Depth of field and sharpness are excellent at f/1.2 (Image on top via Quesabesde).
–
Our spanish friends over at Quesabesde (translation here) posted a first test of the new lens with RAW files available for download. Their first conclusion is rather positive:
The level of detail and resolution achieved this Nocticron is very high even at maximum aperture. If the center of the image resolution is spectacular the corner performance does not disappoint. The aberrations are well controlled, the reflections do not seem a problem for optics. Vignetting is evident at f/1.2 and disappears at f/2.0. OIS is very effective.
I have little doubt that this is an extraordinary performer. it could even beat the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 in terms of optical performance and the Panasonic also has OIS and likely faster AF. Well, that’s the good side of the story. The biggest limit of the lens is the likely the price: $1,699 (here at BHphoto) is quite a lot, but you obviously get the best of all MFT lenses. So the question to you is:
[poll id=”222″]
158 Responses
$1,699 you mean…. :'(
Yes, admin…price at the B&H link above is incorrect. When you go to the B&H page the price is $1699……(choke).
Not only that, but now I can take photos of people noses and have their eyes out of focus!
YES!! Now I’m a TRUE FF USER!!! Giddy up! 😛
I think Panasonic is focusing on the wrong segment of the market. I’m sure this lens will be amazing, and a lot of people will want it. Only a few people will actually buy it. Niche products like this are not going to get m43 into the hands of more people. Olympus seems to be finally getting that. I hope they price their E-M10 just right. They are already making great lenses at affordable prices.
Panasonic and Olympus need to focus more on advanced features in cheaper camera bodies. A $1600 single focal length lens is not going to get more cameras into more people’s hands. This lens is only going to sell to people who have already bought into the system. A very few people.
I agree. I think it’s quite silly to show off a native m43 lens (assuming that showing off cameras as if they were jewels is not silly on its own..), and this price looks to me as this lens is aimed at rich m43 users.
I’d like to know what are production costs of this lens.. And compare them to that of a 50mm summilux M mount APO. Then let’s add the 50mm T1.5 Voigtländer M mount (that I own and it’s almost on paar with Summilux).
I voted for the 1200 max price, because I find it right, given the overall quality we’ve seen so far, but today, as it is now, I wouldn’t buy it either, since the 45, 60 and 75mm are good more than enough for portraits (not to mention that sharp 50mm Voigtländer above-mentioned).
It seems to me that Panasonic is trying to create more hype on this lens, so that non-buyers will consider it some kind of myth as Noctilux M mount.
(And again I find it silly).
For single lens users, who make full use of the strenght of this lens, I find the price acceptable. Average shooters have a set of lenses they use for their needs,which easily matches the cost for this noctilux, I can dig that for them, an extra lens with such pricetag can be out of the question.
Ulli, you’re correct, but I think that a Pro shooter has already a system that covers all his needs. Of course those who can afford it and want it, will buy it no matter the price.
That’s why I wrote that given the already available and less expensive, but still good “enough” lenses, this price is a bit exagerated.
By the way, that’s the Voigty 50mm T1.5, it writes quite nicely, isn’t it?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcosartoriphoto/11816978023/sizes/o/in/photostream/
nice close portrait Marco, I see you just took it , a few hours ago?
I agree with all… they really overpriced this lens and I do not think they will find many buyers at this price range. Marco your images on FLICKR look awesome.
Nice pictures. Do you use the old or new 50mm/1.5 (new has 0.7m minimum focus distance compared to 0.9m)?
@HF thank you! It’s the new version. I bought the silver one, it looks gorgeous too. It’s quite heavy (being built in brass) but small. The closest focus distance has been improved (read 0.7 mts), I find it has a better sharpness tnan the “old” version. Quality built is really really good, with a focus and aperture mechanisms that are also a tactile joy to use.
Premium products are by their nature not mass market – if you can’t appreciate the best quality and pay for it then go with the lesser options
Bob, I get what you’re saying. Don’t get me wrong, I’m impressed with the specs of this lens. I’m all for premium lenses. Actually, I would almost classify this as ultra-premium. However, I’m just making the argument that they are putting the cart before the horse. Sell more cameras first, THEN sell the premium lenses. I can’t help but think that resources are being used on things like this instead of innovating in other ways. If you get these cameras into more people’s hands, by default you will sell more of these premium lenses. It doesn’t work the other way around…..
The masses are not going to look at this lens and think, I’ve got to buy into this system. If anything, they are going to say, “Holy crap! That’s expensive! I just going to buy a Canon and call it a day.”
My interests are in keeping the system alive, because I believe in what it can be; an amazing balance between size and image quality. Even Fuji can’t do that. Not to mention Sony. Prime lenses priced in the stratosphere are not going to keep this system alive. Not at this stage in the game at least. The competition is still fierce. Yet in my opinion, the competition hasn’t done anything to warrant this. I think it’s matter of time before people wake up to what m43 is. I honestly believe that if Panasonic and Olympus play this right, and work on the momentum of the E-M5, E-M1 and GX-7 they could really start to make a dent in Canon and Nikon’s market share.
> … Sell more cameras first, THEN sell the premium lenses. I can’t help but think that resources are being used on things like this instead of innovating in other ways. If you get these cameras into more people’s hands, by default you will sell more of these premium lenses. It doesn’t work the other way around…..
well, they are aiming from the low end to the high end – GF to GH4K.
At least they are offering some premium lenses – if they wouldn’t, there’d be complaints that the higher end bodies lack higher end lenses to come into their own.
Adding this one is not to the detriment of other lenses. There is a decent offering of lenses already and they are constantly adding new ones – with more focus on high end lately, but that’s only natural as the low end was much more covered.
Yes – it’s a steep price, this one’s not for me, I guess they don’t expect to make/sell very many of these.
Yet, to me this is a sign to me that pany are very committed to m43…
I agree.
“Holy crap! That’s expensive! I just going to buy a Canon and call it a day.”
THIS.
To be honest, it’s around the same size as the Fuji equivalent.. I’m better off buying another lens for my Canon 6D and be happy with that choice. Just got to bring a bag with me to haul the lens. -Even though, you’ll need a bag for this lens too!
There are also cheaper options that take better pics. Guess what I am talking about? Hint: they have properly sized sensors.
+100
For me it’s more and more about – should I invert and go rather Fuji way ?
Why ?
Fujifilm has come to a point where bodies are way cheaper with a superior sensor, lenses are excellent and cheaper + they include manual aperture + they cover all important FL (m43 cover some FL with tons of duplicates but still missing some FL – for example wide angle primes), AF is good enough.
For wide and normal m43 lenses sometimes I miss thinner DOF.
In other words Fuji is improving with every new camera, lens or firmware version + is getting cheaper (older bodies).
In contrary m43 almost lost their size advantage and they are getting more expensive.
Olympus after so many m43 years still did bring us any range-finder-style camera …
I’m quite disappointed because in the beginning m43 cameras were very superior to any other mirrorless competition.
Do you have similar feeling guys ? Or am I wrong ?
I agree that Fuji is better covering focal lengths, step by step whereas m43 lenses have been released anarchically with so much redundancy, iterations and bad choice ragarding order of lens release…We still don’t have any UWA (fast) prime whereas fuji has a 12 mm f2.8. And despite m43 was the first, Fuji will soon have a similar lenses collection. No doubt, Fuji is better organized !
Dunsun …you do have a point as Fuji steadily improves…but my biggest doubt about that system is the X-Trans Sensor and it’s “look” which can have cartoonish colors and when I try to read up about post production with the files..the info out there is confusing and unsettling, with many advocating that Lightroom renders the files poorly, etc. I do not know what to believe, but I continue to shoot in FF and my Lightroom, Photoshop (and some lesser softwares) workflow works great for both my Canon FF Files and my Olympus MFT files. If buying into Fuji means buying (and learning) new software AND having a completely different workflow for X-Trans than that of my FF….I am totally not interested.
I do not know who to believe regarding this situation and the talk and advice is all over the place????…What is also “telling” is that Fuji themselves just released a new non-XTrans body (correct?)…I believe…just because of the issues that I mention above. From the outside looking in I would not feel confident to sell off my MFT and jump into that system…but I am open minded to understand more about it.
I cant follow your thoughts. If you want to compare the two systems (mFT and Fuji) there are different thinks to consider, for example:
1-Image quality
2-size
3-lens selection
4-body selection
5-general usability (like af and menu or aperture ring)
6-price
7-Video
lets go to this points,
1- i think that Fuji is a little bit in front on this point, but not to much from my point
2- size, considering lens Body combination, this is a clear win for mFT. yes, there are bigger bodys as well, but thats just a great selection what you need. But mFT dosnt loos its size advantage by offering more choice-there still a small bodys and lenses, if you want to you can build a really small setup. And even the smallest mFT bodys feature almost everything that the flagships offer, while the small fuji Bodys missing features like external vf or flipscreen.
3-lens selection, is a very personal decision, because everybody got diffrent need. you mentioned the lens selection as a pro for Fuji, but i istn for me. If you compare the line-ups of the two systems, there are quite close together with mFT missing the wide angle prime, and Fuji missing the Long Zooms, and constant aperture zooms.
(all in 35mm equiv.)
Fuji X === mFT
X 16mm Fisheye === mFT 15mmfisheye, 16mmfisheye
X18mm/2.8 touit === mFT missing
X21mm/2.8 === mFT missing
X missing === mFT 24mm/2, 24mm/1.6 X27mm/2 === mFT 28mm/2.5 (and soonish 30mm/1.7)
X35mm/1.4 === mFT 35mm/0.95, 35mm/1.8, 35mm/2.8
X missing === mFT 38mm/2.8 X41mm/2.8 === mFT 40mm/1.7 X48mm/1.8 touit,
x53mm/1.5 === mFT 50mm/1.4, 50mm/0.95 (soonish 50mm/1.8)
X missing === 60mm/2.8, 60mmMacro/2.8 X85mm/1.2,
X91mm/2.4 === mFT 90mm/1.8, 90mmMacro/2.8, 85mm/1.2, 85mm/0.95
X missing === mFT 150/1.8
X missing === 600mm Reflex/6.3
zoomlenses:
X (soonish 15-36mm/4) === mFT 14-28mm/f, 18-36mm/4-5.6
X24-76mm/3.5-5.6 === mFT 24-64mm/3.5-5.6, 24-70mm/2.8, 24-80mm/2.8, 12-100mm/3.5-6.3 x27-84mm/2.8-4 === mFT missing (this is the only lens i really miss in mFT…)
X not available === mFT countless standart zooms between 28-90mm
X missing === mFT 70-200mm/2.8 X 84-305/3.5-4.8,
X76-350mm4.5-6-7=== mFT 80-300mm/4-5.6, 90-300(350/400)mm/4-5.6
X missing === mFT150-600mm/4.8-6.7, 200-600mm/4-5.6
Your example of the missing wide primes, is the only real gap that mFT has at the moment, and is cover with a zoom lens… It was a great move from Fuji to start with the trinity 1.4 lenses. they aimed at the pro/ambitious photographers from the start, while mFT firstly was an option for upgrader and an extra system for pros. The funy thing is that now as mFT aims at more ambitious photographers with new cameras and lenses, the people start to mourn about prices and size, while the system is just expanding its userbase.
4- Body selection- here wins mFT hands down, there are bodys for every taste in size, features and price. you even get almost the same features on smaller or bigger bodys just as you like. the only thing that special with the Fuji lineup ist the X-pro 1, because of the optical VF.
5-this is just a question of taste-i like the aperture ring on the Fujis, but thats it, i gave them a try for one week, and didnt like the generl speed and handling of the Fuji, but everybodys diffrent. From mypoint of view this is the most important question when it comes to choosing a system-if you dont feel comfortable after a week of using it, most likly you wont change the feeling about it.
6-one of your arguments is the price, which i dont see. All the good lenses for the Fuji System are expensive as well as most of the nice mFT Lenses, the big different is again variety. because you can run a mFT system with cheaper lenses as well. if you go for the Sigma triplet, you get all that i ever had in analoge days for under 600€, and thats includes a Body. 😉 If you need fastness, great, buy the lens you use the most in extra fast. On Paper the lenses of the Fuji look good, but seriously, most people wont need a 1.4 trinity of prime lenses.
your argument of Fuji getting better and cheaper, is just wrong. Because mFT as well gets better and cheaper all the time. Just because there are more expensive lenses and bodys on the market the System dosnt get more expensive. If you already invested in mFT it would be stupid to change the system just because one new lens is 400$ cheaper in an other system.
7-just to mention it, if your serious about video->mFt
there is alwasy a lot of talk about swichting btw mFT and Fuji in both directions on the internet. I dont think this is driven by missing features, or lenses, but by pure GAS.
The most important thing to chose a system from my point is the overall handling, concept and choice. Those things dosnt change after you chose a System, the choice will hopfully grow for a longer time, but the handling an concept of the System stays the same.
When i entered mFT, i hoped for a digital version of the Contax G set up, i dreamt about in analog days- both fuji and mFT are beyond that already 😉
+1
Tim…on point one: IQ …(I own MFT…have never shot Fuji)…you really do not think that the Fuji files are a lot better than current MFT files?
I owned a Contax G system…the scanned film would still be much better than MFT files…no contest. 🙂
Thanks for your thoughts and helpful info..
Funny, last week I was searching the web looking for Contax G! 🙂
I had a G 2 with all the lenses and it all fit in this cool leather back pack…great little camera…sad to see the Contax approach disappear.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowne/6712522369/sizes/o/in/set-72157628945948785
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowne/6729029549/sizes/o/in/set-72157628947952221
About the picture quality of the Fuji, it is better then mFT Pictures, but i dont need that extra room. I am even happy with the “old” 12mp Sensor but will update to the 16mp one soon. When the new Om-D is on the Market i will decide between G6, GX7, E-M1, E-M10 or E-M5 for the inbuild Vf, and some other nice features, but not for the Image quality. So i dont care about the better Image quality 😉
about the Contax G, i got one, gave it a try, really liked it, but sold it of because i didnt used it enought… But still, great Camera and great Lenses-if they ever build a 35mm Digiback i will buy it again 😉
The new 16MP sensor is a VAST improvement over the 12MP one. It has at least twice the ISO performance, but lacks the severe chroma noise of the 12MP sensor. The 12 is really a low ISO sensor. But I have no hesitation about setting the 16 to 3200 or even higher in low light.
That rather depends on the film you were using.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your thoughts. Generaly you are right but:
1) IQ – agree
2) size -agree but the difference is very small now
3) lens selection
Well it’s not that simple. Problem of m43 is it’s crop factor of 2. Usually the most used lenses are normal and wide angle lenses (14-35). m43 is in trouble here. Yes it has very many lenses in that range but they are nothing special. Say you can get any better compact (for example xz-1) and the final result will be very similar if not the same with any m43 camera-lens. The only difference here is Leica 25 1.4. Yes but this Leica is expensive and not small anymore. And even with 1.4 aperture I sometimes miss a thinner DOF. But what more I would like to have that nice thin DOF on 17mm FL too. With m43 no way.
Problem 2 – legacy lenses. On ebay there are lot of old, very nice and cheap manual lenses. But with crop 2 they are too long + they need to resolve a bit better to be any useful.
Problem 3 – missing ultra wide primes + tele primes + super tele primes and HQ super tele zoom.
Conclusion – Fuji is not any worse here !
4) Body selection
Well subjectively I do not agree with you. I love range finder style cameras. It took so many years to get atleast one RF m43 body (GX7). And again we have bunch of cameras that are small but for any a bit more serious job they are unusable (gf1,2,3,5, e-pm1,2, e-pl3,5,6).
Fuji got it right very quickly (not counting AF just a camera style and ergonomics).
5) General usability
For me panasonic wins here but Fuji is very close.
6) Price
If you do not count a mess gear here only very few cameras can be compared. Fuji wins here. (Atleast here in EU).
7) Video
Panasonic is a very super king no doubt.
When I entered m43 I hoped for smaller sized usable bodies with a good IQ. IQ is finaly good enough but there are better options out there …
Usable bodies well, well, well still waiting for any to come.
Honestly, I think the main reason people misunderstand MFT cameras is because they fail to realize that they really shine when used hand held vs. a DSLR. For tripod work, yeah, you can get better images with a FF 36 MP sensor. For handheld work, there’s not going to be nearly as much difference, and that’s where you’re going to see the benefit from better stabilization, lighter lenses and bodies (for better angles/agility), more DOF (for subjects and cameras that aren’t perfectly still), etc…
For studio cameras, they’re not the best. For field work, they’re right up there.
On topic: APS-C and MFT aren’t different enough to guarantee that APS-C will offer better anything. They’re very close in every regard, and which is better depends on the generation of the sensor. Fuji vs. MFT should probably be decided based on other factors primarily.
Many of those things are rather subjective or depend heavily on choices you make.
1. agree
2. size, when looking at the 42.5/1.2 and 56/1.2 (fuji) they are very close in size indeed, but (see below) what if that generally gets you too shallow DOF already on m4/3? You could opt for the 45/1.8 instead, with a ridiculous reduction in size, weight and price. This is a choice depending on your needs, but the thing is, you actually have that choice, you could decide to own both the 42.5/1.2 and the 45/1.8 and pick one depending on your current needs. The same obviously applies to camera bodies within the system.
3.1 lens selection, if the 12-35 and 12-40 don’t do the job quality wise, there is always the rather large but extremely good 14-35/2.0 (sure, manual focus mostly unless you use it with an E-M1). That is 3 high to very high-grade zooms in that range, besides the large collection of primes both with and without AF.
3.2 for me the crop factor 2 actually makes those legacy lenses more desirable. Sure, it won’t get you anything ‘wide-angle’, rather it gets you a lot of extra telephoto options. Because of the crop factor 2 you only use the center of the image circle and hence ‘crop’ away much of the trouble areas with such lenses.
3.3 some ultra wide primes (8mm, 10mm) with good quality and fast aperture would certainly be very nice. Tele primes? For now you’ll have to ‘make do’ with the rather high-quality (and large) 4/3 150/2 and 300/2.8, or resort to the large number of manual focus primes that can be had for decent prices. Myself, I use a Rokkor 135/2 and an Elmarit-R 180/2.8 for example.
4 as you say this is rather subjective. The first m4/3 body, the G1 was at the time already a highly desirable body for me (but then, I rather like the center VF position), and currently the E-M5 for me fills the role of a camera just small enough to fit a coat pocket with a pancake prime mounted, which is small enough for me, while still being quite nice to operate. Again, this is very very subjective.
5 usability is a pretty meaningless term when not having some kind of use or goal in mind, and heavily depends on your preferences.
6 totally depends on what choices you make. From your list, you don’t find any of the lower-priced bodies acceptable, so well, thats just a consequence of your choices.
7 agree
In general, maybe I’m ‘old fashioned’, but I started out my photography on 120 film, moved to 135 film, and getting ENOUGH DOF has always been a challenge. However, if you really want ultra shallow DOF (I don’t but again, this is subjective) then you should simply stop bothering with any kind of crop format, fuji included, and should move to something using 135 format or larger, especially when wanting that shallow DOF at a very wide angle of view.
Personally, I think ultra-shallow DOF is a heavily overused gimmick to hide lack of composition, through it also does have good uses at times. To make good use of it, you generally need very accurate focus, and for most cases that means both accurate and fast AF.
And again, you don’t like the available bodies, which is totally upto you, but to me it seems there is quite a wide choice of bodies with a very broad variation, ranging from near pocket size miniature cameras to small SLR sized cameras, ranging from almost completely touch-screen operated to having dedicated controls for almost every setting, with a variety of styles. I do agree that the choice of RF style bodies with built-in VF is very limited with exactly 1 model existing.
Its a good thing we have choices in this.
My main point is that the decision depends more on personal taste then facts 😉
If you you’re not happy with mFT, a change is a good idea- it’s just not reasonable if you change because of one lens price and a general feeling that Fuji is on the right way 😉
With your answer about the body selection, you already showed that you got some personal wishes which mFT only offers in the gx7-if you need the rangefinder formfactor, Fuji offers 3 cameras and mFT only one… If it’s just about features, the Panasonic g5/g6 offer a lot of features for a really reasonable price.
One thing about adapting old lenses, if you don’t own the old glass already, it’s not a cheap solution anymore. Most old lenses are Ok, but nothing special, the interesting ones are high priced. When mirrorless cameras appeared on the market, the prices quickly rised to high levels again. for example the contax g lenses were down to 70euro, and are up to 300 on Ebay again…
Then old glass, excerpt the nifty fifty, isn’t fast (or really expensive). Your problem with the crop is also relative, because at least you only use the best part of the lens, because the common legacy lens isn’t sharp at the corners.
It’s lot of fun to play with old glass, but only in very few situations a better/cheaper solution then the modern lens.
I appreciate what you are saying but don’t forget that both systems are a moving target.
For me, a GM1 + kit lens + some primes (Panny 20mm f/1.7 and Oly 45mm f/1.8) are the ultimate thing. The kit lens, which starts at 12mm, eliminates the need for a dedicated wide for me.
The only thing I don’t like is AF, which is still not fast enough (say, for bird in flight or extremely fast kids). I would also take a little more low-light capabilities and I don’t give a s*** about more DOF, it’s too thin already. So I may take a GM1 if it’ll improve those two factors. I may change the lenses too, if they make smaller ones (maybe the new Oly 25mm?) – so there’s room for improvement.
Where is the equivalent of that in the Fuji’s world? Maybe I get the little more low-light (maybe), but the AF is even slower, the size and weight are much larger.
Now, you certainly have needs and wants different than mine, and certainly the neighbor’s grass is always greener. But even trying to be in your shoes, I don’t see Fuji *that* much better (I did like the fact they started with the prime trinity, though)
Yeah, Fuji has really impressed me. They just seem to be doing everything right. This is really the way Olympus and Panasonic should have done it. Instead, for several years people just begged for certain basic functionality and lenses. Fuji saw the success in the X100 and ran with it, and were fully committed. I didn’t have the same feeling with Olympus and Panasonic until only recently in the last year or so.
Dunsun, you are 98% correct, even though I plan to keep my two M43 lenses, and get a G6, I already thinking to invest heavily in Fuji. I almost too the leap earlier this year, but waited for the GX7. Owning it and now selling it, I know what needs to be done.
Owning the 6D, the pics from that camera are soooo Good, -even with the 40mm 2.8, I need something close to the IQ of that camera.
M43, is at the limit of the 16mp sensor. I don’t see it getting any much better from here, So I have to go APS-C. Besides, they match what lenses I use the most: 35mm, 50mm and the 40mm which is my favorite focal length.
I still love the Lumix cameras for it’s menus, body layout and features, which is why I’ll hold on to a G6.
But yeah, I don’t see M43 really competing, but with themselves. I see more and more Fuji adopters in the U.S..
B.S. You seem so obsessed with gear. Go out and shoot my friend. “Now I’m going to sell this to buy this to see if I can take better pictures.” Buy your Fuji stuff and save us from your silly comments. Nobody wants to know your plans anymore.
Panasonic is going after commercial photographers, especially those with Canon equipment.
It’s much easier to depend on people who make a living with photography. If Canon and Nikon didn’t have the professionals, they certainly wouldn’t be in good shape at all.
I think they did just right.
1. There is already the oly f1.8/45mm which is a great lens. It is ‘only’ 250€, small, light, well performing, not so good build quality.
2. There is the CV f0.95/42.5mm MF for ~1000€. Also a great lens, with wider max aperture but only MF.
3. There is the pana 45mm macro lens. I don’t know a thing about.
Actually there are enough lenses with these angle. But if they still want to do another one, it only makes sense if it is a super high grade lens. And thats what they did.
Hahaha, no thank you. Could get two wonderful (& faster) Voigts for the price of this 😀
Every one complains about the price, look at the specs. It’s a special lens, so it sells to a special price. I have the Hexanon 57mm 1.2 and it has nearly the same specs (length, weight, diameter). For a MFT lens, the nocticron is heavy and huge. It’s not a “every day” lens you just buy for fun, like the Oly 45. If you need one – you buy one.
I know some people disagree with this argument, but to me it’s still only covering a much smaller image circle than a full frame lens.
Question is not how large the image circle the lens covers, but how “good” the coverage is, aka IQ.
“I know some people disagree with this argument,” but I still can’t understand the why some hang on the sensor size. Previously, the smaller sensor couldn’t deliver sufficient IQ (to me personally relevant: decent/good/better ISO 1600). But that’s not a problem anymore. If Pentax Q or Nikon 1 would offer sufficient IQ and lens line-up to go with it, during upgrade, why would anybody care what sensor size they have? Important is whether the cam can capture the moment or not. Rest of the “arguments” are just measurebating for benchmarkoholics.
I’m not talking about IQ and or ISO or anything you might want to have an argument about.
All I’m saying is that it costs more to build larger optics with larger glass elements.
This optic is designed for a much smaller sensor than full frame. It’s also at a focal length that’s relatively easy to design fast lenses for.
You could not, for example, build a FF 32mm f1.2 and sell it for £630 like the Nikon 1 lens does.
– price of ‘consumer’ products is only partially based on cost
– smaller formats require higher resolution for the same pixel count
Merely 2 of the reasons why your argument doesn’t always work out the way you suggest.
+1
Well.
The price is ok and about right. So yes I would buy that lens, however I don’t have a need for that one.
For Primes I’ve got the Leica M9P, which in itself is in a completely other IQ league.
What I want for m4/3 are Pro Zooms like the 12-40mm F2.8 and a Supertele for Wildlife!
B
Very nice lens and a very attractive addition to the MFT lineup, in principle.
Problem one is, the Fujinon 56/1.2, which I expect to be a decent performer as well, offers an even larger absolute aperture and even shallower DOF at two thirds of the Panasonic’s price.
Problem two is, since Sony introduced their A7/A7R, every 85mm f/2.0 or faster legacy lens can offer a larger absolute aperture and shallower DOF, too, for much less money, some of them with decent image quality and some (Minolta/Sony A-Mount) even with AF.
The 42.5/1.2 is one of those comparatively expensive lenses that are needed to even come close to the DOF bandwidth large formats have with much less optical complexity.
But even then, and compared to the Fujinon, it ought to be cheaper. Especially since the lettering on the lens really is all it really has do with “Leica”.
“[…] offers an even larger absolute aperture and even shallower DOF at two thirds of the Panasonic’s price.”
Take a look at the article’s title photograph. You want even shallower DOF? Really???
For short-distance shots like that shown above, no, I don’t. But if the object is farther away, you will soon find DOF becomes too much to isolate the object from the background. Because of that, aperture cannot, ever, be too large.
The fujinon won’t work ‘very well’ on a m4/3 camera.
It more depends on what the street price ends up at after a little while, list prices can be representative of that or entirely fictional… Supply and demand usually controlling the relationship…
It will have a hard time compared to the Olympus 45 and 75mm – especially for Olympus users.
for this tiny sensor , you should price it cheaper than US 500 , or no sell.
and it is just too huge for the tiny image circle coverage, it is literally heavier and bigger than the Fuji 56mm f1.2 with bigger APS-C image circle coverage.
I think most of rational m43 users now understood that going smaller on sensor size does not actually improve system balance or make it smaller or cheaper, and ready to leave here to Fuji or Sony land or maybe Samsung?
I personally decided to sell all my Panny gear, Sony gear and get the XE2+ 23mm f1.4+ the 56mm f1.2.
when I need a huge zoom and use tripod , I just use my big Nikon D800E and D610, when I need D-SLR video , I just use my 5D2 or 5D3.
the price for this so called Pana-Leca ,with small image circle coverage, is just too much , way too oeverpriced, even my Canon 85mm f1.2Lmk2 did not cost me this much, and my Zeiss 85mm f1.4ZF2 costs just US 1K and not much bigger than this so called made in China Leica glass.
I think Pana pissed many potential customers away with this one.
Sony and Canon are digging their own camera graves with silly really silly pricing system , does Pana really think if they put fake German brand name on the barrel we are willing to pay FF/FX price for a tiny sensor lens?
we are not retarded, but they seem to be.
Keyword here is choice. Making larger cameras and lenses for a small medium can be done easily, and may be justified by ergonomics, balance etc. Making small cameras and lenses becomes increasingly difficult when media size becomes larger.
Having choice means not everything will always be as small as possible, rather, it means there will be variation in this.
When looking at bodies, its easy to see:
Lumix: GM1 vs GX7 vs GH3
Olympus: E-PM2 vs E-PL5 vs E-M1
In this case, you got a choice between various price/size/weight/feature/quality combinations for approx 42.5-45mm.
Thank you for this post!
This is exactly my point, and i dont understand all those people who complain about bigger lenses and Bodys, because those are just an Option.
> for this tiny sensor , you should price it cheaper than US 500 , or no sell.
…
> when I need a huge zoom and use tripod , I just use my big Nikon D800E and D610, when I need D-SLR video , I just use my 5D2 or 5D3.
I see why money might be the problem. So many expensive cameras.
> I personally decided to sell all my Panny gear, Sony gear and get the XE2+ 23mm f1.4+ the 56mm f1.2.
Frankly, I think you spend more time buying gear than actually using it.
I vote yes .
It’s matter of time when I want to have it .
Maybe waiting for the price to drop a bit before grab it .
X Pro 2 + 55mm F1.2 is what I want in 2014 .
The 45 Nocticron represents Panasonic’s aspirations to mark a footprint in the optical side of the industry and to jump the invisible wall which separates traditional manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Fujifilm, Pentax, Leica) from consumer electronic giants (Sony, Samsung and currently – Panasonic).
The $1600 price tag may seem outrageous to a casual shooter, but it’s clearly not the market Panasonic is aiming at. Cinema studios and professional studio photographers may well find the price acceptable. There will be few copies made and fewer sold, but sales figures are not the point. Panasonic seeks recognition as a serious player in the photography market. The imaging division must turn to profit within the next two years and its management knows it will have to make an heroic effort at the high end of the market to accomplish that goal.
“Cinema studios and professional studio photographers may well find the price acceptable. There will be few copies made and fewer sold, but sales figures are not the point. Panasonic seeks recognition as a serious player in the photography market.”
Actually this is misleading. My work is about studio indoor&outdoor photography. We won’t and will never invest in $1600 fixed-focal-length lens for existing m4/3 system. At $1600 budget, our target is always FF lens such as Canon 85/1.8 or highly-recommended Nikon 85/1.8g. The combo of this FF lens and FF. sensor will give us highest possible resolving power. You can find this resolving information on Dxomark which we agree from our own experiences in many projects. I don’t say that m4/3 bodies are not great but the truth is that none of today m4/3 bodies can deliver the same resolving power as FF body + FF 85mm lens. But who knows? In the future there may be a m4/3 sensor that will be on par with FF sensor.
Secondly, there are just few m4/3 bodies nowadays able to shoot higher than 1/4000 which is essential for F1.2 at nice daylight condition. Don’t even think about ND since this is so awkward solution and make the overall investment even higher.
I only want to respond on the last part, since there is no sense in a “this or that is better” discussion, to each their own i prefer to say. Ofcourse you can shoot at 1.2 during day light at 1/4000 and lower. People who claim the opposite always assume the worst case scenario during day time. I used my Nokton 1.1 wideopen for modelshooting. This is a discipline where you need spotmeting regularly outdoors,if working without reflectors/fill in. In this style overexposing the background is common. Landscape is another story, yes here its much more critical. But I never hear people to go more in detail, instead they just say it applies to photography in general, while there are so many scenarios to think about.
Which part of “cinema studios” you did not get? If (and it is till an “if”) the GH4K draws the attention of professional videographers and if (an even bigger “if”) the new lens is good enough to replace the equivalent Zeiss, Cooke, etc, at a fraction of their cost it might prove to be a bargain, after all, even though it is not a lens for you or me.
Yesterday I went to a friend to have some photos printed for a portpholio reading. He loaded the files into the professional printer and in the meanwhile I was drooling over his Hasselblad 50MP H.
He showed me some comparision shots, taken with that beast and with stitched files coming from a d800 (for a total of 72MP).
And he said: “and then people talk abot D800 or new Sony a7s..”
50.000 euros vs 5.000 euros
What I want to say is that people working in studios usually deal with different format cameras than m43 system. This latter (which I love and all of you know that) is getting little by little better and better, and sometimes, for certain purposes, can be well used for professional works.
Setting such a high price for that lens does not make it more suitable for professional work, not yet at least.
I understand that the more the better (choice) but honestly it does not look as a choice to me.
As I wrote above, this looks like the Noctlux M mount “myth”. A 9.000 dollars lens not worth its price (as stated in a recent article).
The thing there is that such a very high resolution certainly has its uses, but like any quality aspect easily becomes an addiction that has no practical meaning.
I don’t understand the price and size discussion. Every lens going to the extremes for EVERY sensor is large or expensive.
For m43 tele zooms are much smaller than FF counterparts and cheaper, primes at the same FOV and f-stop are much smaller.
A canon FF 85/1.2 is 1kg and has a minimum Focus distance of almost 1m and retails for 2200$ (Only DoF is even smaller, often too small IMHO). Sure you get cheeper tele on FF, but you don’t get cheaper lighter and smaller tele zooms.
If image quality is excellent the price is fine. Nobody needs to buy it. Everyone knows that the strength of m43 is not in very shallow DOF. You can get it nicely using the Voigtländer lenses, however manual focusing is the way here, but I don’t mind with the excellent IBIS. I want small excellent primes down to 1.4 and good zooms. This is what I get with m43. You just can’t have it all, make your priorities clear from the beginning. As state before, the Voigtländer 50mm/1.5 is a great there option and not very expensive.
I had hoped that Micro Four Thirds wouldn’t need to cater to the ongoing bokeh fetish, but it seems this is not the case. There are other better choices for very thin depth of field and MFT really ought to focus on its own strenghts: size, weight and optical quality. I have a hard time seeing this lens as being a good seller, unlike some of the other more reasonable little primes.
I suspect the Otus is another lens that suffers from this same trend. A little slower and it would have easily been smaller, lighter, cheaper and have a bigger audience of potential buyers.
Agreed. Although in low light, the 25 f/1.4 is still the most useful lens I own or have owned (out of the 12-40 f/2.8, 45 1.8, 60 2.8, 14 2.5 and sigma 19 and 30mm first generation), owing to many factors. Mainly, the photos just look great when taken in subdued lighting, the focus is very fast in low light and it’s dead accurate. I can put focus right where I want it, and it’s super sharp at the focal point.
It doesn’t necessarily mean I’ll be shooting wide open. But the wide aperture really helps AF, white balance and metering in low light, making the lens more desirable for those reasons.
Bokeh and shallow DOF are not the same thing.
this looks like a good lens not my cup of tea but its good to have choice
my wife would like that shollow DOF
the price dose not worry me as i will probbly never buy one
good lens cost a lot of money it sucks but thats life
i thought that this year would be veary hard on my vias card
with a 150mm f2.8 a metabones OM speedbooster and
a weather sealed 14mm looks like i will be saveing insted
maybe there will be some thing good next year
I think we’ll have to wait for the dxomark for it before we know if it’s really as good as reviewers claim.
However, the photo in the post would look much, much better if the photographer had actually focused on her eye(s) instead of the end of her nose. I’m finding myself hunting to figure out exactly what the intended focus point was. My guess: he used AF and doesn’t really know how to make it work for him. I couldn’t bring myself to post that photo online if I’d taken it.
dxomark does some scientific tests, but that’s not the complete picture of how good a lens is.
About the photo, I think the person taking it probably deliberately focused on the point of the nose, just to show how shallow the depth of field really is.
(And my personal opinion is, that this also gives a nice effect)
I agree about dxomark. It’s a good predictor of sharpness and cropability, but in reality, taking good pictures depends on a lot of things. For me, I shoot things that move a lot, and putting focus where I want it in low light is really #1. Even though the 60mm f/2.8 is quite high up there on dxo, I struggle to make it work for me.
The 45mm also has drawbacks for me, because the minimum focusing distance is too short to reliably focus on a subject near to me, for example my son while he’s playing. For those reasons, the 25 f/1.4 makes a far, far better lens in terms of the results I’m getting. Even if I have to crop for good portrait perspective, I’m still getting a much better picture than I would if I couldn’t focus accurately. The handling qualities of the 25 with the hood attached also make it much better for stability and getting the angles I want. Lastly, C-AF tracking works better on the 25 than virtually any other lens I’ve used, and it does get me better shots on moving subjects than S-AF.
I only switch to the 12-40 outdoors, I only use the 60 2.8 when I need close focusing on a static subject. And I only use the 45 when I’m a good distance from a slow moving subject.
A good lens can come down to the most mundane details. Surprisingly, one of the favorite lenses is still the Olympus 40-150 ED, the plastic one. With a hood attached, it handles very nicely, focuses accurately and quickly and gets me the shots I want. It’s not the sharpest thing in the world, but it renders nicely.
They’ll need to do a better job selling this lens as I have yet to see a sample that has come up to the quality of the Olympus 45mm. Marco’s Voightlander portrait was also better than any of the Nocticron samples so far.
Costs more than Oly 45 f1.8 + 75 f1.8 combined.
No thanks
Just consider 42.5 f/1.2 does not exist at all
the price is outrage
it is a fake f/1.2 => you cannot say it is same as Canon 85 f/1.2 and price the same as 85 f/1.2
Let’s just continue to use 45 f/1.8
“Will you buy the lens?”
No. Not interested in 42mm FL. Waiting for native 12 or 14mm F1.2 with AF. OIS would be welcome as well.
There’s a lot of quality glass for m4/3 in 40-50mm range, but how many sub F2 lenses under 15mm? One – SLR Magic 12mm, that’s MF.
am I blind ?
which part of that pic is in focus ? …maybe one of the pores on the nose 🙂
anyway …not my price level this b3ast
It wise to wait for reviews before go for this lens .
Lenstip & DigRev perhaps .
For me , Bokeh is extremely important .
I expect this lens should perform better in bokehlicious compare with the Oly 75mm lens .
it depends where & how you use to do an portraits …if outdoor I think 75mm is more usable, if indoor then 42.5 is better as you dont need big room
I found on some free dof calculator
0.23 m in focus with f/1.8 with subject on 5m with 75mm lens
0.42 m in focus with f/1.0 with subject on 5m with 42mm lens
you have to go to 3,5m to subject to have narower DOF with 42mm lens
but I agree with upper mentioend comments that the price tag is set to show exclusivity of Panasonic as brand …basicaly could be good marketing
Is it just me eyes or my monitor? The sample image above seems a bit blur and cannot be called as “sharp” at all.
+1,
but maybe we are both blind or not enough artists 😉
Chant with me: BOKEH! BOKEH! BOKEH! BOKEH! BOKEH!
This might be controversial opinion, but I think the people who need or want this lens are using the wrong system. For my use I don’t like thin DOF. I like to use and exploit the background for the benefit of a shot rather than blurring it out and for this reason small sensor systems are better for me. This obsession with thin DOF is ridiculous when I look at people’s work I rarely see the larger apertures utilised and when it is it is usually so poorly that IMO the shot has been ruined.
I think Pana knows this and expects most photogs on the m43 system to have similar opinions, thus expecting very little genuin interest and have priced the lens for very very few expected sales and small production.
Well, this actually gives more DOF wide open than the system you want us to buy.
So yeah, this is the correct lens for the professional!
But many so called photographers think you can only be a pro with 35mm gear.
They also want these lenses for free, because it’s their right to “own” them.
Well wake up. These kind of lenses have never been cheap and are not made for the casual/hobbyist.
LOL. I highly doubt they thought there would be very low interest, so just slap a high price tag on it. I think this is more of a thing to brag about, than to sell to the masses. There will definitely be plenty in their target market who will buy it, but it won’t be a ton of people. And, they won’t make a ton of these lenses either. That’s not their intention.
I agree that the DOF need is overdone. Not to mention beaten to death when it comes to m43.
for around $200 you could get a decent Jupiter-3 50mm f1.5 which is small and light, even with the adaptor, and you can also use it on APSC or full frame mirrorless cameras.
nice pics are on lenstip with G6 camera …not “only” nice bokeh but also the overall frame sharpness once stoped down
good job pana ..exlusive product! (finish, price, result)
LOL……a big 112mm f2.4 1700 euro lens for M43. M43 has lost it completly. This is by far the biggest joke of 2014 in cameraland.
Haha
Facepalm… 🙂 (please, at least do the math right)
The price doesn’t surprise me at all. Having good quality lenses is totally possible like the 45 1.8, 20 1.7 but if you want extreme lenses like this one and expect flawless performance wide open things get simply too complicated with the high pixel density of m43. I mean, if we scaled up the 16mp sensor of m43 to FF that would be something like 60-70mp. Is there any FF lens out there that does have that much resolving power?
For it’s qualities, the price of this lens is probably justified but I don’t see the point. For that kind of money I’d rather buy a CaNikon FF with an 85mm or an A7 with the 90mm 2.8 Contax G Sonnar for less less than what this lens alone does cost.
Or just buy the 45 1.8 which will appear the same in quality to this Nocticron. Probably the Bokeh of this lens won’t even be much better given it’s liberal use of Asph. elements.
But i want to impress the juicy models with a Cocticron.
I voted yesssss
I’m not rich and can’t afford this lens (for now). But I will buy it for sure when time comes.
I don’t know much about how to make lens, but I know one thing that it’s not easy to make a good one that is so sharp even wide open (and god this 1.2!!!)
after I downloaded several images, I noticed that the sharpness didn’t drop even using widest open.
In my opinion, compare to 45mm/1.8, the image is noticeable soft when we use F1.8. But I couldn’t see that on this lens. (i didn’t want to blame this lens, since it’s also a good lens for its price)
I also think that It’s not only the sharpness but it’s also look natural. I don’t know how to explain but I think the IQ from this lens is amazing and its character is quite outstanding, different from the other lenses.
I think a good thing for this M4/3 system is you have lots of choices for your taste (and pocket), such as leica 45/2.8, m-zuiko 45/1.8, voightlander 42.5/0.95 (and i believe that more lenses are coming!!!)
I’m voting no, not because of the price, but because there is not a true manual focus capability. I dislike the “focus by wire” approach to manual focus.
The long awaited Panasonic/Leica 42.5mm f1.2 lens was formally announced Jan. 6 2014 @ CES and has already met with a storm of carping complaints and derision by a “community” that probably does not deserve such efforts from the World’s Premier Quality lens maker. The reason for the storm of criticism ??? . . . . the price.
The micro 4/3 system is frequently panned for it’s inherent difficulty at producing pleasing bokeh. Along comes Leica, the most prestigious lens maker in the World, to address the bokeh shortcomings of the m4/3 system with a solidly built lens at the frontier of optical technology, exactly what we claim to desire, and we cry foul that such high quality, advanced designs should cost any more than ordinary lenses.
Should advanced design and top-shelf quality be sold at WalMart prices? Do we rage and rail against Mercedes and BMW for pricing their cars beyond our budget?
Truth is, we are fortunate that Leica would expend this much effort to design the “flagship” lens for a system which is such a minor market.
Rather than bitch about the price of this lens, save your money for the lens of YOUR dreams.
It is a great lens…but it is not made by Leica…Leica assisted with the design…which does matter. But the lens is built by Panasonic, which is still great. But it is not a Leica lens, and one should not judge price as if it were. It is manufactured in Asia, not hand built in Germany. That doesn’t subtract from its virtues, but again, let’s not try to justify price as if it were a true Leica lens.
Another thought, besides the ‘hand built’ part there is also a quality assurance part. If it were a ‘hand built’ made in Germany Leica, the price would be a bit higher…
You make it sound like people were hoping it would cost $300. Not the case! Most people figured it would come in at around $1000. I think even at $1199, there would just be a bit of grumbling, but $1599 is way too much for a leica designed, panasonic manufactured prime that they couldnt even be bothered to weatherseal.
it’s amazingly sharp at 1.2 ……..
I have the Panasonic/Leica 25mm f1.4 which is a very nice lens. Based upon my experience with the “Leica” lens I already own, (and love), I am willing to bet that the 42.5mm f1.2 Nocticron is ALSO a superior optic which will remain highly desired and will bring ONLY enhanced credibility to the micro 4/3 system.
Leica products are time honored because they are FIRST CLASS. Even though I cannot afford Leica cameras and lenses, I can use lenses DESIGNED by Leica thanks to their joint efforts with Panasonic/Lumix.
Ooops! Wrong location for this post. I intended to post this in response to “One More Thought”
I haven’t yet seen any criticism of the sample images in these comments. Has anyone else noticed that the highlights produced with this new lens are “cats eye” or football shaped?? It’s pretty distracting and disappointing to me. Comparatively, the 45/1.8 produces perfectly round highlight spheres that I love! Am I crazy here????! Is this just my weirdo fetish and no one else finds this a problem??
We know about that, and some of reviewers also talked about this.
But it’s just a small issue for some people (like me) 😛
PS. we called it “swirly bokeh” (search more on google you will understand about this kind of bokeh)
The Fujian 35mm f/1.7 is famous for this kind of bokeh, and that lens is actually pretty sharp. For $35 on e-bay. I took a picture of my son on the front lawn one day, and it looked like the world was spinning around him. Just an absolutely stunning lens.
I apologize for the poor compression quality, but here’s an example from my E-M5 with the Fujian: http://www.flickr.com/photos/97915135@N02/11820355395/
That’s a lovely bokeh, isn’t it?
I like this kind of bokeh too.
Yeah, for a few bucks they’re pretty amazing.
This is why I have no interest in the 42.5:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/97915135@N02/11554363525/in/photostream/
That’s the 25mm f/1.4…bloody amazing lens for that kind of shot (although maybe not the best shot I’ve taken with it). The room is lit with a single 60 watt equivalent CFL positioned behind me and pointed at the wall.
Note also, this is ISO 3200. I’ve figured out how to get clean shots up to 6400 (and very good shots at 12,800) by budgeting dissipated heat. It’s not hard…just set the viewfinder to “auto”, turn the screen off, and don’t raise the camera until you’re ready to shoot.
many people think that catseye is not good, without realising that its just about taste. I like perfect circular circles of confusion but i like the funky versions too.
I agree that unique novelty bokeh can be fun to play with, and can lead to interesting images, but I wouldn’t have expected ‘novelty’ results from a super premium lens. I expected creamy delicious blur, which I think is what 95% of people are looking for with a portrait lens.
I think the valid reason for expecting creamy rendering would be because its a Leica aproved lens. But i dont think that its 90% preference. You should check out the many manual focus forums. Russian lenses are quite popular, and they are known for their weirdness in rendering.
True, but on the flip-side, mirror lenses are often hammered for their rather weird donut-shaped bokeh. The entire concept of bokeh already says this, its subjective quality of out of focus rendering, and hence subject to taste. Many people sharing a certain taste at some point in time is subject to fashion, and changes with time. To witness, where donut bokeh is disliked often nowadays, it was rather popular for a while, and you’ll still find people liking it.
the mirror lens is a good example of taste determined by trend. It was very popular for fashion catalogue/magazine shoots(As a kid I remember the Neckerman catalogs with all those outdoor photos, wondering about those mysterious rings in the BG everywhere).Luckily not everyone gets influenced by joining the taste of the trendsetters and/or watchers. But I admit its sometimes questionable to go for a taste just to be able to be some kind of salmon type 🙂
I was really wanting this lens. Now at the released price it is not going to be for me. I only hae so much to spend on photo gear and the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 and the two other Olympus Pro lens coming in the future is more important. The OLympus 45 f1.8 will have to do for a good while. Still if the IQ is like it should be I will end up buying one at some point a few years from now.
My problem with this price is not that the price itself is too high. If someone wants Leica logo, aperture ring, full metal construction, heavier and bigger(!) barrel than the one from 45–200, it’s his/her uncontestable right to pay for it lots of money.
But also the budget-conscientious buyer has to be satisfied! If somebody wants a light body (even a plastic one), doesn’t need aperture ring at all, it’s happy with a cheap, but decent build quality like 45/1.8 and does accept even moderate software correction (with minimal loss of quality) why the hell cannot be satisfied with a much cheaper, but optically almost as good version? Pana or Oly doesn’t like the money, does they?!
(To be clear: 45/1.8 is not a perfect alternative for Nocticron as [1] cannot get that narrow DOF and [2] it has no O.I.S.)
If you can set aside any possible fear for manual focusing, i think the Konica Hexanon 50mm f/1.4 might be an decent option. The 1.2 is unfortunately very expensive.
No no no. Not for me of course.
Wrong question.
The real question is:
Does it offer an increase in utility worth its price premium when compared to the Oly 45?
It will, for those who allready used F1.2 lenses in the past.
Mind you, It’s not for the casual hobbyist.
The current level of fidelity of even flag ship M43 sensors can not justify a $1700 lens for me. I’d spend that money on superb glass for my FF system and wait 3-6 years and then reevaluate the state of M43 sensors.
All in all it is a great thing that this lens exists.
And your entitled to your opinion.
I, on the other hand, am of the opposite opinion, m43 is very capable of delivering professional quality pictures. My business thrives on it.
The picture clearly shows that 42.5/1.2 has too little DoF for portraits.
Wait! You’re claiming that micro Four-Thirds doesn’t have enough Depth of Field? That’s a first. I thought you had to have a 135 format sensor to get too little DoF.
It has much more DOF than 85mm F1.2 on 35mm.
And these kind of portraits show how ugly it is to have only a few nose pores in focus.
But in some circumstances it works, so composition is paramount.
Seeing how this forum is mostly visited by folks that inves in m43 gear and are photo enthusiasts.
All target buyers for this lens, Panasonic should really be disapointed in this poll.
Damn 7% of your already small target market is ready to buy it at this price.
I really doubt margins are low on this gem.
The should drop the price by 300$ and see their buyers emrace good news and at least 20% could buy on that move.
No to mention they will save face fo trying to pull a “Leica on us” common folk.
other panasonic FAIL just fanboy will buy any pro will know the disafvantage of the tiny sensor
Could you give me the meaning of “Pro”?
and if I’m not a Pro, Do I need to be a Pro???
PS. Are you also Pro? If your answer is “Yes”, could you give me your website? I wanna see the sample images from Pro.
This lens is a halo product. It helps establish m43 as the system with the best lenses. When you make something big and heavy on a system with a size and weight advantage, you usually end up making something really high quality, it’s pretty clear that’s what they were going for. From the reports, it sounds like panny made a $1600 lens and is selling it accordingly. I somewhat wish they had made a $1000 lens, but that wouldn’t have been as special. Steve Huff will probably write 3000 words about how incredible this lens is. Either that our this is all hype and it’s an overpriced piece of junk- leica doesn’t usually put their name on junk though.
lens willl be half price in 3 motnhs
Unfortunately, it will not be. It simply will not sell, so it even will not be available used on ebay.
Not sharp enough for me, too soft at F/1.2
75mm F/1.8 rocks !
The long awaited, NEW Panasonic/Leica Nocticron 42.5mm f1.2 has already been weighed in the balances and found to be wanting. Without even ONE lens delivered, or so much as a handful of photos, the nattering nabobs have already declared this lens DOA. It’s all over but a quiet burial for Leica & Co.
For the following reasons this new Leica lens is unacceptable as far as the m4/3 “community” is concerned.
It’s OVER-PRICED!!!!! . . . I can’t afford it, therefore it sucks.
It LACKS the Razor Sharpness and DOF that I demand from MY “Bokeh-licious” f1.2 lenses.
It should be made of plastic (so I can afford one), but it should still be a “Leica” otherwise.
It LACKS “weather-proofing” and windshield wipers.
The Bokehs are the wrong shape.
Not as “good” as my blah, blah, blah!
If it were CHEAPER it would be BETTER.
It should be CHEAP enough so I can have one of these sub-standard lenses.
My BET: NONE of the Nabobs carping and sniping against Leica/Panasonic, m4/3, and this lens in particular, have ever designed or built anything. Most of you couldn’t shove your finger in your butt with 9 hands.
Considering the sample picture posted here, I know why I am not interested in such a lens. Maybe I am just too old to appreciate pictures where not all *important* parts are in focus.
Then you really should use a P%S 😉
Foremostly the composition with these type of lenses should be done carefully.
This picture is just to show the 35mm fanatics that even m43 can have the idiotic portraits that seems so popular around the net.
I agree that at least eyes and nose and ears should be in focus on a close portrait, but eyes are a must, ears and nose are allowed to be a little off, we don’t need to see every irregularity.
That is exactly what I wanted to express. I can achieve the *necessary* low depth of field for portraits also with the fantastic Oly 45/1.8.
Before the FIRST lens is delivered, and without examining even a handful of photos, the nattering nabobs have already declared this lens DOA.
For the following reasons this new Leica lens is evidently unacceptable to our august (m4/3) community.
It’s OVER-PRICED!!! – I can’t afford it, therefore it’s superfluous…(Sour Grapes).
It LACKS the Razor Sharpness and DOF that I demand from MY “Bokeh-licious” f 1.2 lenses!
It should be made of plastic, (for my budget), but otherwise, still be a “Leica”.
It LACKS “weather-proofing” and windshield wipers.
The Bokehs are the WRONG shape.
Not as “good” as my blah, blah, blah!
If it were CHEAPER it would be BETTER.
The TRUTH is; Leica is probably the BEST hope, (along with Nokton), of bringing much needed credibility to the micro 4/3 system. Leica could design lenses for ANY camera manufacturer and charge a higher price for such an exotic lens as the Nocticron 42.5mm f1.2.
I guess this was created for the upcoming GH4K, and those RICH people that will end up buying that camera. I was originally attracted to M43 becasue it was a GREAT value compared to “CANIKON”.
Sure I guess this is a nice lightweight option compared to a Canon 6D ($1300) with a 85mm 1.2 ($1600), GH3 ($1200) with Noctichron ($1600) with same depth of field of the Canon stopped down to f/2.5, and same light low light performance as the Canon at f/2.5, at less than half the weight.
So I will get Canon SL1 ($350)same low light as GH3 and get a 50mm f/1.2 L ($1200)dept of field of 6D with 85mm 1.2 stopped to f/2 and I can still use the 50mm if I ever want to upgrade (or DOWNGRADE if you ask Will Crocket) to full frame…..
So, 194 people willing to buy at $1700 and 887 people willing to buy at $1200. With that data, why would a company NOT choose to price their product closer to $1200 than $1700? Wouldn’t their profit be greater by selling at $1200?
Wait. I can answer that question with a little algebra.
If the company’s cost per unit is about $1060, then they should be indifferent to selling at $1200 or $1700. But if the per unit cost is less than $1060 (as it probably is), they make a higher profit selling at $1200.
They undoubtedly know this. Some people will but at the high price but once they have done that we can expect the price to decline to whatever price makes the company maximum profit.
Heh, I’d like to see what happens to that poll when people would be required to buy the lens for the price they indicated. Talk is cheap, lenses ain’t.
For my needs, I don’t think it’s $1,200 better than my Olympus 45mm f/1.8. I’ll be passing on this lens.
I like the assumption a lot of people here seem to be making that the price Panasonic set is completely irrespective of the quality. Given that it seems to be a lens of exceptional quality and is internally stabilized, it’s actually possible that it really does just cost a lot to build.
You could argue that they should have aimed cheaper (less elements, for example, or no stabilization), which is legitimate (and some are no doubt arguing that), but I honestly have no particular complaint if what they decided to do was build the best ~40mm big-aperture lens they possibly could, irrespective of cost, and it ended up being very expensive. The large-aperture ~50mm manual-focus lenses for m43, after all, are running around $1000, so why is it so shocking that an AF with IS would be somewhat more than that, particularly if it has stellar sharpness?
Besides, if I wanted a budget large-aperture 45mm, I would buy Olympus’ nice f45mm/1.8 for $350. In fact, I have it, and it’s a great lens. So there you go–if you think this is too expensive, buy the Olympus and stop complaining. Or get one of the manual focus options for around $1000.
Now, it’s also possible that Panasonic decided they had limited production capability and could sell as many as they can make for $1600, then will let the street price float down later once production ramps up and early/wealthy adopters are satisfied. That’s fine, too–let them recoup the cost of their development investment if they want.
Personally, I’m just glad that it looks like they went absolutely all-out on the lens. I can’t afford to spend $1600 on it, personally, but later I assume it will come down, at which point I’ll be glad they did and I’ll be looking to buy.
+100!!!
This lens seems to be a branding and technology show piece, much like the Sony RX1R.
The branding exercise attempts to position this lens by way of specs, the Leica relationship and price, which is a very deliberate statement. The Canon 85 1.2 is a fetish lens, and very coveted. It is huge. It is heavy. It is slow. It is very expensive. Sound familiar? Except that this lens may actually be fast 😉 Canon users can buy the 1.8 or spend many times more for the 1.2. M43 users can buy the Oly, which is analogous to the Canon 1.8. A great value. Or go exotic, and get this.
The lens also addresses the “bokeh perception problem” of M43. I’m not saying it is a real problem. Or even a problem at all. But many still view M43 as bokeh challenged. This lens, and the Voits, should go a long way to putting that to rest.
This isn’t just an ordinary product release. It is a statement. It is not for everyone. But choice is good. Now lets see some fast long and fast wide primes, and a weather sealed rangefinder style body for M43!
Generally agree with your take on this, but one comment:
Shallow DOF (which this lens should give you) is NOT the same as bokeh.
Bokeh is about the QUALITY of out of focus areas, and is highly subjective, but has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘thin DOF’.
As people have pointed out, this lens has ‘cats-eye’ shaped bokeh, or swirly bokeh, which some people really like, but which according to conventional wisdom isn’t considered good bokeh, while the 45/1.8 according to that same conventional wisdom has very good bokeh. Again, this is highly subjective.
People who say any format is bokeh challenged simply don’t know what they are talking about, and generally just mean they can’t get very shallow DOF.
Yes, thanks for the clarification. This lens may address both pleasant hokeh and shallow DoF.
The Leica branding on this lens implies Leica involvement but I have not read anything to indicate what exactly Leica provides to Panasonic. While I’d love to believe that these lenses are Leica designs that are manufactured by Panasonic, the relationship may just be licensing. Anyone have any insight? Performance is performance, regardless of who designed it, but I’m fascinated by the Leica mythology.
Leica and mythology are one 🙂
Through, I ended up owning a small selection of classic Leica lenses, which quickly makes one realize why there exists such a myth.
As to leica and Panasonic, iirc Panasonic does pay Leica for the use of that name, but thats not where the agreement seems to end.
For what I understand, Leica has contributed knowledge and experience regarding things like lens design, coatings and quality assurance (and probably some other things), but I don’t think they are actively involved in the design or production of current Leica made by Panasonic lenses, rather, they enabled Panasonic to do this themselves according to Leica approved quality standards.
I’m somewhat skeptical of current Leica for a variety of reasons: they have a bunch of compact cameras that appear to be no more than Panasonic cameras with tweaked UI and button shapes, yet carry an exponential price for the same hardware. Then there’s the Leica branded EVF which appears strikingly similar to, and is interchangeable with, the Olympus, again at a big mark up in price.
And finally, it seems highly unlikely that a company so small could compete with the giant R & D resources available to Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic and Fuji. But a small band of German craftsman competing with technology titans is a romantic idea.
Having recently held vintage M3, M2 and glass, I cannot argue against the spectacular build quality and feel of the vintage products. Nor can anyone argue that some of the greatest photographers cherished their Leicas, and many of the best images ever made were shot with them. So I’m eager to see more results from the Nocticron with hopes that it will live up to the Leica name and price, making it a great aspirational product for a humble hobbyist portrait shooter like me 🙂
Leica doesn’t even try to directly compete with Canon, Nikon and the like. They tried in the 1960s to 1980s, but have given up on that approach, and withdrew to their market niche. Digital Leica compacts seem mostly a fashion article for photographers with a huge mark-up for the name, I share your skepticism with regards to that.
R&D wise, Leica has always concentrated on their own areas of expertise, and shopped around for things outside that (especially electronics), and have very high margins, so it might actually not be that difficult for them to compete with regards to optical quality. Also, they did have a bit of a head-start in this.
As an aside, your description of Leica is very similar to how one could describe post world war 2 Nikon, that bunch of Japanese engineers ever being considered real competition for the German camera industry seemed at best a romantic idea. Funny how things change, yet stay the same.
The new Sigma 50mm F1.4 ART is going to kill this lens. An it’ll do it at $499.
Uh NO.
Already spec wise it won’t kill it, it’s F1.4 and not m43!
Totally different design etc.
So yeah, you are clueless.
Will the Sigma sell well for APS-C, yes, it probably will.
I meant to write: it’s F1.4 for APS-C and not m43
and my earo eaktar will beat the sigma, so whats your point, except making promotion for another format,
M4/3 companies should concentrate on making relatively fast, affordable, smallish lenses like the 45mm f1.8. For M4/3 the pursuit of FF-like shallow DoF is a big mistake as it only leads to overpriced, oversized and still not fast enough lenses. Fuji can make a 85mm f1.8 equivalent which is cheaper, faster and even smaller than the Panasonic f2.4. Why? Bigger sensors always make easier to make shallow DOF. That is no good for Panasonic, no good for M4/3.
I do repeat again: for M4/3 the pursuit of FF-like shallow DoF is a big mistake. It’s a lost battle. Better to accept it and concentrate on the strengths of the system.
I agree readily. Some companies respond to trends, and the one towards extreme bokeh is the one they can exploit. So you get the consequences.
OTH is you want plain, simple honest resolution and less blurriness Sigma is clever enough to cover the other end.
It depends on your style, and what you do for your living, and if and what photography is part of it. The most ridicule is those who speak of ‘freedom of choice’ while they are mere collectors, with no known photography.
Nay I do not agree with this, which is prob based on your personal preference how to shoot. Every system has a few lenses which are aimed for including shallow dof. You can realise shallowness with 1 inch sensor,MFT sensor(and i dont mean the supercloseups; this way yuo can create the effect even with smaller sensors). But ofcourse its not as shallow as the 24×36 format, which in turn is only average compared with 4×5 “sensors” etc,etc. People who say this “trend” does not fit within MFT, for whatever reason, have a tunnelvision in the way they think.
soft and noisy =fail
I’m I the only one who LOATHES this sort of extreme shallow depth of field? For me, the greater DoF for a given F-number is a huge benefit of 4/3rds, not a disadvantage like all the forum measurebators keep saying.
No you’re not. But an F1.2 has it’s use, and due to the fact that m43 has more DOF for a given F stop it’s an advantage.
Shallow DOF photography leans heavily on correct composition, but most pictures are done wrong as is proven by the numerous ugly examples here on the net.
This forum has the most supporters for disliking dof style like this one, so dont pretend you are alone lol
Many people here have expressed near outrage against Panasonic/Leica for pricing the new Nocticron 42.5mm lens @ $1600. While perhaps the most expensive lens in the m4/3 system, the Nocticron 42.5mm lens is NOT expensive for a Leica lens. Not by a mile.
Leica, the world’s most respected lens maker for the past 75 years, is a welcome contributor to the m4/3 format even if we can’t afford a particular lens at a given price point.
Fact is; Ordinary photographers and hobbyists NEVER COULD afford Leica products. Leica products have always been priced well beyond the reach of the masses. In the 1960’s and 70’s, mostly the WEALTHY owned Leica and mostly NOT for picture taking. During that era, wealthy men bought and COLLECTED Leica products as a hedge against inflation. Ordinary picture snappers couldn’t even touch one.
ACTUALLY, the fact that we can even breathe the vapors of the great Leica heritage is a testament to the partnership between Panasonic and Leica. Only Panasonic has been able to offer Leica quality within the reach of enthusiasts photographers.