I have a small good news from a trusted source. The new Panasonic-Leica 42,5 f/1.2 Nocticron will already ship in December 2013. The official price will be announced soon. The 150mm f/2.8 will ship in Q1 2014 as scheduled.
—
For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake Gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
For readers: Don’t miss any news. Join our group on facebook and follow our tweets.
Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct
139 Responses
And the price will be…?
My bet: $999
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwn……..no..no….not the same old light gathering, DOF arguments from uneducated..again….soooo droll.
I know… looks like almost all of the posts this time are on this one thread. Impressive, really.
Lots of pretty well informed science, tho’. If anyone wants to learn about apertures.
…all that aside…it looks like a fast, sweet lens that is quit fitting for the great, little MFT Format. Brings the lens quiver up another notch!
…hmmm should I sell my Oly 45mm…..hmmmmm…LOL!
Let’s wait to see the price and read some reviews, I think!
And the price should be…? The same as a FF 85mm F2.4 🙂 unfortunately it will be the same as a FF 85mm f1.4 🙁
Feeling threatened?
Why is that? It will still be able to gather as much light as any other f/1.2 optic, and will be capable of a shallower dof from the same shooting distance comparatively vs a full frame with the same physical focal length (read; not the equivalent field of view).
My bet is that this lens comes in at $1199, which I hope is wrong.
No. This will gather as much light *flux* as an 85 2.4 on 135, and the same dof.
Surely useful, but not a technological feat by any means; so the price should be proportionally small. A Canon 85 1.8 is how much?
its 1,2, not 2,4 !
http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/
F2.4 will only get u 1/15s on indoor, F1.2 will get you 1/100 instead, it doesn’t take a genius to see who can give you sharp capture
Maybe the genius didn’t take better high ISO into account
You just mentioned ISOs, readers were writing about light gathering (f1.2 is wider than f1.4 and so on), and DOF (which is thinner, and a problem in many cases, on FF).
I don’t understand why many have to waste time and words on off-topic arguments as FF (sigh) is better than APC-S and m43.
Go out and enjoy your gear instead.
(No, I’m not a bigger-sensor-hater, in case you misunderstand)
Marco , facts are facts , the point that certain facts about true equivalence seem to get peoples hate comments flowing towards the heretic who dares point this out do not change this. Comparing system X to system Y is complete nonsense unless your objective is to achieve the exact same image { DOF, AOV, resolution, noise and DR } otherwise why bother.
I use both FF {D800} and mFT { GH3/E-M5} both have their advantages and disadvantages they are in fact wonderfully complimentary systems in my opinion not rival football { or whatever inferior sports played elsewhere in the world lol } teams.
Jim
I also own a D800 and a E-M5, but if I can get an IQ that is close enough, I would not complain about carrying a smaller camera for indoor shooting. And since my main portrait lens is a 105 mm f/2, 85 mm f/2.4 equivalent would come pretty close in IQ to the D800 + 105 mm f/2, in particular if we add IS to the equation (doesn’t work for people moving about but for those sitting still, I might even get better IQ with the E-M5 and that new lens.
But it just pains me when I see people thinking light per area (and thus ISO as ISO is mapping light per area to a brightness value in the final image) is the primary driver for noise and thus IQ when in reality except for very low light levels, light per area has zero influence on noise.
Sure, you can take pics in dim light without flash and with acceptable DOF. This is useful if you forgot the strobes at home, or if you don’t want to bother with them.
But a lens that outputs *less* light flux than a cheap 85 F1.8 cannot cost *much more* because it contains *less* glass. Unless it has special properties (always ground for disputes) or plain old greed (much more likely) behind. I reckon you haven’t got any holy grail there, it’s just more marketing, attempting to justify silly prices.
@ admin: Could wirte a short news with a link to http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/ or http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#superduperquick so that everyone can read about light gathering, DOF, F Stop and all that stuff and stop bashing smaller sensors based on empty knwoledge??? Please. 😉
@ Bollox:
You are wrong, the flux is the same for any F1.2 lens, but the total intensity is 4 times bigger on a FF lens since it has to expose a 4 times bigger surface.
This means you can choose the same exposure parameters on a FF F1.2 as you would on a m43 F1.2 and you will get the same exposure. The only difference (assuming same field of view) will be a shallower DOF and a more compressed picture on the FF.
Have a look on at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lgDuzfQaM8
That article is riddled with inaccuracies if you want a comprehensive link to the ins and outs of equivalence look no further than this link below , though the very mention of equivalence seems to target the poster as a heretic.
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm
You are a heretic if you write stupid stuff. f/1.2 is f/1.2 whatever format the lens is made for. Its true that a 35 mm lens gather 4 times as much light as a 4/3 lens as it has to spread it on 4 times the area.
A smaller sensor normally has more noice at the same ISO setting, specially at high ISO settings. But 4/3 has advantages like more DOF so we can use lower ISO anyway in many cases… 🙂
Admin posted that article when I wrote it, so no need for him to link to it again. Thanks for the link, though. Looking at the response below, though, it is rather amazing how many people still seem to miss the point. There is nothing inaccurate in my article, it’s just that I don’t put the emphasis on lenses having to be ‘equivalent’ in depth of field that a lot of people do. The total light argument is a non-starter – when you pick a smaller format to shoot with, you choose to accept the compromises that come with a smaller sensor, and that includes less total light for the same f/stop and a little higher noise in comparison to a larger format in exchange for smaller size, etc. It’s a format issue, not a lens issue. I could come in and argue that full frame cameras just don’t capture the light that a 4×5 view camera does, but that’s pretty obvious and a non-starter, since people use 35mm format for a specific set of advantages that are offered over a view camera, namely much smaller size and convenience (and digital capture).
The total light argument also falls flat for me, as it’s often applied to lenses rather than a specific camera/lens combination, which is the only place where it’s a semi-valid argument. A Canon 1Ds captures more light at f/1.4 than the OM-D captures at f/1.4…but the OM-D has better image quality at all ISOs, so what does it matter? Should we start doing equivalences for older full frame cameras too? No? Well then let’s stop with the argument to begin with.
Okay, may bad. 😉
Look it’s easy: 42.5 mm focal length @ F1.2 => 35.4 mm diameter. 85 mm focal length and F2.4 => 35.4 mm diameter. That makes a radius of 17.7 mm.
Advanced mathematics (!) tell us that the area of a circle is PI * r^2. So our hypothetical 2.4/85 lens and our rumoured 1.2/42.5 lens let through the same amount of light, because they have the same diameter. Since the camera cannot control how much light comes into the lens (unless it is attached to a flash), we must assume the amount of light coming through both lenses to be equal. Flux is the vector product (do you know what it is?) of a magnitude and a surface. Since the surfaces are equal and the incident (perpendicular) light is equal (per definition), the light fluxes are equal. Note that the format does not play a role here.
Flux aside, this lens should be cheaper than a Canon 1.8/85, because being tighter, it probably has less glass. Then we allow a little extra cost for “special properties” and we can get a slightly higher price, let’s say 500 or 600, but triple is nonsense.
I am glad there are new smaller lenses for M43, why shouldn’t I be; but prices must be fair if they also want to sell the stuff to anybody who is not a nincompoop with a hole in the pocket.
It is the scalar product of the vector field and the surface, not the vector product. But other than that you are right: both lenses have the same flux through the aperture plane.
But the flux is position dependent and the flux through the sensor plane is 4 times bigger (2 stops = factor of 1/2 for F number) for the m43 sized sensor compared to the FF sized sensor because the same amount of light is only spread over 1/4 of the area of the FF sensor. Therefore the m43 F1.2 lens yields the same exposure for same ISO and shutter as the FF F1.2 lens would do.
I mean flux itself is already a relative magnitude and therefore the total amount of light through the lens is not of importance for the photography.
But now I understand your point. You were trying to compare glass, material and manufacturing costs of m43 lens to a FF lens. Unfortunately I have no clue about this. But I know that the flange distances and so on are different and therefore the optics have other constraints to deliver high quality edge to edge and so on. Maybe this is contributing to the fact, there is something else or you are right. Sorry, no idea over here. 😉
Exactly: I am trying to draw a balance to see if the price is justified.
About the flux: the flux crossing the lens is the same as that hitting the sensor, assuming zero stray flux. The sensor is 1/4 the size as 24×36, the flux is light intensity x surface, so the sensor is hit by 4 times as much light as 24×36 (all the rest being equal). You can put a lens under a sun beam and set a piece of paper on fire, with the same principle. The lens acts as an optical lever.
The Canon 1.2/50 also has a silly price, the Nikon a lot less (but it is manual focus and ancient). We can imagine it contains more glass than this rumoured lens, to “spray” the beams over a wider surface? Maybe. For sure, I wouldn’t want to focus with it, by hand or manually – not without a special focussing screen, and Canon have taken them out of the 5D3. Have they introduced an EVF with peaking to make up for it? Nope, even if they have tilt-shift lenses in their programme, which are manual by construction. I use TS a lot: have Canon at least introduced touch screens to set the zoom point in live view? Nope, only on the smaller models. Canon have their fair share of dumbness.
There are many overpriced items in photography, and a lot of stupid scrimping on the wrong end. Those bastards just want our money, that’s the thing 🙂
You were right, I was mixing up flux and flux density (in Germany we call the flux density of the sun “radiation flux”…) and that flux and intensity both had the same physical unit J/(s*m^2) and therefore both would be dependent on the surface, at least if the same light beam through the lens is spreaded over a wider area or focused on a smaller area.
But I understand that you already knew that F1.2 is F1.2 in light gathering terms and that you were talking. 😉
The physics is so simple…
You have the same light/mm² at a given f stop. Doesn’t matter how big the sensor is. That only effects DOF because with bigger sensor there is more area for unfocused light rays to spread.
“that only effects DOF because with bigger sensor there is more area for unfocused light rays to spread.”
That doesn’t make sense..
it affects DOF because you stand closer to the subject for a given focal length. (or you use a longer lens to achieve the same FOV)
That is basically the same. Do you know why there is dof in the first place?
The other simple thing that physics tells us that noise is for a wide range of light intensity completely independent of light/mm² , ie, f-stop. There is essentially zero correlation between light/mm² and noise except for very low levels of light intensity.
If you don’t believe, if you think this is incorrect, please tell me which physical phenomenon is the source of noise in images.
I thing that Peter is wrong about the compression in this video (at 12:09), 25mm on mFT will get exactly the same compression effect as 50mm on 135 format (FF). If this does not work, you will get totally distorted photos from point and shoot cameras where focal lengths are just few millimeters. Only DOF is different not the perspective.
For a specific ISO and light level, F2.4 will require 4 times the shutter of F1.2, or if F2.4 was 1/15, f1.2 will be 1/60.
Light gathered is proportional to the inverse square of the fstop.
There’s too many areas where these “equivalence” arguments break down.
■dof – bottom line should be are you getting enough for you…
■light gathering – F1.2 is as it is.. BUT you need to account for transmission loss and vignetting. On my 5D with converted FD 55mm F1.2, I’m not gaining much over my F1.7 planar because I need to expose a little more to take care of vignetting. The DOF is 1.2, the actual exposure isn’t twice as fast as 1.7. I don’t use this over my 1.7 planar for darkness really, I use it to melt backgrounds.
■ISO – don’t bother making ISO arguments. F1.2 on small sensors put the same light per unit area as on a big sensor, but a big sensor has more area getting more light overall and having better high ISO ability – however, it’s not always proportional, due to the way smaller sensors are calibrated. If you try to get the same picture (WHY?) you’d be running double the focal length (same fov), double the F-stop(same dof), which means 4 times the ISO (for the same exposure). That’s dumb. If you have a FF camera, you’re not shooting like that, I certainly don’t 😛
Get the lens for what it is – a fast tiny portrait lens. You really can’t beat the portability, and I have to admit, I like the quality of m43 lenses. I don’t really have sharpness issues, front back focusing problems etc. That said, the competition isn’t the FF comparison, but Olympus’s 45mm F1.8.
I entirely agree about your last point. I’m so glad I no longer have stupid back/front focusing issues like i had with my Canon 7D.
I need to cure your ignorance. f1.2 on crop sensors gather f1.2 light. On m43rds it has a dof of a 2.4 compared to FF. So please don’t be daft.
Aperture measures flux density, not flux.
Besides, all lenses with the same aperture and same image circle have the same flux. So, a FF 280/2.8 has the same flux as a FF 19/2.8 or a FF 35/2.8. Going back to the argument that price should be based on flux would mean that all of these lenses would need to be the same price. 🙂 I would love that, but…
It will give you the exact same DOF, AOV and total light as an F2.4 lens on FF , a lens spec in isolation is meaningless it is lens plus sensor size that matters.If lens specs alone were all that mattered then the Panasonic fz200 with its 25-600mm F2.8 lens would be the greatest lens ever made.
However I don’t care as I will be buying this and the 150mm as soon as they become available.
J
It is f1.2 as far as a light meter is concerned.
“It is f1.2 as far as a light meter is concerned.”
Sure it is, the Panasonic FZ200 is an F2.8 at 600mm it is the end result that counts namely DOF, AOV total light , noise which are all far more important than an arbitrary declaration that F1.2 is F1.2 regardless of format.
You are partially right: the total light of a FF F2.4 is the same as the total light of a m43 F1.2, but the total light of the lens is not of importance. You said it youself in you previous post: the sensor size matters as well. It is the relative light hitting the same unit area of the sensor which matters.
Take another approach on the topic: If you would take the total light of FF F2.4 lens and you would let that all that light exposes the area of a m43 sensor which is 1/4 of the FF sensor area, the m43 sensor would be exposed to 4 times more light intensity than the m43 crop part of the FF sensor (which will be exposed in the same way as the whole FF sensor). 4 times light intensity means an advantage of 2 stops which yields a factor 1/2 for the F stop: F2.4 * 1/2 = F1.2.
I hope this makes things clearer.
All that matters is total light , I am only concerned with the final photo an image taken on a Panasonic FZ200 at f2.8 ,is not the same as an image taken at F2.8 with a lens on mFT with the same AOV, just as an image taken at F2.8 is not the same on mFT as a lens with THE same AOV taken on a FF camera . By the same I mean same AOV , same DOF and critically the same total light. I will not post any more responses as it is only a matter of time before the sharks attack 🙂 any suggestion mFT is not perfect meets with stern judgement
Jim
Just another useless troll. Go find a real day job.
Now we are speaking: But that is not due to the lens and its light gathering abilities. You are refering to the fact that FF sensors have an advantage of about 1-2 F stops in ISO performance compared to m43 sensors (same generation technology). But this advantage has become neglectable for my personal use.
The F number of a lens just tells you what exposure you can achieve with this lens and if I imagine a scenario where I can shoot something with at ISO 400, with 1/8000 s and F1.2 on m43 (lets say because I want to freeze some motion) then I would have to up the ISO 2 stops to ISO 1600 on FF F2.4 lens to maintain the 1/8000s. I exlained you already very well that the total light is not important, just the relative amount of light exposing the same unit area.
And if you want a very shallow DOF then FF is definitely your choice, but I am glad to be able to use bright lenses on m43 with more flexibility for ISO vs. shutter speed and don’t have to worry about a too shallow DOF. Therefore I prefer m43 over larger formats.
Just for the conclusion: The F stop tells you your possiblities in the exposure paramters, but DOF and AOV are dependent on the sensor size. This holds also for the sensor size but the advantages of bigger sensors are becoming smaller and smaller and therefore neglectable (at least for most personale usage circumstances).
That is total bullshit…
All that matters is light/mm²! If a small sensor would have the same S/N ratio you would get the same quality picture just a different dof.
Rubbish. If I am using a 45mm f1.8 inside a theatre I can use it wide open as one the quality is good enough and two it has enough DOF for the job. If I use a Canon 85mm f1.8 one it is no good wide open to start with so needs stopping down plus I will need to stop it down 2 stops to get the same DOF as the 45mm f1.8 Zuiko. If I don’t do that the DOF is simple too narrow. So now I have to increase the iso by two stops on the full frame camera.
I even have a 55mm f1.2 lens that if I stop it down to f2 way out performs the Canon 85mm f1.8 wide open.
There are no shortage of 85mm lenses from multiple vendors .The cheap
“as far as light is concerned”
That’s T stop. not F stop. There’s light loss at the boundaries of each lens. An F2.8 lens is F2.8 in the given DOF, but usually a little darker in actual light (transmission loss).
F-stops are strictly the radio of aperture to focal length.
T-stops are based on light gathering.
exactly, and just as Ive said to these clowns before
but there purpose is to turn all your lenses into something 2 ‘F’ stops slower
and using T stops runs counter to that erroneous agenda
oh dear Rob same old stuff from you no surprises there as Old Will sums your activities up well “”Cry ‘Havoc!’, and let slip the dogs of war” You have to wonder who to use as a reliable source for understanding these type of concepts which while ridiculously basic escape so many especially Olympus FT users.
On one hand we have a legion of trusted highly educated resources such as university Professors like Emil Martinec ,Bob Newman, RAW software designers such as Iliah Borg or lens designers such as Joseph S Wisniewski and on the other hand we have well, abusive ill informed Olympus fanboys. Perhaps you should stick to selling your house and playing amateur defective how is the search for Nurse Stirling going 🙂
great,
if, unlike image thieving lying you they know what they are talking about they will be describing it in T stops, not F stops
oh and as a reminder heres the image you had in your gallery you pretended was yours
http://postimg.org/image/6n5vxxg7h/
Rob Scott I have repeatedly suggested you email the person whom you think took that photo for an exchange of opinions I have. You work under the impression that if you bark the same thing often enough folk will accept it the explicit failure to grasp the simplest of equivalence facts is almost uniquely an Olympus user failure.I am happy to list dozens or fully reputable scientifically verified sites and resources that confirm all the relevant equivalence points.
You are a bully and a hypocrite whose only response to any form of disagreement is to launch a vicious personal attack. YOU, posted your name on the internet, then bitched and whined about it when others repeated it despite you doing this on a constant basis to others.Best get a quick call into your friend Marty/John to rally round.
In a website {DPreview} with a veritable host of nutjobs you stand alone as the most abusive most obnoxious most hated and in all likelihood most banned poster in its ignominious history.Now much as it is always fun chatting with you I have work to do. Until later why not wipe the spit of your screen and have a nice cup of tea.
I can be a lot of things stirling
of those I am not a liar, and a fake who steals other peoples images to make them ‘my own’
so if you wanna go back in time on DPR nurse stirling, fine lets do that
you lied for over ten years on DPR about your ‘professional history’ when I saw you wedding photos I simply couldnt believe how bad they were even as a freebee favour to a friend these were shit of the lowest order.
not content with that, you played the micro four thirds site with you ‘pro’ reputation, of course you outfitted yourself with a D800, a GF1, 2 GH3’s, and an EM5 all to make you the ‘well informed’ if however completely faked user.
You simply lied about your camera acquisitions, just as he had lied about a professional history and your education status, the “double degree in Biology and Chemistry”, then a “PhD in Chemistry”, then a “science degree”, while younger than 19 years old. Oh and woopsee you had to fit a stint in the army in there all before you were aged 19.
so lets play stirling, as you say, ‘see you around’
Rob Scott your abusive behavior is legend from threatening a female poster on an open forum with physical violence.For allegedly posting your address to you in a PM a PM which you then posted in the open forum . You threatened a photographer by email as you erroneously thought he was your nemesis Bob.You signed up another poster to your favorite porn site,their crimes simply being smarter than you.These are lies and fraud as well as being the acts of a sociopath
You were banned a huge number of times only to return with multiple fake ID’S more lies and deceits.Nothing up with using a pseudonym on the internet but you declared on multiple occasions that Riley was your real name even going as far as to say that your mother even calls you that , once again more lies as we now know your name is Rob Scott. The reason I removed my photos from Dpreview are for the same reason you delisted your “business” name Real Ink from the ABN after it was posted you didn’t want creepy internet posters tracking you down in real life.
You had multiple peoples images on your photobucket account at one time before hiding it after being caught I reported you to DPreview for this { easily substantiated }As for your opinion of my photos I do not care at all.After coming across sociopaths just like you on the net, I made the sensible decision not to use my real name { bet you wish you had done the same eh Rob }this has been very amusing watching you barking around the wrong tree for years now .
The only thing that I have done to you is to post your real name on the forum, and frankly if you were any other person I would never have done it.The fact is you posted peoples real names on a regular basis and hid behind your anonymity to commit literally hundreds of abuses against dozens of people whose only “crime” in your eyes was disagreeing with your inane agenda.As I have said I have been in communication with the owner of the photo you think I stole.When you sober up and stop spitting at the screen I strongly suggest you call him then make a call to a good psychiatrist or even a psychologist I believe you know one or at least someone who thinks he is one I think his name is Marty-John . Your problem is that you spent your working life bullying young men in the Army and since retiring you miss the authority and fear of these young guys. perhaps you could sign up to lead a boy scout troop. strutting your stuff online has made you look like a bitter old man.
But noise is not a function of what a light meter measures as light per area at the sensor level. Noise is function of the product of light per area with the sensor area.
Your right it is a f1.2 optic. The focal length is similar to the canon 50mm f1.2 which costs ~$1600. From a manufacturing perspective should this not cost more as it includes IS. Of course all of that is probably irrelevant. Canon must ship many more 50mm f1.2 and has already sunk the development costs.
Panasonic will charge as much as they can while shipping a significant quantity. I bet it will be $1300.
The 42.5mm F1.2 will be exactly equivalent to a FF 85mmF2.4 {AOV,DOF, total light etc] if you want an equivalent to the 50mm F1.2 Canon on mFT { same AOV ,same DOF ,same total light} you need a 25mm F0.6 for mFT.
Or do you seriously think that the 25-600mm F2.8 lens on the FZ200 is the same or better as our 12-35,35-100 and 100-300mm lenses all rolled into one, if this is so then I have wated a lot of cash on the mFT glass.
It depends on your usage, but maybe you did 🙂
You are a most excellent robot, Tautology 5.
I am less interested in the optical equivalency, but rather the optics contained within. Designing and manufacturing a lens to cover a 35mm sensor is probably simpler than a the same focal length/f stop for a m43 sensor. However, i would really like to know by how much.
I am not a lens designer so i seek clarification. A 85mm f/2.4 and a 42.5mm f/1.2 would have roughly the same size objective lens (35mm diameter). However how would they vary in terms of construction and therefore cost.
As regards the Panasonic Superzoom the f2.8 lens cannot be up to the same optical standards of other 2.8 zooms. We must necessarily choose among price, speed, optical quality and zoom range. So I recognize the assertion that not all lenses can be directly compared against each other.
I suppose I do think that you (and I) have ‘wasted’ lots of money on m43 glass. I do not resent my purchases but I suspect we are all paying a significant premium for the Olympus/Panasonic label.
I have the same feeling of ripoff. Let’s bring up two very similar lenses (on paper): the cheap Canon 1.8/85 and the expensive Olympus 1.8/75. Mmmmmhhh the price comparison really smells. Then there is Leica with their surreal prices, but that’s more like jewellery than anything else.
The price of lens shades also smells of ripoff.
And the cheapest M43 cam with an EVF costs about 1000? Oh please.
The system is interesting, it’s the prices that bother me.
That is certainly a pair of lenses I too have wondered about, the Nikons too. Looking at their specifications I do not understand the Olympus pricing. The Olympus has an additional element and blade compared to Nikon and Canon. As far as I can tell nothing is aspherical or terribly exotic in terms of construction for any of the lenses. Not being an owner of either the Canon or Nikon does not allow me to comment personally on their quality but is the Olympus so much better that it warrants a $400 premium?
Olympus 75mm f1.8 10 Elements 9 Blades $850
Canon 85mm f/1.8 9 Elements 8 Blades $420
Nikon 85mm f/1.8D 9 Elements 7 Blades $450
Nikon 85mm f/1.8G 6 Elements 9 Blades $500
I KNOW that the olympus serves a different purpose to the others, but I really want to know if there is a reason besides market size to account for the discrepancy.
I don’t know either the lenses, nor the definitive reasons for the extra expense. However, in the case of the Oly 75mm, the lens performs spectacularly well even wide open (whereas usually lenses perform optimally only when stopped down a bit). Perhaps the Canons and Nikons are “usual” lenses.
In general though, I’ve noticed that people forget that the FT sensor is much higher resolution per area than the FF sensors, so I believe the FT lens glass needs to be higher quality than FF glass. Often sensors outresolve the lenses in front of them. The same is true of FT — I believe the glass needs to be that much better to ensure the sensor can achieve its full resolution.
So in general, I think the FT lens manufacturers have to design and manufacture to much tighter specifications than full frame designer/manufacturers (though I’m open to new information on the matter). So that could easily account for higher expense of roughly equivalent lenses.
The requirement of higher resolution because the sensor is smaller is a possibility. However, that would put a dent in the system, making it less affordable. Much more, compact cameras should cost a fortune, because they have much smaller sensors. I always wondered how tricky it is to manufacture bright zooms in those tiny sizes; and they are cheap enough though.
It would be interesting if some optical engineer could pitch in.
I agree that the pixel pitch could demand higher tolerances in the manufacture of the lens. the OMD has a pitch of 3.7 micrometers. for comparison the 800D is 4.8 and the 7D is about 4.2. This pitch dictates at what point stopping down the lens will lead to loss of resolution by diffraction. The larger the pixel the more you can stop down the lens and not suffer from diffraction. The OMD is diffraction limited at ~f/8 For a perfect lens As far as i am aware it is also dependent upon the lens quality.
That all (badly) said I expect the real limits to be in edge and corner performance. Most modern lenses can resolve very well in the center of the frame.
However I suspect that the price difference is just an effort to segment the market, let cheap folks (like myself) settle for legacy fast glass, and charge what they can.
I am even cheaper: I use legacy slow glass. Like a wonderful Mamiya 2.8/80 on a Mirex tilt/shift adaptor, on Canon 5D2. Fast glass does not really come my way, too many compromises. I have a friend with a Noctilux, who got it for 6 grand and needed a loan of 5 – I obviously said no, and he is not so much of a friend anymore. Whatever, you should see his pictures: mushy. What did it cost? Stop it, I am laughing too loud, it aches. Well, an exception is the Hassy 2/110 (also on a tilt shift adaptor): its many imperfections are balanced by its amazingly dreamy OOF style. On the opposite end lies the Canon 100 macro: horrid OOF. Of course, DXO would say it is “sharper”, but they are no artists, to be sure.
+1
Vendor lock in is evil.
Lens complexity should directly affect production costs and hence dispensible vendor markups. This should be especially true for lenses heavily realying on software correction since the alrady bought camera body becomes part of the lens in terms of its traditional function of delivering a certain standard of image quality.
Unfortunately while many mirrorless offers comparatively look like a rip off, and especially appear to be such when considering some street prices vs msrp, these businesses aren’t exactly highly profitable… So it looks like eventually this issue boils down to consumer support of a particular system and acceptance of inherently higher prices…
Vendor lock in is one of the reasons I went with m43, hoping that as an open standard it would attract significant support from many vendors. However this has not proven to be as much the case as I wish.
I really hope that Olympus/Panasonic can claim some more market share and therefore attract other makers (Sigma, Tonika etc..) to make significant developments. Also if they sell lots of cameras we can hope prices will drop based on economies of scale.
It depends on what do you mean by TOTAL LIGHT.
If you it means the TOTAL LIGHT ENERGY hitting on THE WHOLE SENSOR per unit time. Then yes you’re right.
But if you mean the *LIGHT INTENSITY* or in other word THE TOTAL LIGHT ENERGY hitting in ONE UNIT AREA per unit time then you are DEAD WRONG.
F1.2 in mFT will provide the same *light intensity* hitting on the sensor as F1.2 on FF not F2.4!
Don’t be confused between Total light power and Light intensity! It is totally different. Regarding about exposure in Photography, we only care about the Light Intensity. TOTAL LIGHT DOESN’T TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT EXPOSURE.
TRUST ME, I AM A PHYSICIST. LOL
Well, Pat, as a physicist, you should know that it’s not the light per area on the sensor that matters in terms of how the photo looks, but the light per area of the photo.
And, as a physicist, you should also know that f/1.2 on mFT will have the same light per area on the photo as f/2.4 on FF.
In other words, when you are comparing the photos on different formats, it’s not the exposure that matters (light per area on the sensor), but the total amount of light that makes up the photo (or, alternatively, the amount of light per area on the photo).
Why not take a medium format equivalent (135 f/3.5?) then? Or any other crop factor, including magical ones (21 f/0.6, 215 f/6.0 anyone?). Anything will do.
It doesn’t work out that way as MF digital cameras are typically cropped compared to their film origins.Then there is the very poor selection of fast lenses available for MF combined with the MF emphasis on low ISO with poor high ISO relative to the sensor sizes.At the risk of repeating myself if aperture is the same regardless of format why is the FZ200 with an amazing 25-600mm not on everyone’s dream list
Your dogma seems fundamentally threatened by the release of this new lens… please consider a trip to the local watering hole to cry in your beer about it.
It seems that you got to many opponents to win that conversation. However, I noticed that nobody has an answer to you FZ200 argument. So maybe at that point they capitulate? Or they just go buy a FZ200 to get that amazing 25-600 mm reach at f2.8 and ditch all their worthless big sensor m43. After all, it meters just like a >10000$ FF 400mm f2.8, the light intensity by sensor area being the same, and of course this the only thing of importance for light gathering.
It’s not that easy 🙂 You have to take other parameters in account like IQ for the total zoom range (vignetting and CA), ISO capacity and noise of the sensor (it’s harder to get high ISO performance on a small sensor), your needs in DOF, etc.
For many daily personnal use, a high end compact with a “small sensor” delivers great images (check pictures taken with XZ-1 or XZ-2: the optic is really good and low light shots aren’t that bad despite the “small sensor”).
Indeed, it doens’t work either way. The lens is not the picture, it takes a complete bundle to make one, including the body as well as additional lighting, tripod and other accessories at times. All this can’t be taken out of “equivalence” and eventually leads to lack any singular measure for comparison of similarly looking individual components from different systems.
wasnt the rumoured price 2499$ ?
If any of you are stuck for something to buy me for Xmas….
“If any of you are stuck for something to buy me for Xmas”
Oh, I wish you had said earlier I already have your socks wrapped up
J
i guess it should be priced somewhere between the oly 45 1.8 and the voigtlander 42.5 0.95.
hopefully around £400
It will cost more than the 25/1.4, for sure.
If it is $699 that will be insta buy for me, higher than that I will be seriously thinking really hard about getting 75mm F1.8 instead
Off topic, there is a good GX7 review at
Photoxels
http://www.photoxels.com/panasonic-gx7/
Thanks! Will link to it tomorrow.
Long overdue!
E-M1 gets tiring. IMO the hype would have been warranted at the $1000. But at $1500, I as a prospective buyer (I still own several 43 lenses), simply not interested. The more interesting would be the follow-up entry level cam with the same tech. But considering coverage given to E-PM2/E-PL5 (also the G3/G5/G6), I doubt it would make much news. Despite being relevant to more people.
Dude, there is no hype. This is a rumor site and therefore rumored cameras are more interesting. The GX7 is announced and almost released for sale. There is no rumoring about anymore.
If you want most recent news on reviews and such stuff you should visit a m43 forum and 43rumors.com. 😉
end of January earliest.
So true, remember this is Panasonic not Olympus. Look at GF6/G6, 12-35mm, 35-100mm.. all take ages to show up
That is why Olympus was/is selling 45/1.8 for $350. Used market will see some fresh Olys.
OIS on the side? Is that a mockup or has anywhere mentioned this having image stabilisation?
Yes it has image stabilization.
Already own the Oly 45 F1.8 and that is sharp enough and fast enough for my needs. I love the 45mm for portraits but don’t use it enough as I would like. Rumored price of close to $1K is too much for my needs at this focal length.
Having said that, it is great for the overall system to have premium choices. I am sure it will be a stellar performer.
This is the news I’m waiting for .
Sounds great within 2013 & it should pair with GX7 .
Price wise , I expect it should cost more than the Summilux & I’m fine with it .
What I don’t understand is Pana announced the lens but not posted it in the lenses website make me start to wonder if the lens is really ready for consumers .
6d 5d with 85mm 1.8 beat all m43 Togheter
“6d 5d with 85mm 1.8 beat all m43 Togheter”
Just as Nikon FF
your spelling compensates for your bigger sensor.
Damn! Thanks man, I was about to buy a camera with lens which are significantly lighter ans less buliker. Where was my head? The only thing which is important, is to get tired arms and shoulders on vacations, to sacrifice flexibilty of myself and to have a shallower DOF for the same exposure parameters, all that to get an advantage of 1-1.5 stops and even spend considerably more as I wanted to do for the E-M5 with the Oly 45mm F1.8. Man thanks, you saved me! ….. Oh, wait. Is that really what !I! want? …. No, I have to overthink that all again.
*mumbling* …. smaller size and bulk … lighter! …. cheaper … more than decent image quality … good enough videos … 5-axis IBIS!!! ….. great lenses …. great body and wethersealed ….. *mumbling goes on*
I am back! I have made a decision: I will get the Olympus OM-D E-M5 and for protraits the Olympus 45mm F1.8! …. Wait, that is where I had started…. -.-
Waiting for a free of charge version, in meantime using the Oly 45/1.8
They’ll ship the first 100 and then run out of stock for 3 months.
It better be no more than $600 or else it’s not selling. Many people already have the Oly 45mm and won’t give it up because it is such a good piece of glass. Since Panasonic is late they are forced to price competitively if they want it to sell. This is almost a niche product as well, only pros (the few that exist) will give up their Oly 45mm for it.
The Oly 45 is a nice value for sure. My guess is that they’ll price this in the same tier as the 75mm/1.8, as a premium portrait lens. I personally prefer the utility of the shorter focal length as it opens up the option for indoor shooting situations that the 75mm simply would not be able to accommodate.
Unfortunately even the the $999 wouldn’t be considered too high. This is really a sad thing, taking into account what a huge money is that for a Romanian average pocket.
Buy your jacket in another country where they have bigger pockets then!
I am not convinced I need that focal length, but if the lens renders like the 25mm, I will be tempted. OIS would also be nice.
Great news, but as usual, alot of not-so-great replies. I bet the Noctitron will be priced lower then 1000 USD/Euros, or else I will have my underwear for breakfast.
I fully expect you to be eating them. Please supply photos!
fresh or used ones?
If you think 900 is expensive, go check out the Nikon 1 32 f1.2
They are both silly prices, one can be silly without offsetting the other’s silliness.
First of all the product and price hasn’t been announced. And secondly would you not agree that a lot of the equivalency talk on all m43 forums is silly? Each lens should be credited base on the format that its native with. Leave the equivalency discussion once we have the seed boosters on m43
Sure, except, comparing different systems helps put the prices in perspective. For me, prices are all-important.
Is it me or the ON/OFF switch is on the left of the lens?
(I’m already out)
And glossy coating on lens barrel?
(don’t close the door)
I’m really excited for this lens, but at the same time, the price will probably keep it out of reach for me.
I could see myself buying this at $500-600 – at that price, I wouldn’t even care about corner/edge performance or vignetting.
I’m guessing it’ll be closer to $850 though, and at that point… its really hard to justify over the 45mm which is already an excellent portrait lens.
Yes OIS and f1.2. As long as it focuses well in low light this will be one of the best 85 mm equivalent lenses around for low light usage. Sure it is not the DOF of a FF lens but the exposure is still measured on f1.2.
I don’t remember seeing another MFT lens that had an AF/MF switch. I wonder what that’s about?
The Oly 12mm F2 and 17mm F1.5 have physical MF/AF switches and the Oly 12-40 F2.8 is rumored to have a similar one. 😉
2 years ago, that lens would have been killer.
Now, it’s still amazing, but alternatives are already on m43.
Yeah, my feeling is that I already have the 45/1.8 which is a great little lens and probably half the price that PanLeica will charge.
Great equivalence debate on this. Really interesting. Wish I had more time to get involved but I am so busy picking my nose and washing my hair.
If you stop with the nose picking perhaps you will not need to spend so much time washing your hair
Stop it with your nose picking/hair washing equivalence!
I don’t really understand, 10 years ago when a manufactory going to announce something new. The product release almost immediately. But nowadays, when they announce something new, you gotta wait for over 6 months or even a year. I thought the product is ready to go, isn’t it? I understand they need to do a lot of test to make sure the lens is working perfectly fine before hit to the market. But why can’t they just get it done before announcing???? By the way, I really like this 42.5mm lens 🙂
Just wait until another 10 years when they won’t release any actual products at all! It will be a world where products will only be announced and then discussed in thousand-comments-per-post blogs until declared obsolete due to a competing announcement 🙂
I think at this point everyone knows all sides of the equivalency arguments. Same repetitive comments over and over and over and over and over. Everyone who has bought into M4/3 already knows the trade-offs by now. WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE GETTING INTO AND WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE GIVING UP! No need for this is better than that or not as good as this drivel.
OK, its not exactly equivalent, I have accepted that and moved on. It is what it is.
In the end it is about the tools at your disposal and how you use them.
You are right and today was the my last time to argue on that topic. Usually I do that, so that uniformed readers don’t get the wrong info as I did until like 4 weeks ago. That was when the Sony CZ 16-70 F4 was rumored and I was like: “Hey, that would be a F3 on m43, but with 24-105 FOV! Yeah much better than 24-70/80!” So to be sure I asked this in the forum and did some research.
Now, I actually want m43 for more DOF at the same F stop. 😀 I guess some people cannot deal with the wealth of choice, first world problems? -.-
I would take M43 over NEX any day, just for usability reasons. The prices need to come down tho, at least the price of proper items, not the old crappy cams with zooms and no manual controls.
I wonder how much Sony is going to charge for their simple small lenses for FF now. It seems they are going to be stupidly greedy, we’ll see.
Amen!
It’s interesting how some have compared the Nocticron to the Canon 85mm 1.8 lens and FF. I have the Canon 85mm lens on a 5D3, and it’s a great lens. But when you use it at large apertures with bright edges it’s a purple haze monster and is soft. Often I stop down to f2.8+, because I need *more* DOF on FF. In practice, what FF gives you is the ability to drop out the backgrounds with more blur for a given framing, should that be necessary on a technical level. Also the “zone of significant amounts of blur” is larger due to the larger format, meaning you can place subjects farther away and still have DOF control. Far beyond that is the subject, subject interaction, light, choosing good backgrounds (for your format), etc. With either format, one can make compelling images, and the tools chosen should depend on the application. The M43 vs FF vs APS-C is a strange lens to view photographic equipment.
Make your choice, and pay your money. Then get on with it.
I already got the Voightlander 42.5 f0.95, I will have it on monday. I have the Voight 17.5 f0.95 and I’m in love with it. Since I got it was instantly my favorite lens even though I have the Oly 12, 45, 60, 75 and Leica 25 f1.4.
in case you shoot model/portrait photography alot, I would love to see lots of samples with the 42.5mm. Very curious, as its the only option for me now to get a native 0.95 short tele for a decent price before i go away end of october. Otherwise I will just wait for the Noctitron, or i go the cheap path and take the slightly longer Sigma ART 60 2.8 with me
Ulli, give me some days and I´ll see what can I do for you. I can upload some samples for you to see on my flickr.
Thanks in advance Marcelo, appreciate it.
@admin, does your source know the filter size? Hopefully it is 58mm or below.
have to ask yet.
http://photorumors.com/2013/09/04/rumors-panasonic-working-on-new-pancake-power-zoom-lenses/
See above link from Photorumor. Hope Pana makes the following with distant scale etc like the just released Pentax
10-20 f2.5
15-30 f2.0
30-60 f2.5
and a general purpose 12-40 f3.5 – f5.6
Just wondering, does anyone else think this lens could be metal?
Sounds amazing anyway; I like the manual apature ring and mf/af switch, but given I can’t afford the 25mm panny/Leica, this will be a bit out of my price range 🙁 guess I’ll just have do make do with my sigma.
Almost too many wonderful fast lense choices in the portrait range. The 42.5mm/0.95 Nokton, choices the 50mm/1.1 Nokton via adapter, and now the 42.5mm/1.2 Nocticron. I love the dreamy rendering of the old 50mm Nokton wide open and will keep it. From what I hear, the 42.5mm Nokton is sharper wide open, and likely the Nocticron as well. The Pana adds autofocus, but the Voigtlander adds another stop. Tough choices. But having all three is sort-of ridiculous, isn’t it?
eagerly awaiting the price to see if it will be the lens i get or pass for another. I have hopes it will be sharp wide open much like olympus lenses are. the 75 1.8 is so dreamy but alas I have a GH3 so no IS for such a lens the 42.5 1.2mm is option im hoping for at decent price.
A f/1.2 Leica badged lens under 1000$?
Hmmmmm… it’s nice to dream, but it will probably cost more.
Any updates on this lens?