Someone at Mobile01.com posted this picture of the soon to be released Leica-Panasonic Nocticron 42,5mm f/1.2 MFT lens on the Panasonic GX7. I hope the person will soon share some image samples taken with that combo. It looks like a beast of a lens that makes even the GX7 look too small and unbalanced.
The Nocticron will be released in early 2014. Price is still unknown. For comparison only: A Full Frame Canon 85mm f/1.2 lens costs around $2,200 ay Amazon (Click here). Hope the Nocticron will cost much much much less!
P.S. For German readers: Gold Box deal on the Olympus E-PM2 (Click here)!!!
276 Responses
For comparison, you should use an 85mm f2.4!
You are confusing DOF with Light gathering capability.
Well, light capability has to “face” the sensor size and capacity. As Full Frame’s bigger sensor and better low light results, i think the right way is to compare 42,5mm f1.2 with an 85mm f2.4 lens.
Still same light gathering capabilities relative to sensor size, flange distance, etc. Low light performance doesn’t have anything to do with it.
Nonsense! The smaller sensor requires a higher concentration of light per mm squared to collect the same total amount of light. A smaller 43 sensor crops out most of the light gathered by 35mm format sensor. Where aperture will give the same concentration of light per mm squared surface area as a 35mm format sensor, the 35 has more surface area and it represents a bigger bucket capturing more light for the same aperture. Medium format will capture more again for the same reason.
Nonsense. These are equivalent in terms of DOF and FOV:
M43: 1/60 sec, F2.0, 25mm, ISO 200
FF: 1/60 sec, F4.0, 50mm, ISO 800
Full frame “only” has higher resolution which is then “wasted” to average out the noise because of higher ISO. You could use lower ISO and use slower shutter, therefore: FF – advantage in resolution (for heavy crops and large prints), M43 – faster shutter speeds and portability.
Think of it this way: if you have two illuminated sheets of paper, one of them smaller and the other larger, the intensity of light won’t change just because the sheets are different. The larger one has just more area to work with. Using this analogy, you can crop larger FF photo to M43 size or you can just frame your photo on M43 camera. It’s the same thing since sensors are comparably efficient.
Sorry for repeating the same stuff from previous discussion.
Pixel numbers and red herrings aside, you do realize that a sheet with 4 times the surface area receives 4 times the light at the same light intensity, right?
Given the same aperture, yes.
…but the of course we’re not talking about the same photo.
Sir, your logic is a little flawed. Let’s say we have a 1 ft x 1 ft sheet of paper and a 2 ft x 2 ft sheet of paper (four times the area). Yes, the 2×2 will reflect four times the light of the 1×1…but each 1×1 sheet within that 2×2 square will reflect the same amount of light as the 1×1.
The bottom line is an Olympus 45mm 1.8 on a GH3 wide open at ISO 200 will yield the same shutter speed as a Nikon 85mm 1.8 wide open on a D800 at ISO 200 (there would be minor variances based upon the actual t-stop of the lenses, a lens thing not a sensor thing). I hope this helps.
emm ok 2×2 doesn’t equal 1×1 but 1×1=1×1. Thanks for that little bit of wisdom :/
As you said ISO is 1:1 linked to light density. However, I get the impression you believe that light density on its own affects image quality, that noise is somehow linked to light density. Is that correct?
ohh sorry for the last comment. I see the issue. What you need to understand is that the iso is only a rough guide the manufacturers give for an indication of signal intensity. I am sure you understand a camera sensor in its simplest form is effectively a solar panel that converts light photons into electricity. All else being equal, a sensor that collects 1/4 the photons will produce a signal 1/4 times as strong. To compensate, the weaker signal will be boosted at a level of 4 times to provide the same signal intensity as the larger sensor. Each ISO stop represents a further boost of the signal to double its intensity. Before the signal on the larger sensor has to be boosted, the smaller sensor has already been boosted 4 times. In effect a ff sensor signal at ISO 800 has only been boosted the same number of times as the signal from a 43 sensor at ISO 200.
I don’t think you understand just yet but we’re getting close. If we want to make equivalent photos (same FOV, same DOF, same shutter speed) we must use different apertures. Which in case of FF results in lower intensity, which in turn means higher ISO boost.
If we don’t care about DOF equivalence then we just use the same apertures and FF sensor will collect more light.
Deadlock, unfortunately I do understand all to well. However, it seems I am failing to express the physics in a way in which is easily understood and further applied… Please understand ISO has no relation to a sensors base signal strength. Each sensor has it’s output adjusted at different levels to provide the desired ISO intensity. This ISO is not an indication of how much a Canon 1dx sensor has had its signal boosted in comparison to an Olympus OMD. It is simply a rough guide to assist the photog with balancing signal intensity with aperture and shutter speeds. Trust me when I say the OMD sensor has had it’s signal boosted considerably more than the latest Sony 24MP ff sensor for the same ISO.
Sir, ISO stands for International Organization for Standardization (should be IOS), meaning it is standard across the board. I have done studios with a mix of Nikon full-frame and Panasonic MFT cameras using the same exposures settings, and the results were the same. My light meter works for both my MFT cameras and the Nikons at work.
Light gathering has more to do with micro lens construction, pixel size and the supporting circuitry. If your point, Andy, is FF is superior to MFT in terms of light gathering; than I certainly agree with you.
Hilarious to read Andy’s poor writing. Every post he makes is all about who has to understand, and how much more Andy understands.
I wonder by what process he ever learns anything? Let’s say the other poster actually does ‘get it’, but wants to make additional points. Is he going to be allowed to do this without being told ‘what he has to understand’? And how is Andy ever going to absorb these additional points while focusing entirely on how right and smart he is?
Long way to go.
Andy, please stop ! My Olympus Em-5 with 45 f1.8 at 1\60 and 200 Iso will give me the same ( light gathering ) picture as my Canon 5d mk II 85 mm at f1.8 1\60 and 200 ISO , It’s only the DOF that is different… Everybody knows That ! That’s a debate close for the last 5 years at least ! I cannot handle to hear anymore people saying that a 42.5mm f1.2 is the equivalent of FF 85mm at F2.4 CAUSE IT IS NOT !!! in DOF yes but not in light gathering. OMG I’m exhausted !
No, it’s how much light per square mm that matters. The larger image circle of a FF lanse will allow more light overall and that additional light is rerquired to illuminate the entire sensor. A smaller sensor can use a smaller image circle and acheive the same brightness with less light overall. If what you say were true, then I could use adapted FF lenses to get a faster shutter speed over native lenses with the same focal length and aperture. The FF lenses I adapt on my E-30 produce the same results as the native 50mm lens at f2, there is no boost. Where did all that extra light go? It’s wasted because the larger image circle covers far more than just the sensor. The unused light is just that, unused.
Sir, that light is put to good use on a full-frame sensor owing to the much, much larger pixel sites on a full-frame sensor and the FF’s superior micro lenses, granting the full-frame sensor better light-gathering capability, which contributes greatly to dynamic range, color depth and so forth.
That being said, I love my E-P5 and don’t miss my D3/D700s.
Hmm, this is also a bit of a myth. Yes, the larger the pixel the better its signal-to-noise ratio (proportional to the square root of the number of captured photons) but on the other hand the overall noise will be more “grainy”. So, it’s really just a tradeoff and the overall amount of captured light stays the same since CMOS sensors in current cameras are comparably efficient.
Grainy? Dividing a stream of photons and then later re-uniting them affects the probability distribution of the individual photon?
(The lower light density on FF is achieved by spreading the light eminating from the subject and reaching the front lens element over a larger sensor area. This could be done putting a 2x TC behind a 45 mm f/1.2 lens which makes things larger, ie, projects the image onto a larger area. The re-uniting happens when these more widely spread photons end up again together in one pixel from, eg, a Nikon D4 compared with a 16 MP m43 camera.)
Andy, Do you have any idea that this has been argued ad-nauseam for nearly a decade with 4/3 sensors? Please educate yourself, or listen to the people here. You are wrong, they are correct. DOF and FOV are the only difference. Aperture in regards to light is the same. Don’t like facts? Keep arguing your wrong points then.
As I just said, put a 2x TC behind this lens and put this combo in front of a FF sensor. Strangely enough you get a 85 mm f/2.4 lens. Since the front end of the lens hasn’t changed, the same amount of light goes in, it is just more widely spread on the FF sensor. And if you take, for the sake of simplicity, a 16 MP m43 sensor and 16 MP FF sensor, the same number of photons reach each pixel for both sensors. So everything is exactly the same for both sensor and thus the images will be the same, the same DOF and same noise.
El Aura, Nice. You have come close to answering your own question below. Image noise from a sensor is an aspect of electronic noise or interference. It can be produced by the sensor circuitry or digital camera and many other things. It is generally very weak and will not show up in the cameras output, however when a sensors signal is boosted, this electronic interference/noise is also being boosted. At some point this electronic interference will be boosted to a point that it’s intensity adversely effects the signal. If each photo site collects enough photons to provide a satisfactory signal it wont need to be boosted to the point where electronic noise becomes strong enough to adversely affect the image.
Unfortunately the noise you are describing, caused by electronic signal processing (and the biggest contributor to was for a long time the A/D converter), usually called read noise, is nowadays only a very small contribution to noise in the image. It is only visible in the shadows at very high ISO. Most noise you see is photon shot noise. Light produced from almost any source (incl. the sun) is already noisy by itself. The noise distribution is such that it become larger in relative terms, the smaller the amount of light is (where amount of light can be seen here as photons).
The inverse of noise is the signal to noise ratio (SNR), the higher the better. To show you how small the impact of read noise on SNR is these days look at the SNR graphs at: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40756917
For simplicity just look at the D800 @12MP(red) and D4 @12MP(lighter blue), the two top-of-the-line sensors used by Nikon. The effect of read noise is whenever the SNR curve falls below the straight line an extrapolation of the right half of the ‘curve’.
You can see that for a very wide range of light levels, the change in light level is a much more important contributer to SNR (and thus noise) than the effect of read noise.
Dave, I’m sorry you find my comment offensive. You are right I am not educated through forum opinions. Engineering and physics is what I know…
Check out this link. I feel compelled to 1) start a blog 2) make a comparison in image terms (rather than theory, talk, philosophy and bla bla bla) to make you understand. Please check this out. Same exposure settings same results.
http://irahmanphotography.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/full-frame-35mm-format-vs-m43-exposure-settings-and-lens-light-gathering-ability/
with the 42.5mm you already are compensating with the fov, and the light gathering is the same,even if it is a smaller than m43 sensor, because it is a property of the lens and not the sensor, not all of the light is coming to the sensor, but the light that is has the same amount of light per cm2 than the light in a bigger sensor, only the depth of field is changed.
See Mike’s answer just two post down.
If you’re thinking in “economic” way, you have to calculate iso capacity of the sensors.
The best lens to compare it to is the Canon 50mm f1.2 How much does that cost? Same mm same aperture size (give or take).
And providing an image circle to cover a sensor with 4 times the area…
No. the lens is what it is. It is a 42.5mm f1.2. Which shares more in common with a 50mm f1.2 the crop factor only works because we use rhe center portion. It must still function as a 42.5. And duevto the resolving demands of the crop it actually represents a greater challenge than the 50 on ff.
If we are talking about cost we shouldn’t forget all that extra glass someone had to polish. If we are not talking about cost, I concede.
What extra glass? The extreme differences in design from the Canon 50mm to this 42.5mm are not due to the bigger sensor but most likely the registration difference.
A 42.5mm lens on a m43rds sensor must have the front element a certain diameter, and as the optics in a lens use the entire surface of the front lens element in imaging the entire frame, the only point you can crop down the image circle before the sensor is a baffle on the back of the lens. So there isn;t all this extra glass except in the size reduction permitted by the 4:3 ratio, any digital correction (if used) and the shorter distance from the back element to the sensor allowable with a mirrorless design.
When it comes to cost, lens polishing is probably a small factor overall. There is product positioning, expected sales, build quality and the TYPE of lens elements used which all add up.
The comparison to an 85mm f2.4 lens on FF is only for DoF as noise, DR and colour fidelity are all sensor limited. For an example, most canon bodies when racked up 2 ISO marks (say 800 vs 3200) have worse colour, DR and noise than the latest m43rs sensor (check DXO if you like)… So really an 85mm f2.4 on a FF body is a poor comparison in IQ except for DoF.
And how again is light density (light per square millimetre) linked to noise?
That’s easy for once. At the same pixel size and quantum efficiency, light density is proportional to photoelectrons detected which is proportional to the square root of signal to noise (SNR) (and noise itself, but what your eye sees is SNR, not noise).
A better way to think about all this collection efficiency stuff is in terms of lens diameter. Together with the distance from the object, that determines how much light you collect.
You’re creating unnecessary confusion. Please stop.
Physics would agree with him, try doing the math. 1/4 the light concentration on 4 times the surface area equals the same light gathered.
Aside the recurrent flame war of M43 vs full frame and the light gathering bs, you’d be lying to say that kind of portrait lens is not about small dof. This lens is just on the boundaries of what m43 can offer, just deal with it. And stop the trollbait news please, this website more and more look like to a teenager playground. Especially when you read what you write on SAR at the same time.
Perhaps it is most correct to compare with a 50mm/1.2. To compare with an 85mm/2.4 is certainly absurd.
Comparison of what?
… size, I guess. In terms of light gathering ability the relevant comparison is still an FF 85/1,2. In terms of design difficulties (which depend mainly on angle of view and flange distance), e-mount, x mount, c-mount, and m-mount lenses are, anyway, probably the only meaningful comparison.
Put a 2x TC behind that lens and what do you get?
And what a TC does is to take the projected image and magnifies its centre such that it is larger, eg an image that just covers the 43 sensor size and magnifies it in both directions (left/right and top/bottom) by the factor of the TC. And putting a 2x TC behind a lens doesn’t affect how much light goes into the lens.
Then the FF would be 3 stops under exposed at the same settings. Doesn’t sound fair to it 😉
2 stops*** sorry. Damn tiny keyboards
Why exactly? FF captures the same concentration of light on 4 times the surface area. This effectively gives the sensor 2 stops of extra light to play with. It would be quite reasonable to expect 2 stops extra sensor performance, would it not?
Why
Why exactly what? Why would it be 2 stops underexposed? Because the lens is a 2.4 vs the 1.2 mtf lens. We are talking about comparison between the lenses not the sensors right?
ok, mount the smaller lens onto the Sony ff via an adapter and see the result. A small round image surrounded by black… No, that would hardly be fair to the Leica lens. It’s best to compare lenses on the formats they were designed for, particularly when comparing formats. I’m a m43 fan, but I’m not going to ignore reality.
I don’t get your point though.. Are you saying it wouldn’t be two stops under exposed at the identical settings if it was set at 2.4? It captures the same concentration regardless if it’s smaller than m43 or bigger than FF. Why would we put the Leica on a FF if we are comparing it on the sensor it was designed for? We would compare a 42.5mm 1.2 for MFT and 85mm 1.2 for FF. Those are the equivalent lenses designed to match two different sensors sizes.
Yes, this lens would give you the performance of a 85mm f/2.4 lens on a full frame camera, including the great low-light performance (as you also have to set the equivalent ISO). What does that mean? A full frame camera set to 85mm f/2.4 and ISO 6400 will produce the exact same image as this lens set to f/1.2 and ISO 1600 on MFT.
That is really great news. It will allow us to get full frame-style results combined with all the conveniences of micro four thirds.
And if it’s anything like the 25mm it will be awesome. For example, the 25mm f/1.4 is optically much much better than the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G or f/1.8G.
Oh no you don’t.
Even if you decide to double something up, saying this lens at 45.5mm @ f/1.2 is equivalent to 85mm @ f/2.4, don’t go and quadruple the ISO from 1600 to 6400.
That’s cheating because FF sensors aren’t 4 f stops better than the latest MFT sensors (such as the one in the GX7, GM1, GH3, Olympus OMDx). Dream on!
Wrong. Doubling ISO gives 1 EV stop, quadrupling ISO gives 2 EV stops.
Learn to math
I might have missed some math, but so did you.
f/1.2 to f/2/4 = 2 stops
ISO 1600 to 6400 = 2 stops as well.
Only thing I missed is that they cancelled each other out (opposite directions).
I think you need to educate yourself a bit more before commenting further.
you totally wrong…
Theorycally yes, if the FF sensor is of the same brand as the m43 one.
and you are using Iso settings that are linear in terms of noise, in low iso settings the noise is not linear (if you double the iso you are not doubling the noise)
So using iso 1600 vs 6400 might give you the same result in terms of noise.
but that is really your opinion which seems that its goal is to try to diminish the appreciation of the m43 system.
Are you f@king kidding?
“A full frame camera set to 85mm f/2.4 and ISO 6400 will produce the exact same image as this lens set to f/1.2 and ISO 1600 on MFT.”
This is the most dumb thing i heard in recent months (i thought crop vs full frame was well documented at this time). Double the ISO, really?
I shoot in studio with an 5D MKI and use my e-m5 as well. To get the same image ( same exposure) my olympus 45mm at f2.8 at iso 200 gives me the exact same image as my canon TS-E 90mm at f2.8 at iso 200. The only real difference is DOF.
ITS THE SAME FREAKING EXPOSURE, SAME FREAKING SETTINGS FOR THE LIGHTS.
Better low light performance on bigger sensors only happens because of bigger pixels (less density) to gather more light and its different even with the same sensor size because of technology advances and pixel density.
Go watch this: http://blog.abelcine.com/2010/05/14/a-lens-is-a-lens-is-a-lens/
It explains the crop vs full totaly with an “hands on approach” style.
AND STOP MAKING TROLL COMMENTS
I think you are too rude.
Equivalence means that there is equivalence in DOF, too. If you want the same DOF, too, you need to increase the f-stop by a factor of 2 and the ISO by 4. If DOF is enough, however, you are absolutely right in that the FF has an advantage.
It’s possible, however, that, depending on distance and focal length, your DOF is too shallow on FF.
Read http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#3 or http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/dof_myth/index.html.
FF is nice in that it has more options. Whether you need them is another question and as a pro I would try to be prepared for all situations. So FF and m43 for hikes is my take.
“If you want the same DOF, too, you need to increase the f-stop by a factor of 2 and the ISO by 4.”
And how is this relevant to my comment???
I’m rude because this discussion is moronic
Because he is right and you are wrong.
Having the same f-stop means the same light intensity per UNIT AREA. FF has four times the area, so more light gathered
(aperture diameter (focal length over f-stop) is different) and therefore better S/N ratio.
This is the big advantage of FF if DOF is not an issue.
Yep. And once we make DOFs equivalent we’ll end up with the same images because we’ll have to adjust apertures and ISOs. Also, pixel size is just a tradeoff between color noise and spatial noise. It has no effect on the total amount of light gathered during exposure. So, yes, full frame has an advantage if we don’t mind we’re comparing apples to oranges.
True.
There is an interesting post at dpreview
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/37549285
showing the effect of pixel density s. noise.
I have to apologize but I really laughed out loud. Can you explain me by which mechanism the colour and spatial noise are created and how they are linked pixel size?
You could have a single pixel that would collect all the photons but you wouldn’t see much detail, right?
Apart from that correct but for real sensor irrelevant factum, how does the pixel size affect noise for realistic situations (ie, all sensors with more than one pixel).
A picture is worth a thousand words. Cheers.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/35068712
OK, now that we established that a single large pixel would have a very accurate average color but the picture would somehow lack detail, I’ll leave it up to you to perform a simple mental exercise – what will happen for 2×2, 4×4, 8×8 pixels, etc? Hint – you will gradually increase spatial resolution but you’ll be also gradually able to resolve more and more noise. Put another way, you’ll gradually stop blurring both colors and noise. Sometimes the ego gets in the way of understanding very simple truths.
So if I have 2 comparable technology sensors and print an image from the small one. Then print an image from the larger one at the same multiple of the sensor difference. I will see an equal amount of noise in the larger print as in the small one?
Killer lens for the format…I am sure the price will be killer too…but what a beauty…can’t wait to read some reviews.
Looks pretty compact for what it will hopefully deliver.
(I do not understand why people come to this forum to bash the format????…I guess they are just trying to take the edge off their envy of us because they have to lug a beast around!!!! :-))
Renovatio, the admin of 43rumors.com compares this lens with 85mm f1.2. I assume he does that because he WANTS to compare THESE lenses. If he WANTED to compare with 85mm f2.4, he WOULD do that. This his his blog, and I assume he has the right for any comparison he wants. Period.
Must we go thru this every time????
DoF is a personal preference. Some like more, some like less. For DoF a FF f/2.4 = MFT f/1.2.
Allowable shutter speed for proper exposure is NOT a personal preference. For shutter speed a FF f/1.2 = MFT f/1.2.
Noise level is NOT a personal preference. (We all like less, right?) For noise level for a given shutter speed well, it depends. For brightly lit scenes FF f/1.2 might equal MFT f/1.2. Actually, most MFT cameras will outperform FF cameras at f/1.2 when there is enough light to use an ISO up to about 400 or so. Try comparing, for example, the Olympus E-M5 or even the E-PL1 with the Nikon D4 at ISO 200 on Imaging Resources.
Unnuanced, misleading statements stated with the assurance of solid fact are as irritating here as they are in politics.
Dof is maybe a personal preference, but here we are talking about a focal length of 85mm equivalent which MOST people buy specifically for portrait usages. And for portrait usage, to have a tight control of d.o.f., to throw the busy background out of focus, are all, in my opinion, are essential things. So for that focal length lens, to have a thin DOF would be a number one reason I would be seeking to buy this lens, for example.
I normally stay out of DOF police threads, but here I have to step in:
portraits with out of focus ears happens even with m43 and with very few exceptions those are terrible to watch. If it happens with m43, it obviously happens with 35mm. There really is such thing as too thin DoF for portraits.
Why do you use reality which is affected by many external and unrelated effects to determine or justify a general relationship? Sensors come and go and this very lens can be used on many different sensors. Why do you base your general comparison between different sensor formats on ONE single camera (E-M5)?
thats why all light meters have a little dial for sensor size 🙂 haahahahah
yeah typical equivelance stupidity that keeps getting regurgitated
Is lack of dog really an advantage at that focal length?
Seems like a disadvantage to me. Especially when we’ll all be simulating dog compression effortlessly in software in a couple years. Blurry will no longer be better and micro four thirds sensors will be too big.
Lack of dog is a serious problem in my house. First one died, then the other. I really miss them. When photographing them, of course, before they died, it was advantageous to have fast shutter speeds as well as non-razor thin depth of field.
Look what u started. Besides, for comparison in terms of what?
This lens is similar to FF lens in terms of:
– FoV/AoV: 85mm
– DoF: 2.4
Other than that, FL and F-number remains 42.5/1.2. It has best of both worlds: the lens is as bright as any other f/1.2 lens on any format but has more DoF than larger formats (f/2.4 on 135). Anyone who thinks this is an f/2.4, then you are confusing DoF with F-number (aka focal ratio, f-ratio, f-stop, or relative aperture).
And anybody who calls this 85 mm must be equally wrong because it is and remains a 42.5 mm lens.
Mind the perspective of that photo. If you take close-up shots at wide-angle, even ping-pong balls look terrifying.
Yes…I agree…that image was shot with a mild wide-angle lens and I think the perspective definitely is making he Noctricron look bigger than it really is.
Still, same filter size as 100-300mm lumix!
Maybe, but look at the size of the lens barrel next to the body. Pretty damn massive, I’d say.
The Voigtländer 42.5mm is a lot smaller, using only a 58mm filter.
Lookee here…
http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/g/TS560x560~2731430.jpg
Oh…I am not saying that this lens is not big!!!…but the photo makes it look even larger.
….but….Voigtlander left out the AF!?!? (That is a great lens, too).
I know you like voiglander 45mm but not everybody doesn’t like MF. 42.5mm is bigger because it does have AF and stabilizer.
The Voigtländer seems to have less margin around the front lens element. Seems like the Panasonic Leica could have a smaller diameter, but it probably needs extra room for AF and OIS.
oops, had this tab open for a couple of hours. Should’ve refreshed the page before I clicked Reply.
If I decided to go for this it would be a tough choice between the Pana and the Voigtlander. AF capabilities vs the aweseome tactile action of the Nokton. I love my 17.5mm can’t wait to see some reviews and comparisons.
I have a feeling the Noctitron might have a more pleasant bokeh,and the CV the added headroom in dof, even when its just subtle. But indeed only a good/direct comparison will reveal this. The rendering & performance wide open will be the decisive factor for me.
Its size should be comparable to the 75/1.8. Maybe slightly thicker to allow for a stabilizer.
I see it has an aperture ring (to help justify a ridiculous price?)
Not sure about stabilizer taking that much space. If you compare Panasonic to Olympus current kit lenses, they’re smaller even if stabilized. Same for 12-35 vs 12-40 (I know FOV is not exactly the same), and 40-150mm Oly vs 45-150mm Pany are mostly same size.
F/2.8 at 40mm also results in a bigger (absolute) aperture, which makes the lens bigger. Additionally it has a longer zoom range, which makes correction significantly more complex and again makes the lens bigger, so, its nit just fov itself.
If you look closely, the filter size is 67mm, which is very large for a m4/3 lens. The 75mm f1.8 uses only a 58mm filter.
Of course it is larger than Oly (but smaller than Canon EF 85 f/1.2) – this is the price for the FF DOF. And great there is the choice now.
Why compare with a 85mm? a 42,5mm still 42,5mm in any system been M4/3 or FF, no?
Because they provide the same FOV. Cropped sensor cameras provide equivilent focal lengths that are considered standard. If you plan to use this M43 lens on your FF then I suppose you would compare it to another 42.5…
no. 42,5mm is 85mm in FF equivalence.
Perhaps because you will get the same view as a 85mm lens on a FX sensor?
DOF / bokeh is comparable to a 42.5mm f1.2 because it is really a 43.5mm f1.2- FOV is comparable to 85mm on a 35mm camera.
sorry about that little typo!
DOF of this lens is equivalent to a 85mm f2.4 on FF.
If you don’t believe me, just make the calculation on http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
By the way its light gathering capability is equivalent also to a f2.4 lens on FF, please remember that even if f1.2 is f1.2, the m43 sensor is about 4 times smaller by surface than a FF sensor !
You’re assuming you would mount this on a full frame camera. It’s light gathering capabilities relative to sensor, flange distance, etc IS and will always be f1.2. They wouldn’t name it as such if it isn’t.
It’s all relative to sensor size. And I find it weird that the Oly 45mm 1.8 and Nikon 50mm 1.8 basically have the same exposure when both mounted on m43. Which means they ARE equivalent in terms of light gathering capability.
True, but you can only take advantage of that extra light if you settle for less DOF or a slower shutter speed.
So if you’re using this in a low light situation you may not gain any advantage unless you want 2mm wide DOF.
1: you can compare different focal lengths DOF and check out how much is in/out of focus at all different apertures, if you want. But you can’t deny that the dof of the same focal length at the same aperture is the same, even if you crop.
2: Nonsense.
If you do a light gathering equivalence you also have to do the ISO equivalence.
42.5mm f/1.2 ISO 400 on MFT is equivalent to 85mm f/2.4 ISO 1600 on FF.
The FF sensor has 4x more surface, but the f/1.2 can concentrate 4x more light onto the smaller sensor.
Mike is the only one telling the full story here. Although admittedly in equivalence terms m4/3 has pretty darn efficient sensors.
W: yes f1.2 remains f1.2 but what that number means is the amount of light gathered PER SURFACE ! meaning that a FF sensor will still gather about 4 times total more light.
Anonymous: you are wrong also, the FF camera has the added flexibility to, if you like, make the DOF bigger, but then you’ll gather as much light as the m43 sensor.
Once again, if you don’t believe me just use the link I gave above.
(if you set the lens to f2.4 you’ll have the same DOF on full frame as a f1.2 lens on the m43 sensor, but you will also gather as much total light).
BdV: 1) you would be right only if you used a m43 lens on a FF sensor,
because when you crop you change the DOF ! because the DOF is relative to the angle of view ! that’s why a f1.2 lens on m43 has the same DOF as a f2.4 lens on FF.
just check with http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
2) once again, a FF sensor gathers about 4 times more light for the same aperture, therefore in this example, you would use f2.4 which gathers 4 times less light on FF, to gather the same total amount of light.
Mike: you are right, but as you state in an other reply the total noise would be equivalent (if you reduce the image to the same size).
But I admit that you lose some dynamic range with the FF camera, if you shoot at 4 times the ISO.
Total light is stupid. What matters is light relative to the sensor size. 4 times the light also means 4 times the seonsor size so everything evens out. Exposure, which is what matters to someone who actually takes photos and not a mathematician, will be the same.
Arnold, please study Turbofrog’s admiringlight links. And for god’s sake send that dofmaster home.
It does have an advantage. But in order to realise that advantage you have to use a larger aperture than m43 lens (e.g. larger than F2.4) or slower shutter speed. I was specifically referring to low light situations which would be a typical use of this sort of lens.
In those shutter speed limited situations you could open up the aperture of your FF lens to the same aperture as the m43 lens in order to gain your two stop FF advantage. But you would then be restricted in your DOF. And if we are talking about an F1.2 lens your DOF would typically be very small indeed.
At head portrait distances your DOF would be a few mm.
If you shoot with a 85mm FF lens at f2.4 you’ll get as much light, therefore noise, as the 42.5mm m43 f1.2 lens, if you resize the image to the same size,
and you will have the same DOF as m43 with f1.2
With FF you have the advantage of increasing the aperture if there isn’t enough light available (as there are for example 85mm f1.4 lenses), and you also have more MP.
The only disadvantage of FF aside size, weight and price, is that you would have to shoot at 4 times higher ISO to keep the same DOF, not a problem for noise for reasons explained above, but you would lose some dynamic range.
Thats incorrect. A 2.4 aperture will set you off to a either a slower shutter speed or higher iso, therefore it gathers less light than an m43 1.2
What people are talking about here us depth of field equivalence so dont get it all confused.
“A 2.4 aperture will set you off to a either a slower shutter speed or higher iso”:
true !
“therefore it gathers less light than an m43 1.2”
false !
it gathers 4 times more light for the same aperture/shutter speed combination,
that’s why you have about 2 stops better SNR ratio on FF sensors, technology being equal:
http://admiringlight.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/dxo_iso.jpg
As I stated above, you would have to use ISO 1600 instead of ISO 400, but the signal to noise ratio would be about equal.
Arnold, “f1.2 remains f1.2 but what that number means is the amount of light gathered PER SURFACE ! meaning that a FF sensor will still gather about 4 times total more light.”
That’s the biggest bull I have ever read on 43rumors and there have been some great ones.
By your theory you have forgotten to add that the light is also spread over a 4 x area so is only a quarter as strong??? Didn’t see that bit did you.
Now. Forget your paradigm. Look at a sensor in square millimetres not a single unit. Then look at the amount of light in terms of per sq mm. A 1.2 lens will put the same amount of light on each sq mm that is within its designed in focus image circle. That’s what counts in terms of LIGHT.
A large sensor will require more light to cover the area to a set light value, so the aperture must be bigger ( by the same token the lens also). A small sensor will not need such a large image circle, thus the aperture to achieve the same light per sq mm as the large sensor need not be as big.
This is why light meters do not take any notice of sensor size. Lenses are designed so they will put the same amount of light on each sq mm that is within its designed in focus image circle for each aperture setting.
As a result. If I take a picture with a FX camera and then magically substitute the sensor for a smaller sensor and take the same shot. (assuming the same technology and pixel density). The result will give an identical image for the corresponding sections of the images.
Again. Lenses will put the same amount of light on each sq mm that is within its designed in focus image circle for each nominated f stop
Jim you have to understand that f represents the intensity of light per surface, not some kind of total amount of light reaching a sensor !
By your theory a smartphone f2 lens would send as much total amount of light as a f2 FF lens, which is absolutely totally absurd !
So once again, for the same f number and shutter speed, a FF sensor gathers 4 times more light than a m43 sensor.
The density of light per mm is less the larger the area covered. The Lens maker endeavours to make a lens that gives a standard characteristic within an image circle.
Let me explain in simple forms. The same as a window letting light onto a wall opposite with an A4 paper and A3 paper on it. They would both reflect the same onto a light meter. Yes the A3 has 2 times the light ON it than does the A4. But that is irrelevant as it is not doing anything with it other than reflecting it back. Light has not been harvested, manipulated, saved or used. Now lets take down the paper and hang up 2 sensors of the same technology. If a small sensor had 2 million photo sites and a large sensor had 8 million photo sites, was 4 times bigger and both were subject to the same light source of evenly spread light. Each would receive the same amount of light per photo site, though the larger would be exposed to 4 x the light over its surface area. exactly the same as the paper.
But cameras do not operate that way to take pictures. They work by a lens or series of lenses gathering and directing light onto a surface in such a manner that when ‘in focus’ an image is made. Designed, on purpose, to cover the sensor surface, no more and no less. This surface has the ability to collect light for recording and manipulation purposes.
Now, note (using the above sensors) we may need 2 image circles one for the big sensor and one for the small. If we have light covering the large area and a small sensor we can reduce the image circle for the small sensor. This can be done by using the large image circle lens and reducing its image coverage with a focal reducing effect or by making a new lens. The new lens can be a lot smaller, it can have an aperture smaller than the one used for the big sensor, thus maintaining the light per pixel. If we used the focal reducer we would multiply the light per pixel, maybe a desirable effect, but being offset by larger size.
So the concept of Total Light as you give it is clearly incorrect, or rather incomplete. Your Total light = how long is the string. The objective of the lens maker is to achieve an equal amount of light per square area measured within an image circle, irrespective of the sensor size.
I believe from a math point of view, you’re double-counting the advantage. The equivalent DOF compensates for light-gathering as well (and thus noise/ISO).
This post explains the math quite well:
http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/
And this DXOmark chart explains the ISO/noise equivalence factor based on sensor size.
http://admiringlight.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/dxo_iso.jpg
Having 4x greater sensor area is equivalent to a 2 F-stop advantage in light gathering capability. However, in order to achieve the equivalent FF depth-of-focus on a M4/3 sensor, you already need to have a 2 F-stop advantage and half the focal length.
M4/3 @ 42.5mm F1.2 = FF @ 85mm F2.4 EXACTLY.
The exact same total amount of light is hitting the two different sensors. If you used 1600 ISO on the M4/3, you’d need to use 1600 ISO on the FF to get the same photo.
Turbofrog you are right for everything, except that with the same shutterspeed and 4 times slower aperture, you would have to use ISO 1600 on FF (instead of using ISO 400 and a 4 times brighter aperture on m43).
The image would be about of the same quality though, technology being equal, because as you stated FF gives about a 2 stops SNR advantage.
Right you are. I was somehow misplacing the 2-stop advantage for noise, thinking in terms of exposure instead.
Pls xplane how my iphone take picters. your way say no light get in. so no pictre. I think somethin rongs with you sums and ideas.
most big rong.
Snow wite have 7 litle ones. i no wat 1 you be. D……
“And this DXOmark chart explains the ISO/noise equivalence factor based on sensor size.”
No. It does not it is simply a measurement of 3 sensors. It is an output chart. A result of what the makers have done with their electronics. It is not an input document detailing sensor size difference. Sensor size comparison? Total rubbish. Explain the difference 5d and 5dmk3 then. Come on why are they not the same if you are using this as a sensor size reference.
I agree and therefore in your example there is no advantage as they are equivalent. The only advantage is that you can use a wider aperture, if your lens allows it, or a slower shutter speed e.g. the same aperture as the Panasonic lens.
And that means you have to make do with less DOF in a typical low light situation where you are shutter speed limited.
And in order to gain the full two stops advantage of FF in that situation with an 85mm F1.2 FF lens you would have very limited DOF which would be very restrictive for most situations.
You are right but in your situation, instead of being DOF limited on the FF (or shutter speed limited), on m43 you would be only shutter speed limited !
The Panasonic at F1.2 would have the same DOF as the FF at F2.4. So if you wanted to gain the two stop advantage that FF allows you would have to open up to F1.2.
And that would severely restrict your DOF.
Alternatively you could increase the ISO and maintain your F2.4 aperture and have equivalent DOF as the Panny at F1.2. But then you have gained no IQ improvement because you are shooting at ISO1600 instead of ISO400 (for example).
So in order to gain the IQ advantage in low light situations you have to restrict your DOF. And an 85mm at F1.2 on FF is pretty limited in DOF.
That may not be an issue but I would imagine that the low light situations where you want that sort of narrow DOF are fairly limited.
You do forget that FF sensors have about 2 stops of SNR advantage (for technology being equal) over m43, as FF sensors gets 4 times the same amount of light.
So ISO 1600 on FF looks approximatively like ISO 400 on m43, if both images have the same size.
The lens doesn’t care at all about the size of the sensor for how much light it gathers.
A 4/3″ sensor gathers 1/4 of the light of a 135 sensor with the same brightness (and fill rstio), but that is not the same thing, and what you are saying is an often quoted and misunderstood deliberate misrepresentation of how the laws of optics work.
As a system it uses 1/4 of the light.
“As a system it uses 1/4 of the light.” you are totally right, but as it gather 4 times less light, it has about 2 stops of SNR disadvantage !
http://admiringlight.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/dxo_iso.jpg
Given the exact same technology, that is approx correct, but I wasn’t making any claims about that, I was addressing the suggestion that an f/2.4 lens on ‘ff’ gathers the same amount of light as an f/1.2 lens on m4/3. It is wrong and actually total amount of light gathered by the lens is a totally irrelevant metric, total light delivered to the active area of the sensor matters, and any light beyond that just contributes to lower contrast and flare.
I agree with you…. I dnt see a point in noting the SNR stuff.
I’m with you. The link show an output chart of 3 cameras. It should not be construed as a sensor size reference. If it was, both 5ds would be the same. Would they not? The chart shows what the makers have optimised their electronics for that’s all.
You know its true. More light make a brighter image. To prove this I poised the question of collecting 4 x the light with my EP2 and then comparing the result with a D4. Should be the same you say. well lets see.
To do this i got a lens adapter and drilled 3 holes in the sides about the same size as the lens when on f5.6 This i figured wood give me 4 x the light.
I set up the camera and took a shot at 5.6. When I checked it. Wow o Wow were they right. It did collect more light. There were so much lights collected I could not make out the picture but it was bright and light super bright and light
I did the same at nite with aflash. better shot I can see some of the stuff the flash got but the rest is not bright its all dark.
Does this mean the D4 will not work at nite.
“Why compare with a 85mm? a 42,5mm still 42,5mm in any system been M4/3 or FF, no?”
42.5mm is a linear distance. It is meaningless without the specification of the sensor size. In combination with the sensor size it tells you the angle of view (field of view) of the image.
On the one hand it is a portrait lens, which makes me think tripod and studio set up and size isn’t really an issue even if you are using a big dslr FF.
On the other hand it is a M43 lens, and damn it is huge in that photo. I have the Oly 45 1.8 and it is very portable and it is amazing for the price in optics (to me)…I have been listening to anti Sony A7 talk about how large the lenses are and then this rolls out, hope we get more perspectives on the lens to see the size better.
1.2 is great for low light but if the lens is so large I wouldn’t use it anywhere but on a tripod then the fast aperture kind of becomes less useful for low light.
Then, it could be mostly used on the GH3 and E-M1, where it will be comfortable.
Hopefully, the quality is good.
Oh, with the aperture ring, perhaps this is meant for the Leica version of the GM1, along with that 15mm f/1.7 lens.
on a tripod? are you kidding?
It will be interesting to compare this beautiful beast to the Olympus 45mm…
The Nocticron “should” be quite a bit better than the Oly 45mm (I think that is what you are referring to, as there is also a Panny/Leica 45mm),…but when you compare the price of the “beast” (lol) ….hmmm….will make it hard to justify except for those who really want or need the Nocticron.
I dont think it can beat the 45mm f/1.8 in IQ as the Olympus is already awesome. It’s advantage is obviously the ability to shoot at 1.2 which should give a distinct different looks in rendering compared to a 1.8 like the Zuiko(which already gives a very pleasant blur wideopen)
I just checked the review of the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 on SLR Gear (they should change their name…LOL!)…WOW…I forgot how sharp the Oly is…I shot some images with mine this weekend and was amazed at the sharpness as well. So you are right…It is going to be tough for the Nocticron to beat this lens…it has some pretty tough spec there for sharpness.
Much like in FF, you’ll probably get roughly the same (perhaps a hair sharper) results at the same f-stop, but if you need that extra light-gathering/background blurring stop, then there’s no replacing it. However, the price will likely grow exponentially, as well.
For most people, f/1.8 on FF is more than enough. On m4/3, that’s a tougher questions.
no,i want image sample 😉
Reminds me to that combo of beasts:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hhackbarth/8750320571/in/set-72157633227109005
Ouch !!! what a beast ! not for me yet…
Hmm… a bit bigger than my 45/1.8 😀 I’m afraid so does the price…
Questions
1. Why no hood thread?
2. Square hood or round hood?
I am guessing a 58mm or 62mm filter size and whoala – 67mm. :((
i saw the prototype of the lens at ifa in berlin in september and it did not look a lot bigger than the panaleica 25mm.
Guys,
this stupid belief that a bright lens should be nothing else but expensive has just historical reasons.
Take a regular 85/F2.4 lens design for Full Frame, perform some minor changes in order to make it compatible CDAF and append a supplementary lens group for FF -> m43 conversion (a 2× inverse teleconverter similar to the one from metabones).
You’ll get a 42.5/F1.2 at the same price tag with the obvious expense of it’s size (same size as the FF lense).
I simply cannot belive that no manufacturer wants to make many from cheap ultra-bright lenses for m43!
Lenses designed for 43 doesn’t cover the same image circle, so I doubt that adapting a classic 35mm lens is as straightforward as just a few minor tweaks.
But lets pretend you are correct and that companies are cashing in heavily on fast glass: So? They are still selling…
I am not saying your statement is impossible or nonsensical but odds are on that over decades, market pressure alone would have drag prices of lenses down.
All it takes is bolt on a focal reducer which is what Olympus did with their SHG zooms.Take a FF zoom design say an F2.8 and a focal reducer to it and voila you have a faster lens that covers a smaller sensor by focusing the lens to a smaller image circle.Downside is they are huge for the format
The 42.5mm f1.2 will make a great companion to the 25mm f1.4.
Does look disproportionately large ref Oly f1.8, VL f0.95 but I am sure will be excellent quality. Destined for the new GH4. Would be even more a landmark if it went to f1.0 with AF.
PS really enjoying the equivalency debatezzzzzzzzzzz;-)
It is only a debate with mFT and FT users to everyone else it is just a simple fact that is a problem for some here and at DPreview which is why mFT and FT forums are the laughing stock of the net photography community
Its only a debate because advocates for certain non 4/3″ systems come here and feel this absurd need to misrepresent what is meant by equivalent focal length and have to endlessly repeat things everyone already knows, while claiming they are just countering ‘4/3 propaganda’.
I wonder if Panasonic will refresh the 25 panaleica with an aperture ring a la 15 1.7 and 42.5 1.2…
Would stand to reason, no?
I would hardly believe so.
So is this the picture Ulli was talking about the other day?
yes i posted it on FB and copied the direct URL here….I am still trying to get in contact with the person who shot that picture.
lol.. this is a leica.. onöy an idiot would think this will come under 2000$
I bought my Panasonic/Leica (on the front of the lens it’s written “Leica” and “Summilux”, not Panasonic) for 500 € brand new, three years ago. Not an “idiot” price.
In my opinion it will be something between 1000-1200 €, actually I would like to see a price of 900 €.
Ah, the usual discussion about aperture and DoF going on and on and… I think the interesting part here is the OIS. 85 mm equivalent f1.2 with OIS is unmatched by Nikon and Canon. A fullframe camera like my D600 certainly has better ISO performance than a m43 camera but the difference is not that big anymore. GX7, f1.2 and a shutterspeed of 1/30s might very well give a better quality image than a D600 f1.8, 1/85s since the latter will be forced to use substantially higher ISO because of slower aperture AND lack of OIS. This is of course depending on a slow moving/static subject that allows so slow shutterspeed. Then the m43 will give a bigger DoF but that is an advantage as often as a disadvantage, not least in low light photography where you often are forced to shoot wide open.
I was interested in this lens but considering the big size and the likely price I think I will get the Olympus 45 f1.8 instead. For me the m43 system is all about portability but for proffessionals who only use m43 this will be a must have lens.
“professionals who only use m43”
I hope that is not their target market they probably want to sell more lenses than the 1 in 10,000 pros using just mFT
I know when I am out of my league, when somebody else knows more or understands things better than me. You my boy march on, unencumbered by the thought process.
It will be the perfect portrait lens for the E-M1 and the next GHX. For the smaller E-P5 and GX7 is kinda unballanced…
Dude, I’ve been using the 4/3 50-200 on a G2, E-P1 and E-M5, thats a much bigger and heavier lens. The ‘trick’ is learning proper handling technique, and much of this ‘unbalanced’ nonsense will all of a sudden turn out to be a phantom menace.
I can’t follow the strategy from Lumix: no matter how much it will cost, you can’t win the battle with the utra cheap and ultra great 45mm f1.8 from lumix.
I think 6-700$ is really the max they can ask for the extra aperture ring, the leica-fonts and the extra aperture stops. But I think this lens will be much more expensive.
I meant “”from M.Zuiko””
900$ it’s a fair price for this kind of lens. We still have the Oly 45mm f1.8 as a bargain.
A weather sealed Nikon 85mm F1.8G which is very very good from wide open and excellent across the frame from F2.4 comes in at half the $900 { or more this lens will be}
To be worth it the Panasonic lens will have to be spectacularly better than the Olympus 45mm F1.8 I have my doubts it will be that much better
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/532/%28lens2%29/823/%28brand1%29/Olympus/%28camera1%29/793/%28brand2%29/Nikkor/%28camera2%29/792
Well I have both m43 (EM5) and Fuji X (XE1 and X100s) among my cameras. Fuji is releasing its 56/1.2 (85mm equivalent) on Jan 7. The rumored price is 999 British Pounds, which usually corresponds in photo gear to about 999-1299 US Dollars (depending on how manufacturers think). Like some other ones in this thread I THINK IN DOF Capacity, not Light Gathering Capacity, because for all intents and purposes all these cameras are already good up to ISO3200, so all the arguments re: well you will need to use lower ISO don’t impress me. Creamy Bokeh and great 3-D like separation and thin DOF I care and willing to pay for.
Fuji 56/1.2 = 85/1.8 equivalent in DOF Full Frame. = $999-1299
Panaleica 42.5/1.2 = 85/2.4 equivalent in DOF Full Frame = unknown price.
85/1.8 equivalents in Full Frame terms costs around $400-500 (Canon 85/1.8 is under $400, Nikon 85/1.8 is under $500. Both are excellent wide open in sharpness and contrast. Both are not large weight and size wise).
Panaleica looks larger on photos than Fuji 56. Fuji has to cover larger sensor but looks smaller and uses smaller filter size.
On the other hand Panaleica has to fit int OIS, which is completely irrelevant to me because I use Olympus OMD and use IBIS. Fuji does not have IS in 56/1.2
The big question is of course the image quality wide open. Both Fuji X and Panaleica have reputation with their previous lenses (25/1.4 fo Panaleica, 35/1.4, 23/1.4, 14/2.8 for Fuji) to be sharp and contrasty wide open, and I expect both to be excellent.
At this point I am tending to prefer the Fuji 56/1.2 to Panaleica 42.5 due to thinner DOF, lower size, lower price (maybe) and equal picture quality. However, I can be swayed if image quality on Panaleica is much better and the price is not outrageous.
No I’ll think in brightness, not in DOF, and not in total light gathering. The later is a totally irrelevant metric, and shallow DOF is more often a concern then a desire for my photography. Since I do a lot of indoor photography for corporate events, concerts and the like, brightness is all that matters TO ME.
Can you please stop trying to tell others what is important to them, as you have no bloody clue whatsoever about that, you only know that about your own use. Talking about your own use and experience is not just fine, its very useful, just get it into your mind that you are only representing yourself, and cannot talk for others, and acting as if you can is quite arrogant.
Big waste of time and money. there are plenty of amazing 50mm f1.2 to f1.8 out there for little money.
I use the Zeiss-Contax 50mm but I’ve seen some amazing results from the $20 HELIOS 44M.
Just because it has LEICA written on it will not make you a better photographer.
Have you ever heared about AF? I want to use this lens for street photography so I cannot miss great moments due to the lack of fast automatic focusing.
Do you know the cameras that have been used for street photography for the last half century are still quite popular for that use, but don’t have any kind of AF?
No, not saying AF is useless or undesirable, merely that the kind of photography you mention can be and has been done without AF, and the only reason to need (as opposed to want) AF for that is not having learned the proper skills.
Just because great shots have been takin’ without AF doesn’t mean that perhaps MORE great shots couldn’t have been taken with (good) AF or that there aren’t specific scenarios where AF is a definite advantage over manual for street.
Which is why I very explicitly differentiated between ‘required’ and useful/desirable. Please read more carefully because your comment was already dealt with in the post you replied to.
If you want to pay $2000 for AF. Good luck on you.
Cartier-Bresson didn’t have it and he’s done pretty well.
Bresson was rich. He chose what was better for him, that’s something people usually forget: to let other people buy and use their gear as they want/need.
Of course there are people who can’t take a nice photo in any way, but it’s out of topic.
Most of his shots are woefully out of focus he would be booted out the door nowadays lol
Get a Voigtlander 21mm skopar. Just set it to f8 and focus just short of the middle. No need to focus at all and sharp, very sharp. DOF, what’s that? Did I say sharp?
I have the Yashica(aka, Zeiss/Contax rebranded) 50 1.7.
It’s really good, beautiful color and nice bokeh but…the Zuiko 45 1.8 easily wins in sharpness and fine details, especially wide open.
You’re right, there’s a lot of magnificent and cheap 50 on the market, but i think this Nocticron will be on a different league, especially on 4/3.
Would be great if everybody just stop the discussion on equivalence. Those who don’t accept it will never accept it. The real deal, though, is that m4/3 should have build-in switchable ND filters.
Actually, ISO 25, 50 and 100 would be really nice.
Of course that would be great but I don’t mind if they are realized with ND, though.
Built in ND could be a good move. I was using the em5 and zuiko 38mm at 1.8 the other day and had to use a 3 stop nd on top of a CPL to get shots at 4000th.
I would like to see lower ISO down to 50 would be nice. For me this could be at the expense of high ISO which I find of no importance at all.
~17EV… high noon in the Sahara much?
Finally! The real thing!
geez, my pl45 has to go, ….along with my kidney.
Guys,
this pointless belief that a bright lens should be nothing else but expensive has just historical reasons.
Take a regular 85/F2.4 lens design for Full Frame, perform some minor changes in order to make it compatible CDAF and append a supplementary lens group for FF -> m43 conversion (a 2× inverse teleconverter similar to the one from metabones).
You’ll get a 42.5/F1.2 at the same price tag with the obvious expense of it’s size (same size as the FF lense).
I simply cannot belive that no manufacturer wants to make many from cheap ultra-bright lenses for m43!
It’s not that simple.
Olympus is making lenses that are incredibly small (12mm, 17mm, 45mm).
The Leica branded Panasonic lenses are designed to be optically fantastic, and far superior to the cheap-ish f/1.8 primes on full frame. For example, the 25mm f/1.4 is optically far superior to my Nikon 35mm and 50mm primes. You pay extra for a great lens, you cannot just compare the prices. And I’m expecting the 42.5mm to be no different. It can be pricey, if the rendering is as good as the 25mm or even better.
So.. why doesn’t metabones have a 0.5x reducer, and why is the one they have pretty expensive while the cheaper alternatives are crap?
Sorry but the only thing your post demonstrates is that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever as to what you are talking about.
Pro primo.
The Metabones adapter for M43 differs from ‘original’ NEX version merely by the mount. If they made a 2× one they would redesign it almost from scratch.
Pro secundo.
There are already new versions of ‘cheap crap’ ones, you shouldn’t judge before try them.
Pro tertio.
Making an universal adaptor is much more problematic than designing a dedicated lens group as extension for a specific lens construction. So there are much higher chances to get a good result if you make its own ‘adapter’ for each original lens design.
I thought it was clearly stated somewhere that the metabones for M43 is optically redesigned. So its not the same as the Nex version. Calwell speaks about the difference in one of the online pdf files at the metabones site.
Show us a good, affordable 0.5x reducer for m4/3 and we’ll talk again,. Considering such a thing is much much much more desirable then a 0.7x reducer, you can be totally assured such a thing would already exist if it were as easy as you suggest.
Agree about the 3rd point, yes, a generic reducer is more difficult to design, but what you are ignoring is that it also has a much bigger market, so the cost of designing it can be spread over many more such reducers, making them cheaper in the end.
If you consider a custom reducer as part of the lens design, that is already being done, but it can’t benefit from the economy of scale of a generic one and hence won’t result in that low price you are imagining.
that lens looks like a monsta
it makes the GX7 look tiny, which it isn’t
now if you add the 42mm might as well shoot with a Canon and their 85 f 1.2
EF 85 1.4 is still larger (73 mm vs 68 mm for the filter diameters), not to say the bodies. But for the studio photo these dimensions is not a problem anyways.
Panasonic need to work on lenses design! Looks as cheap as the lumix 100-300mm for ex.
Beside with the wonderful 45 f1.8, this lens is not that attractive. Can you really see a difference in background blur @ f1.2 vs 1.8 ?
The answer is: YES!
A plumber’s dream :-). It looks seriously big with delicious glass…
If the performance matches or improves upon the 45mm f1.8 (in terms of focus and speed), this is will be my default lens 🙂
Boy do I want that lens–I just hope it doesn’t end up being outrageously expensive.
My wife pretty much exclusively does food photography, and was pretty happy with her old Minolta manual focus 50mm f1.4, but it’s rather soft and REALLY heavy (solid metal!). She’s been enjoying the AF on the Olympus 45mm f1.8 since we got it in a bundle, but the Nocticron is pretty much perfect–right focal range, stabilized (although we just got an E-M5, so that’s less important), AF, and I seriously doubt either of us would ever want less DOF than f1.2.
Looks huge, but can’t be worse than that hulking Minolta!
Why a 67mm filter size? I swear that between Oly and Panasonic they’ve conspired to use everything between 30.5 and 77mm by the time they are done.
Wide aperture lenses require large lens elements. I expect they design the lens according to price and optical quality and then add the smallest filter size they can with out causing vignetting. They probably have to allow for a UV filter and a polariser to work together as well.
Dang! Just when I thought I was done purchasing m4/3 gear, having just purchase the EM-1 and 75f1.8….they have to go and release this beast from the cage. I better start saving my pennies.
Wow.. So lovely ,
Definitely my next collection lens .
Hopefully it can achieve the standard of the great Nikkor 85mm F1.4 in sharpness , bokeh & resolution as well .
Did you mean the Canon 85mm f/1.2L ? 🙂
Could be a sweet lens if it´s great and not toooo pricy – 1500 would be great.
All this is a waste of time. M43 is better than FF for one simply reason, a FF camera is a fucking brick! Today there is no any other difference to take in consideration, at least that you are shooting in sport competition. That’s the fact, so you all trolls of FF keep hauling your 3 kilogrammes cameras if you like, but stop defending a system that currently is just confortable for Rambo and Terminator.
beautiful lens…just too big for the camera in my opinion…I am guessing around 2500 USD
Can’t imagine that many people wanting to go for the larger size, heavier weight(probably) and higher price(probably) of this lens vs. the AMAZING oly 45 1.8.
45 doesn’t allow for subject isolation on full body shots. I expect this lens to be much sharper at f/1.8, comparable to the 75. This extra two stops means this lens can be used to shoot no flash, low-light stage events (concerts)and press conferences where you have relatively close stage access. It’s a specialty, professional lens and will command a price accordingly. But yes, most people should be happy with the 45.
Extra *stop* singular. If the 45/1.8 doesn’t give enough isolation, I would recommend the 42.5/0.95 for the obvious difference or move on up to a larger format with 85/1.4, 100/2, 135/2, ect.
I’m planning to go to a “live model motion portrait workshop” on Saturday, courtesy of Panasonic, so I’m hoping that they’ll have this lens available for use to show how good it is.
Of course, my GH3 will not likely have the firmware to support their fixes, so there might be a lot of distortion, CA, etc.
I personally don’t mind lens size or weight so much, except for street photography. I’d love a pancake 17.5mm and a compact zoom, but I wish lens manufacturers would have a little bit of foresight and PLAN a lens family roadmap that takes it from mainstream wide (12mm or so?) to tele range (50mm) and make a common lens size, so that all accessories fit on all lenses without adapters. There should be no discernible difference on my lenses (of a series) of any of the mainstream sizes except the markings on it. If that means my 24mm lens is a bit larger or heavier than it needs to be, so be it. Super wide and super tele options outside of the “normal” range are ok if they break out of this a bit.
I agree. I wish the lens designs used a more consistent design language. Voigtlander did it with their 0.95 primes.
The biggest thing that excites me about the new Leica DG fare, 15mm and now the 42.5mm, is the addition of a real MF mode. I hope they revisit the 25mm and make it the same style.
A 25mm f1.2 would be great indeed!
Good luck trying to focus that lens wide open quickly on anything other than a true rangefinder system. I’m sure it’ll look beautiful when it’s focused where you want.
If you shoot portraits you cant go wrong with face detection. During my most recent session I never got a miss in AF while shooting in various light conditions, also in dim lit corridors of the hotel or shooting with backlight only in a room.
It is ridiculously easy to AF. It is like Autofocusing 85/2.4 lens at 2.4 on a full frame camera. it is easy. In fact to af any 85/1.8 on a full frame is easy.
It looks so big, I didn’t expect it to be so much larger than a typical 50/1.4 or 50/1.2.
I’m glad this and the upcoming 15mm Panaleica both have aperture rings. I shoot with the LCD screen off and with no m43 cameras having a top plate screen to show settings, I’m tired of looking into the viewfinder every time I want to confirm what aperture I’m at. It’a almost enough to make me want to go Fuji so I can just look at the camera and know everything I need to 90 percent of the time.
i am also waiting to see the coming 15mm, hopefully much smaller . 52mm filter size would be nice as i prefer not to go over that.
This 42.5 is just too big and therefore heavy for M43 unless it becomes your main lens . My Oly 45 is still the near perfect lens in that area.
I see this as a specialty lens for portrait shoots, not something to be carried around on a whim. f/1.2 should also allow subject isolation on full-body shots, something the 45 cannot achieve.
i see your point . The Oly 75 f1.8 can also be use that way but from further away when it is possible .
There are some situations when a mighty f1.2 shines and if the af is precise enough on your desired target, it is a fun lens to use.
Ok…let me ask the dumb question of the day…this lens will be a “straight” fit on the Olympus EM-1 or PE-5 models ?
Are we expecting lens tests to compare this lens to some of the other dedicated micro 4/3 “normal” lenses ?? That will be the tell of the tale.
All Oly’s bodies provided in camera distortion correction for the Pana lenses and vise versa.
1) I guess what we see here is a little but anticipated sensation: in fact the Nocticron 42,5mm f/1.2 is the first AUTO FOCUS offer on M43 to compete with the sweet Canon 85 mm EF glass for the portrait shooting. It is at the first place in my shopping list of the primes then.
2) It is great to have the choice: the larger lenses with the smaller aperture numbers (and smaller DOF to replace FF) and the smaller ones with the larger aperture numbers. In the former case the body+the lens is still more compact than the FF counterparts.
The beauty of M43 is the flexibility (in the lens design) to give us this choice…
I would agree, except that they are not priced “equivalently.” The choice is an illusion since you still don’t match FF potential in common lenses (85/1.8, 100/2) but pay dearly in (cost and size or cost and AF ability) the attempt. The strength of m43 is accepting DOF differences, and play to its strengths by not carrying around that full aperture ALL THE TIME if you don’t need to use it. The 45/1.8 is the perfect rejoinder to FF trolling. Just as m43 doesn’t have the choice to use incredibly short portrait DOF, FF doesn’t have the choice to use incredibly small portrait lenses.
Nicely put!
I sincerely hope that it will not be one of those bloody “leica styled” square lens hood.
I cannot find the hood thread and I wonder how to mount a hood. Screwing it on like a filter?
And yes, no bloody square hood please!
Many people are missing the point of this lens…
This is a fast professional level short telephoto (i.e. portrait) lens with excellent optical image stabilization. Very likely you will be able to shoot a sharp hand-held image at 1/15 second at f/1.2, and have the DOF of a Full Frame 85mm f/2.4 lens.
f/2.4 DOF may sound like a bad thing, but in fact it’s quite the opposite.You can’t shoot a tight head shot and have your subject’s eyes and nose in focus with a Full Frame 85mm lens at f/1.2, it’s just way too shallow.
But this m4/3 lens will give you the exposure advantage of a f/1.2 lens, with the DOF advantage of a FF 85mm at f/2.4, so you’ll end up with a better headshot, and you’ll have the 2-4 F-stop advantage of the optical stabilization system. ( there are NO FF 85mm f/1.2 lenses with optical stabilization, so this 42.5mm lens may have a 4-5 F-stop advantage over an un-stabilized FF 85mm f/1.2 lens. 2 F-stop DOF advantage plus 2-4 F-stop OIS advantage )
Price wise I expect this lens will be in the $1,000 – $1,500 price range.
…And for those thinking that a cheaper FF 50mm f/1.4 lens is a better deal, there are a few big differences between these lenses:
1- Optical stabilization that will provide a 2-4 F-stop advantage for hand-held shots.
2- This lens is designed specifically for Micro 4/3, which means that it will be optimized to shoot a full aperture, so it will be tac-sharp at f/1.2 with no chromatic aberration or distortion.
I owned a Zeiss ZF.2 50mm f/1.4 lens for about 2 years and it was very soft from f/1.4 – 2.0, had bad coma and strong chromatic aberration. To get a good sharp shot with this lens you had to stop down to at least f/2.8. The same goes for Canon and Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lenses, they all use the same type of plannar lens design, and produce poor quality images wide open.
3- The large size is to accommodate the advanced fast optical design and the optical stabilization system, you can’t have these features without the size. A Full Frame equivalent f/1.2 lens with optical-stabilization would be a monster. ( probably double the weight of the current 85mm f/1.2 Canon lens )
If Olympus and Panasonic continue moving into the professional camera market, these Micro 4/3 bodies will become very competitive with the larger Full Frame cameras, especially once we have m4/3 bodies with 50 Mpx sensors that can produce a clean image at 6400 ISO. ( I expect this within 5 years )
Yes it looks like a very nice piece of glass.
But, do have to wonder how much better it will be than the mz 45mm 1.8?
Especially for Olympus bodies.
Oly 45mm is a great value. If you own one of the in-body stabilized bodies I wouldn’t worry at all, provided you don’t require the extra speed.
>>>But, do have to wonder how much better it will be than the mz 45mm 1.8?
Well, the MZ 45mm f/1.8 is a very good lens, even at full aperture. So if you are shooting with an Olympus OM-D Ex camera, you are essentially getting 1 extra stop of light and an OIS system you probably won’t use.
For Panasonic GHx shooters, they get the extra stop of light and a great OIS system. (which is important for hand-held video shooters)
>>>Especially for Olympus bodies
I am still waiting for Olympus to produce an OM-D camera that can shoot professional video formats while maintaining it’s 5-axis stabilization. Maybe the next camera after the EM-1 will have this. ( Panasonic is streets ahead with the GH3 when it comes to shooting video )
Quite right accents. And the most important point not to forget about is that Nocticron is the one of the fastest portrait lenses with OIS – there is simply no analog among the competitors. Really a sensation…
Agreed on all points.
It won’t have croma aberrations on Panasonic bodies, thanks to in camera correction.
All f1.4 lenses I have tried show CA in high contrast parts of the photo, from PanaLeica 25mm to Leica Summilux, voigtländer M mount 50mm T1.5 (harder, since it’s not a wide angle, but it can happen, when shooting in bright light) and all range of f0.95.
Please note that it happens when shooting a subject that’s against bright light.
Of course this is not a problem if you use Lightroom (2 clicks) or shoot in black and white.
I espect this lens to deliver really good sharpness, good contrast and rendering, when opend wde.
And doing great when stopped down to f1.4.
Exactly my thoughts. Just one addition, for the ultimate penetration into the PRO market (under “PRO” I imply studio portrait/fashion and landscape) they need to provide 13 steps DR and 24 bit tonal depth soon.
For a second I thought I was on a so y nex.
For a second I thought that was a sony nex.
Sony is offering the e mount apsc users the opportunity to mount those 1.5 crop lenses on the new a7 and a7r bodies in either crop mode or to take full advantage of almost the entire sensor, albeit with visible vignetting around the edges but heres my question to all you 35mm evangelists…….That nex apsc designed f1.8 zeiss lens when mounted on the new a7 will work at f1.8 or all of a sudden just peak out at f2.8? Remember these lenses can now be used at larger than apsc imaging area with all the lovely vignetting. Guarantueed the lens works at f1.8.
Seriuosly what a dumb argument this hole equivalence thing is. Ultimately who will use a 42.5 f1.2 on a 35mm sensor in the real world and let’s suppose Olympus or panny go 35mm and we’re given the opportunity to do that as I’ve clearly
clarified in my aforementioned real world example that lens although not completely covering the 35mm image circle is inherently designed as an f1.8 lens!
So were does this crap end? Let’s go with this for a little. Canon’s f1.2 lens isn’t an f1.2 because when compared to medium format it’s a point and shoot lens that bla bla bla….seriously? That canon lens was designed as an f1.2 lens and is an f1.2 lens regardless of dof and fov.
Remember, these apsc nex lenses will retain their inherent aperture/exposure values and that’s a real world example not some meaningless academic equivalence
argument that has no bearing on anything tangible in our photography.
I discussed aperture and real world exposure value with regard to f stop staing an f1.8 is an f1.8 as inherently designed and not fov or dof which are the true real world variances.
Ahh. A ray of sunshine keep up the good words.
>That nex apsc designed f1.8 zeiss lens when mounted on the new a7 will work at f1.8 or all of a sudden just peak out at f2.8?
They work at f1.8 where 1/2 of the resulting image is devoid of all light, so for “exposure” I would average it out and see…
mmmm…. pass the kleenex
Hahhah first post is about ff equiv!
How much easier these discussions would be if people understood that DOF and low light noise has nothing to do with sensor size, it only depends on the linear size (in millimeters) of the aperture.
The only exception is when the lens does not match the sensor, like when using an ff lens with an apsc sensor.
An m43 f1.2 lens collects only one quarter of the light that an ff f1.2 lens does. The reason is very simple. The hole that let’s light through (the linear aperture) is four times bigger in the ff lens.
It has nothing to do with sensor size. FF cameras use lenses that collects more light. Therefore the lower noise.
It might be just semanthic, but FF (sigh..) cameras NEED to collect more light, therefore their fast lenses are bigger than those on m43 system.
And I won’t spend a word about high ISO equivalence, exposure.
Those who rant and laugh (grin?) about their bigger lenses on their bigger sensors should have a big fun with them
Me, I think I’ll have fun with this bunch of glass, if Pana won’t sell it for a ridiculous price.
Holy #$% people. f/1.2 is f/1.2 is f/1.2. It’s physics. Just quit it.
An iPhone’s sensor is about 1/50th the size of a FF sensor. Shall we call its f/2.4 aperture f/(2.4)^7 or f/460? Bloody hell.
If you follow the methodology of some here you are quite correct and an iPhone (also android) cannot take photographs.
It would seem that the people who put their phone photos up on the web, flickr, etc are not telling the truth. They are really and secretly using fx sensors. Maybe their phones open out like the old bellows cameras. It must be a conspiracy aimed at M43, and Nikon 1 users.
But I still find it amusing that there are so many of them. And. They all claim to be Professionals and experts. Doctorate level at minimum.
+1
As I now understand it and can explain it:
For the purposes of EXPOSURE, an aperture is an aperture is an aperture. That is, f1.2 is the same on FF as it is on an iPhone.
However, for the purpose of TOTAL LIGHT (which can ultimately correspond to image quality / signal-to-noise ratio), that’s where the discussion of equivalence comes in.
Given the same shutter speed:
On an iPhone 5S – 7.2x crop factor
F2.2 aperture, 4.1mm focal length, ISO 100
On Micro Four Thirds – 2x crop factor
F8 aperture, 15mm focal length, ISO 3200
On Full Frame
F16 aperture, 30mm focal length, ISO 12800
Should all be roughly equivalent photographs from the point of view of exposure, depth of focus, and image quality / noise. The reason that the ISO needs to be boosted on the larger sensors is that even though the total amount of light is the same, the intensity of light hitting the sensor is much lower.
And that seems pretty reasonable to me. That said, smaller sensors tend to be more highly optimized. You also can only compare to sensors of the same generation. In terms of IQ, full-frame is only about 1 2/3 stops better than modern M4/3.
I suspect this diminishes even more rapidly in the highly technically competitive phone-sensor market, to the point where the full frame sensor might be only 5 or 6 stops better than the vastly smaller phone sensor (despite the 7.2 crop factor), but I don’t have any measurements to back that up.
That is so, in fact. It’s like a FF at 7 times the f-stop.
On the basis of some posters logic and understanding a four cylinder car traveling at 70km per hour really isn’t travelling at 70km per hour simply because the bigger V8 engine car with more cylinders travelling beside it is also doing 70km per hour! That’s bloody absurd!….regardless of engine size, both these cars are really doing 70km per hour and that is physics.
The small engine car may deal with that 70km speed a little differently by way of higher rpm’s, use more or less fuel due to the setup and arrangement of the engine but the net result is 70km.
A parable can be drawn to the whole equivalence topic people love to raise so often. When one shoots his nikon FX dslr at f1.2 that isn’t invalidated because leaf or mamiya has an f1.2 lena of eaual fov! Where are people going with this theory or idea?
A larger sensor may have more light falling on it’s larger surface area so it may be able to handle higher iso better on paper but when a camera is exposed at f1.2, that is an f1.2 aperture regardless of format and this isn’t just applicable only to m43 but to 35mm, medium format etc…
But my car gets 564.35892 kilometres on a tank full.
That’s better? The guy on TV said it was. That why I bought it.
And that Sir. Makes my 70km per hour superior to your 70km per hour. Watch TV and see.
As long as your happy with your car JimD, good for you. Should I try and convince you with some equivalence theory that my car is better?
You can try! But the tank full really did it for me. I just don’t think that is beatable. No you just can’t match it let alone better it.
Every body must, must, must get one. the is nothing else to touch it. Just imagine all going down the highway at the same 70km per hour.
It really shouldn’t be that difficult to conjure up an image of two cars doing 70km side by side should it?
Not fair, you’r bending the equivalence rules here, to say nothing of the laws of physics. My 70 is faster than your 70 so how do you mange to sneak in a side by side?
I get 564.35892 kilometres on a tank full. That make my 70 faster than your 70 any day.
And my Phd says it changes the rolling resistance of the rubber as well. So there.
Okay JimD, so far I can see you’re very much smittened with the hole 70km equation and how your resulting distance traveled from that fuel tank of yours always seems to come back to 564.35892km travelled, seems like some wondrous metaphysics at work perhaps?…..but hey, I’m not the PHD here, you are so please lend us some of those special insights from that marvelous thesis you’ve put together Professor.
It’s really how long is a piece of string. Or, as the TV ad for the car says it will, “go from Sydney to Melbourne on one tank of petrol, no stopping”.
564.35892 makes it real, just like it was well worked out, in a scientific manner. And, its a constant. No backing down or giving in to any logical argument here. Rock solid, Just to show the ‘others’ that its real. When I invent something, it stays invented.
All just the same as my 2.8 lets in more light than your 2.8 when it hits a surface. How long is the string.
Sure, an f1.2 lens is an f1.2 lens, and it will give the same exposure regardless of sensor size.
1) that means that the amount of light collected is proportional to the size of the sensor the lens is made for.
2) the same exposure on a larger lense means that you can print a larger image with the same noise or the same size image with less noise.
lets make this easy….
The brighness of the image falling on the sensor is the same for m43 or FF when set at same F stop on lens.
This results in the same exposures…
Given the FF has 4x area if the FF had the same resolution as the m43 then in theory it could use an ISO 2 stops higher for the same IQ… but that advantage gets eaten by many factors including; resolution, angle of incedence, sensor temp, efficiancy scaling, software, supporting electronics, DR, Colour fedility… etc. all of which mean you are trading off that direct 2 stop advantage – partly for advantages else where, but also in losses.
And thats about that… when it comes to F-stops and lenses what anyone gives a monkeys about is speed, as in a fast lens as in shutter speed!
Yes you can also get lower DOF with a bigger appature… nuff said.
I have the feeling that most owners of fast lenses, shoot most of their captures with the lens stopped down to f4 or more. Some do it with the idea of getting optimal performance optically, others just need the wider dof. I want a fast lens because of the way it renders in native/open mode and prefer to shoot in that mode 100% of my capturing.Night or lowlight photographers prob always shot wide open. So if you stop such lens down in most of your scenarios, would it not be wiser to opt for a 1 or 2 stops slower version, since most modern lenses perform quite well wide open? Just a thought.
fairly sensible one too…
Can’t wait to see this on the GM1! 🙂
Clicked on this post to read up on the Nocticron…
Stepped into equivalence hell. 🙂
+1.2 there is always someone who feels the need to start it…
If you stencil flames on the barrel of a micro 4/3 lens it becomes as fast as a full frame lens. It also helps if you wear a t-shirt that says ‘REAL PHOTOGRAPHER’ when you’re shooting.
Here are more pics of the lens:
http://photorumors.com/2013/11/07/the-upcoming-leica-dg-nocticron-425mm-f1-2-asph-mft-lens-is-huge/
Thx. Doesn’t seem bigger than 75mm, although filter size seems to suggest so. Similar dof, size and probably price. I don’t know which to get – better low-light capabilities vs new focal length (I own oly 45mm)…
I hope they’ll drop .5 in production, it’s ridiculous marketing anyway as fl probably changes with focus distance. Also, 42 is a great answer to everything 😉
stop arguing and go out and shoot instead.