LEICA DG NOCTICRON 42.5mm / F1.2 Dream lens?

<p>I just found out about this lens. I must admit if it lives up to its potential I am seriously considering it. I find this FL useful for SP; not too long and more discrete, the compressive effect is nice and it allows one to achieve initmacy without causing annoyance to complete strangers. The price makes me think two things-<br>

1) It's closer to a<em> real</em> Leica lens than anything we've seen before for u4/3; a genuinely high-end product. <br>

2) I will be looking very closely at the reviews before I buy it.<br>

Er...actually three things<br>

3) I might very well have to upgrade my body to bring out the best in it. <br>

I will be astonished if this doesn't have a lot to offer (67mm filter), I wouldn't be surprised if it has a similar sharpness profile to the 25/1.4. However, at about twice the price, I will be <em>very</em> surprised if is not really really good. <br>

Sooooo....who's tempted?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>not too tempted; one of the selling points of m4/3s for me is size so I prefer the Oly 45. Its also why I like the Panny 20 over the 25. If I am going to carry big glass, I might as well carry a bigger body.</p>

<p>I've tracked down an early review at lenstip.com<br /> It's looking pretty wonderful when lenstip get it right. Unfortunately, lenstip seem to be unable to take a really a sharper picture than this!</p><div></div>

<p>Harvey, "Big glass"? Are you for real?<br /> It's three inches long! Is that <em>big</em> to you? For a top flight 85mm FL and f/1.2?<br /> There's this thing called physics. You might have heard of it?</p>

<p>Twice the price of the 25mm f1.4? It's closer to 3.25 times the price here in the U.S. at $1,699 vs. $529 for the Leica 25mm f1.4.</p>

<p>The price is an issue but look at premium lenses from Canon, Nikon or Sony. Really good glass <em>never</em> comes cheap. Certainly that (one!) shot that I posted looks very very good. Of course we'll all have to wait for photozone.de or dpreview to make the final judgement, but a 1.2 was never going to be a budget lense....and it is a Leica, which carries an (almost) excusable premuim.<br>

I'm not prosetylising, just very excited. </p>

<p>It would certainly make a killer addition to go along with the 75mm f1.8 M. Zuiko. You could do worse than the 25/1.4, 42.5/1.2 and 75mm f1.8. I already have the other two and will never say never on this new one, but I may have to decide which I want first, it or the 40-150mm f2.8 Olympus is releasing later this year.</p>

<p>Got to wonder if it's really worth that much more than the Olympus 45mm 1.8.</p>

Glad to see any high quality addition to M43 lens lineup, but was somewhat surprised by the price, size and weight of the Pany f1.2 compared with the just announced Fuji 56mm F1.2, which is somewhat lighter and smaller than the Pany and considerably cheaper. Perhaps the difference can be attributed to the all metal construction, optics, and OIS included in the Pany although the Fuji lens has a longer focal length and covers an APS C sensor. M43 needs to retain its advantage in smaller, lighter lenses given other mirrorless alternatives. For now, the Oly 45 f1.8 works fine for me.

<p>- for 4/3 it more than man crave for ,but if I wont to use it for portrait may even concede full frame as format </p>

<p>KK, the all-metal construction seems un-necessary, to myself at least and this surely must account in part for the very high price. Even the hood is metal! Perhaps this is as much a statement of intent as anything else? Who would like to see (going out on a veeeery long and shaky limb here) a Leica u4/3 body? Not a rebadged Panasonic, but a German-made body with the ergonomics of a GX model but Leica sensor and processor? I can't help thinking Panasonic are looking somewhat enviously at the praise Olympus consistently gets for its OM series. Would be good to see the Leica/Panasonic relationship in inverse proportion to its current mode. Although we all know that as soon as that little red dot appears, price becomes an issue</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Although we all know that as soon as that little red dot appears, price becomes an issue</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well not for the prosperous materialistic members of our community with refined tastes. <br>

Like we successfull international arms dealers:-)).......</p>

<p>I would love to see a Leica m4/3 body, but only if they produce the glass to match it. I'm not sure Leica has the resources to add another lens line to their stable, and I'd hate to see modified FF lenses adapted for m4/3. It would kill the size advantage.<br>

Of course, I'd never spring for one, anyway. :-)</p>

<p>Much as I like M4/3 I just cant see the point of an M4/3 lens in this price range. At then end of the day a system is only as good as its weakest link and the M4/3 sensors even with an $1800 lens are not going to match Canon/Nikon/Sony FF for IQ.<br>

I was just last night comparing my EM-1 with Oly 12-40 f2.8 output versus my Canon 60D with Canon 24-104 f4L. So it was the latest M4/3 sensor with Oly's supposedly first pro M4/3 lens versus a 3 year old Canon APS-C body and a consumer oriented L lens, and while IQ was very close, I'd honestly have to rate the Canon output a little better.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, I am for real and if I am going to look at a large heavy lens on my EM-5, I might as well grab the D800 with an 85/1.4. Even more limited DOF. </p>

<p>Geoff I think you are unwittingly making a case for u4/3. Just look how far the format has come in such a short time. No-one on this site thinks of high end glass as anything other than a long-term investment. With the pace of change slowing considerably in the DSLR market and u4/3 getting better with every new iteration, it won't be long till "close" becomes "just as good". I doubt it will ever get better than FF, but we will very soon be at the stage where convenience, form and other personal factors over-ride the slight difference in IQ. Many people are already there. I have little desire for full frame, but am excited about the upcoming developments in this format. I attach, purely as an aside, a shot I recently got with the 25/1.4.</p><div></div>

<p>Stephen<br>

Maybe I am making the case for M4/3 but my point was the latest "pro" oriented M4/3 gear is still behind older and cheaper amatuer APS-C gear, let alone FF. If I am really after such quality that I would drop $1800 on a lens I'd simply go for a Canon 85 f1.2.<br>

For me M4/3 is about small, convenient and acceptable quality for a given price, not incremental improvements for a huge increase in price, where final quality is at best only on par with the next size format.<br>

I think this is where Olympus went wrong with 4/3. They went the high quality, high cost route with a lot of lenses that simply could not deliver given the below par 4/3 sensors.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You're not wrong Geoff. A Pentax K-5 II plus good lens produces outstanding images. I would certainly never<em> fault</em> someone for going down the DSLR route. I presonally enjoy my GX1/25 combo so much my D5100/35G is in the cupboard, but that is just me. I was very happy to see DXO Mark stating that the difference between the new GX7 and the NEX-6 was very small. So the GX7 sensor is now equal to that of a D300s- add a Leica lens and you have a very nice combination. I tried the NEX series and could not stand the menu system. The ergos of the GX1 suit me down to the ground, but there is little doubt it's the lens which makes the difference. I found a good retailer in Shanghai that is currently selling a GX1 plus 25/1.4 for 4,500 RMB, which is about 1,500 RMB cheaper than a D5200 plus 35/1.8G- at this price it's purely personal choice.<br>

As a mainly SPer I feel much more comfortable with a rangefinder style of body....and so do my subjects. If I was primarily into landscapes or something other than SP, then a DSLR would give me more options. But I would note that throwing my Canon M1 plus 22/2 lens into a day bag can be done almost as an afterthought- not so with a K-5 combo. It is right now a question of priorities. I can understand people who refuse to consider this very expensive lens for a format which is "just big enough" to get serious, but for me, after seeing what the 25/1.4 has done for my options, it's on my radar. But a large part of this is that I plan to wait till the GX9 or whatever next generation body comes out which is significantly better than what I have now and am counting on increases in performance to bring them on a par to a D5100 for example- once the 1K high ISO barrier is broken I will be happy.<br>

Whatever anyone uses, good luck to you and good shooting!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm glad you like the Panny Leica 25 f1.4. I have it on order and should be with me in a few days.</p>

<p>Please let us know what you think of it after a few days in the field. I've heard there is a slight issue with q.c. in this lens- some exampes are unacceptably soft for some reason. I can really see a case for a fixed lens version of the GX7 with the 25/1.4 on it, if the price was right. I am glad to have reached a 'rest point' with my current setup, or at least a format I'm happy with. Shooting SP at night the other day I was very glad to have the width of aperture to use a pleasantly low ISO. I thought, "This is is it! I've finally got what I need to do what I want!".<br>

This was followed swiftly by the thought "You've got no excuses now, Steve". :-(</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Canon 24-104 f4L<br>

...<br>

a consumer oriented L lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL. That lens is even more expensive than the Olympus lens you were comparing it with (assuming you are talking about 24-10<strong>5</strong>/4L). And I would say the Olympus lens is also "a consumer oriented pro lens", because their "real pro" zooms were f/2, not f/2.8.</p>

 

<p>Stephen,<br>

Did you take, or do you own the rights to, the photos you've uploaded to this thread? </p>

<p>lenstip posted the first photograph and made it freely available as a full-size download, which I made clear in my post, while the monochrome Buddha is mine.</p>

<p>[[lenstip posted the first photograph and made it freely available as a full-size download]]</p>

<p>Bottom of the lenstip page:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is illegal to copy or redistribute any information found on this site in any way without the expressed written consent of CO-NET Robert Olech</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.lenstip.com/394.12-Lens_review-Panasonic_Leica_DG_Nocticron_42.5_mm_f_1.2_Asph._P.O.I.S._Sample_shots.html">http://www.lenstip.com/394.12-Lens_review-Panasonic_Leica_DG_Nocticron_42.5_mm_f_1.2_Asph._P.O.I.S._Sample_shots.html</a></p>

<p>It is also a violation of photo.net rules to upload photos that you do not have the rights to.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>OK, I feel very embarassed and stupid now. I thought that a freely downloadable image on a review site meant for discussion of a product, with acknowledgement of the site in the citing made it alright. I see now I was very wrong.<em> I will never do that again.</em> I have tried on several ocassions in the past to copy and paste a link to a site but whenever I go onto the response area of p.n page, the paste option is missing when I right click. Could you please tell me why this is?</p>