 is way too expensive for what it offers.
Years ago I had the Canon 85 1.2 and made a few beautiful images with it, but it was big and heavy and expensive and not really a walking around lens, although I tried to make it one. I found that 85 mm just wasn’t an often used focal length for me, so it gathered dust. I guess, if you use it all the time for portraits, then it would be worth it, but I think for most people it would be a waste of money. I don’t know about everyone else, but it sort of bothers me, when I spend a lot of money on something and then it just sits around gathering dust most of the time, sort of goes against my minimalist nature.
I won’t lie, I’d love to own this new lens, but unless it can pay for itself in it’s first couple jobs I won’t be getting one. That said, the images it’s taking remind me a lot of my old Canon FD 55mm f/1.2 SSC. The Nocticron is a better lens for sure, but man,… $1600. Maybe someday though.
Love to see a detailed comparo with the Nokton. Not sure about paying that much more for a lens that kind of defeats the whole MFT purpose- size and weight. And at that price I’d consider a Speedbooster with several of my old Canon FD lens’. Put the 50mm L series in that comparo as well. All in all though its amazing that various options for this kind of quality glass have become available in MFT. And with the GH4 coming out its all converging towards truly amazing IQ, especially for video shooters.
anyway, “normal” customers buy zooms 😉
“Normal” people buy canikon with kit lens and never buy another lens 🙂
Why F1.2? For thin DOF, there are better *and cheaper* (I need to stress this for the callow reader) combos. Wait, they are a little larger. For low light, there are higher ISOs. Wait, that little sensor can’t take high ISOs.
The advantage over a 45 F1.8 is small, but I’ll take it anyway, because I am spoilt and I want the best of the best. But then, I also want the best sensor and usability, and even the E-M1 is a far cry short.
This new toy is yet another iteration of the usual mistake: silly price/quality ratios. How far is the demise of M43? Oh wait, it is freeze-proof. 🙂 🙂 🙂
Damn, I want to save up for this lens…but I also want to buy GM1…I just saw someone selling GM1 kit with the optional grip for 699 on amazon. So tempting……………
“Damn, if it would be $500 less Panasonic would sell 3-4 times more of them and make more money….don’t you think so?”
That’s a rather silly assumption, since it depends entirely on what the lens currently actually costs to manufacture. If the lens costs $1100 to manufacture, and would not cost any less to manufacture if they were to increase production, then no, they wouldn’t make any more money if it cost $500 less. They would make no money at all, no matter how many they sold. If it cost $1200 to manufacture (unlikely given markups, but hypothetically), then they’d actually lose money.
You can argue that they could have left out features–for example, IS–to bring the price down and sell more, but assuming that it’s priced where it is because that’s what it costs to manufacture at this point, then that’s what it’s going to cost. The price may come down once yields improve or they’ve recouped costs of development (again, depending on what it really costs to manufacture), but you can’t just say “They would sell more therefore make more money at a lower price”.
By that logic, if it cost $100 they would sell 50x as many of them and make even more money. In reality, of course, they’d be losing vast amounts of money.
” Damn, if it would be $500 less Panasonic would sell 3-4 times more of them and make more money….don’t you think so?”
No. It should be $400-500 to compete with FF 85/1.8 and 50/1.4 on APS-C.
It seems to me it is useless to pursue such shallow DoFs.