let guess the price of 42.5mm nocticorn and who want to get it?

[Errz]

looks good...but not the price hehe.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Leica_DG_Nocticron_42-5mm_f1-2_H-NS043E/

Lot of sample photos here...
There are same images shot@ f1.2, f1.4, f1.8 and f2...
But I like those shot at f1.8 and f2 than those at f1.2 & f1.4, personal preference. ..

 

[Errz]

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/lenses/129471/1/leica-dg-nocticron-review
http://www.lenstip.com/2073-news-Pa..._mm_f_1.2_Asph._P.O.I.S._-_sample_images.html

 

[poison1]

Wow. Amazon JP accepts pre-order liao. 151000JPY available on 13 Feb.

 

[nextdoor33]

The question is, is it so much better than the Oly 45mm? If the results are not noticeably and significantly different, it would be a tough sell imho.

 

[theITguy]

People simply do not understand. Only those who have spare cash or needs it will buy it. It is the same with 85mm for Canon and Nikon offerings.

All these talk about whether it is significantly better than 45/1.8 is rubbish. It is either one has no spare cash or no need for it. The lens is already better with the bigger aperture and very usable wide open resolution.

 

[nextdoor33]

Well, it seems you're the one misunderstanding. Nobody is contesting if it's better. What I'm putting out there is if the 1k+ difference in price is justified by difference in output.

Also, bigger aperture doesn't necessarily make for better lenses.

 

[Anson]

People simply do not understand. Only those who have spare cash or needs it will buy it. It is the same with 85mm for Canon and Nikon offerings.

From a person that own both a FF and a m43, even a cheap 85F1.8 would win in the "blurness"(the word "Bokeh" is too subjective) war compared to this Leica F1.2 lens.

Personally to me the m43 system is something I regards as a "toy" which I would not normally for my $$$ work. Thus there must be a big justification in ROI if I were to spend so much on a lens.

 

[NazgulKing]

People simply do not understand. Only those who have spare cash or needs it will buy it. It is the same with 85mm for Canon and Nikon offerings.

All these talk about whether it is significantly better than 45/1.8 is rubbish. It is either one has no spare cash or no need for it. The lens is already better with the bigger aperture and very usable wide open resolution.

Well, lots of people don't seem to get that an extra stop of light entails a huge jump in costs since, like all things precision, pricing follows a logarithmic correlation....

 

[theITguy]

Well, it seems you're the one misunderstanding. Nobody is contesting if it's better. What I'm putting out there is if the 1k+ difference in price is justified by difference in output.

Also, bigger aperture doesn't necessarily make for better lenses.

Again, you are the one that is confused. Bigger aperture IS ALREADY better, better by means of faster. If you need that 1+ stop of light, you need that one plus stop of light.

The justification to buy from a logical viewpoint is, (1) do i need that stop plus of light, (2) can i afford to pay and (3) is the IQ any good, better or worse than the 45/1.8.

If it is not a need but a want, the IQ becomes the priority followed by affordability. Sad to say, many here cannot afford the price, wants it but not need it, hence using the IQ to determine whether to buy or not.

If you want to use the IQ to determine, then there is no need to, because most of the time the IQ/price ratio is never going to give you that indicator. If you do not believe, just try to compare the full range of Canon and Nikon lenses, between their L and non L lenses. The more expensive lenses will either matches or be slightly better. You will not want to oay that few times more to gain that little IQ unless you need that speed gain or can afford it to brag about.

 

[nextdoor33]

Bigger aperture = Better already?

I really beg to differ. Just look at the 25mm f.95 nokton -- soft wide open.

I also find it humorous how sure you are of its IQ when you've never even used it.

Anyway, what I'm anticipating is that the Oly and Panny images would be hard to tell apart, and hence what is it about this 42.5 that will woo m43 users to opt for it and not the already excellent 45mm? That is all that I was wondering about bro

 

[Agrivar]

Bigger aperture = Better already? I really beg to differ. Just look at the 25mm f.95 nokton -- soft wide open. I also find it humorous how sure you are of its IQ when you've never even used it. Anyway, what I'm anticipating is that the Oly and Panny images would be hard to tell apart, and hence what is it about this 42.5 that will woo m43 users to opt for it and not the already excellent 45mm? That is all that I was wondering about bro

There are many new to m4/3 who don't understand that an F1.2 lens is worth every penny if you need it and have the cash. Those who reply negatively to this lens are not serious enthusiasts or pros and therefore this lens is not for you. Move along. No need to criticize the high price. You do get what you pay for. And like ITGuy says, go check out the Canon or Nikon equivalent then you get a better idea. Serious IQ and best in class optics cost thousands of dollars.

 

[Agrivar]

Bigger aperture = Better already? I really beg to differ. Just look at the 25mm f.95 nokton -- soft wide open. I also find it humorous how sure you are of its IQ when you've never even used it. Anyway, what I'm anticipating is that the Oly and Panny images would be hard to tell apart, and hence what is it about this 42.5 that will woo m43 users to opt for it and not the already excellent 45mm? That is all that I was wondering about bro

You obviously don't know what 0.95 is for. Soft? Yes. But show me a tack sharp 0.95 in ANY mount. If you are ignorant. Don't post. Otherwise people who know what 0.95 is for are all laughing at you.

 

[nextdoor33]

Haha there's no criticism of the lens happening here. It's a valid musing on how the 42.5 will measure up vs the 45 dollar for dollar

 

[116520]

I think it is an excellent lens. If compared with lenses used with full frame cameras like canon or nikon, it is very cheap. If you compare it with lenses with the same spec used by leica m cameras, it is dirt cheap... but as a 4/3 user, I think it is still a bit overpriced. But as some bros here mentioned, it depends on whether u have the extra cash n whether you need it or not. Some of us will find it worthwhile, as it is very small in size n produce excellent quality pictures at a relatively cheap price.

(p/s:I don't think 4/3 are toys)

 

[NazgulKing]

Haha there's no criticism of the lens happening here. It's a valid musing on how the 42.5 will measure up vs the 45 dollar for dollar

Comparing lenses this way is nonsense. No manufacturer in the sane mind will follow a silly linear scale to price their lenses when the costs follow a exponential scale. If you don't get what I just said, then don't bother criticising the cost/benefit ratio because you will never get it.

It is a world of a difference between a 85mm/f2.4 equivalent lens vs a 85/3.6 equivalent lens when it comes to DOF. Yes, DOF, not the aperture size. If you want it, you pay for it. Unfortunately, the problem with M43 is that you have to pay through your bloody nose just to get every single bit of DOF, compared to full frame.

I think it is an excellent lens. If compared with lenses used with full frame cameras like canon or nikon, it is very cheap. If you compare it with lenses with the same spec used by leica m cameras, it is dirt cheap... but as a 4/3 user, I think it is still a bit overpriced. But as some bros here mentioned, it depends on whether u have the extra cash n whether you need it or not. Some of us will find it worthwhile, as it is very small in size n produce excellent quality pictures at a relatively cheap price.

(p/s:I don't think 4/3 are toys)

What is overpriced for a person with less cash will not be overpriced for another for whom the money in question is mere chunk change.

 

[nextdoor33]

"Criticize lens", "criticize the cost/benefit ratio". I really wonder when I did that

Also, it's actually 90 f3.6 vs 85 f2.4. 5mm in 35mm terms can a difference in DoF

 

[poison1]

aiya, the 25mm f1.4 also double the price that of a 20mm f1.7. 习惯就好。

 

[theITguy]

Anyway, to sidetrack a bit, I read somewhere that a Zeiss 50/1.5 is not as sharp as another 50/2.0 Zeiss. But people still buy, why?

Some photos are best taken not as sharp, with a some softening preferred. Another is the light gained. The former is a need for portraits under low light and perfect, better than the 50/2.0 for photographing females.

Anyway, I never like 50mm equivalent, just for sharing.

Now which big aperture Len is tack sharp? Actually there is this glow from many famous big aperture lens. I think both Leica and Zeiss have it from past reports. Again, I am not user of such expensive lens, simply I am poor man

 

[grantyale]

If one really has to have F/1.2 or F/0.95 lenses for M43, maybe going 35mm is a better idea. Each system has its design sweet spot and ideal applications. For example, Voigtlander 17.5/0.95 + E-M5 weighs about 1kg and costs close to USD 2000; and EOS 6D + 35/2 IS weighs 1.1kg and costs about USD 2500 - the extra twist, of course, is one can go one step further to get the Sigma 35/1.4.

 

[theITguy]

Have to depend on the existing setup. If you are already invested in m43 it may make more sense to stay within m43 and uses it as the base. Funny to keep changing system, although there are people who uses 2 systems for different purposes.

35mm is not a popular focu length. Should look at 50/85/90/100/135 for reference