A Look At The Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f1.2 Nocticron Micro Four Thirds lens 

Amen

Sukhi Rai I think that is probably one of the reasons Panasonic came out with this lens. It's on the road to making MFT a truly viable professional system. Some way to go with high speed teles and a specialist lenses but it's getting there.

Sam, 5 years later, are you still shooting weddings? Are you still using MFT? Did you upgrade to the S1R?

Do you still use this lens?

Thanks Ilja! Yes, I'd thought the same thing re 1.4 and size myself. Maybe a similar price to the Olympus 75mm.

Es gibt das Lumix 42,5 mm f1,4 es kostet sehr viel weniger und ist fast so gut, natürlich ist f1.2 noch etwas anderes, aber 1300€ 😮😊

@@winheiMR, by the time this lens was introduced and this this video produced, the F/1.4 lens wasn't a reality yet.

Nice of you to say so, Conrad and I appreciate it.

It was and remains one of the best lenses I've ever used.

It#s hard getting hold pf Panasonic lenses. I buy most of my stuff for review but the lenses are getting so expensive now! The Nocticron - fantastic lens!

Far East Survival you are a novice and you bought the nocticron? How is the video?

+MrJueKa Thank you - I love doing it.

MrVoayer Thank you!

:-)

Thank you, Juan, much appreciated!

Thanks Dan!

Mark Seawell Glad you enjoyed the review. Yes, it's a lens that is defined by its image quality at wide aperture. Stopped down to f4 or 5.6 or more it's sharpness is all anyone could hope for but so are quite a few other MFT lenses like the Summilux.

sski66 Thank you very much! Yes, It's very easy to get carried away by a lens like the Nocticron but the advantage it has over the Olympus lies purely in that extra stop of speed. Other than that the Olympus competes on even terms. I've said it over and over but the 45mm f/1.8 is a bargain even at full retail price.

Yes, an example of deciding the specs and then building the lens, charging what is necessary.

Thanks! Yes, a fantastic lens but if you try to emulate what a FF system will do, you do end up with something approaching FF sizes. You chose Micro Four Thirds for the very reasons it exists and that involves accepting the limitations. I'm entirely happy with the Olympus 45mm or the Panasonic f/1.7 42.5mm both of which are much more in keeping with the Micro Four Thirds ethos. Best of all worlds to have the choice,though!

+Michael Paz I hope they do prove useful - thanks Michael.

Glad it was useful to you!

The differences between the Nocticron and your lens are marginal in IQ. You pay a heavy price for around a stop difference in speed.

Glad you like them, Justin, thank you. The phase detection focusing of DSLRs can give off focus results sometimes because it is not seeing what the camera is seeing. The contrast system on Micro Four Thirds is foolproof since it is reading directly off the sensor so sees what the camera does. PDAF is better for continuous autofocus still, though with Olympus's hybrid PDAF and Panasonic's Depth from Defocus they are fast improving.

I was very impressed myself. Essentially you press the button and it is focused. In many cases it means you don't need CAF at all. On the other hand, Olympus's PDAF aided focusing on its high end cameras remains that bit better for the most trying of sports subjects, especially in low light. Panasonic's SAF has long been quicker than Olympus's though I find the difference academic in normal photography.

lesdeth12 Interesting comment. Shooting in the conditions you describe is the reason a lens like this exists and as more 'specialist' lenses like this are introduced more professionals like you will see the MFT system as a practical - even better - alternative to DSLRs under many circumstances.

+Let's Go Outdoors It is a very effective lens so whatever the GH5 it will use it to its advantage.

sosmannz Thank you!

Thank you, Ekasak! Yes, it's surprising how different tones can be between different lenses. The less radical lenses usually have fewer lens elements and that makes a big difference. The Oly 30mm that I reviewed recently renders beautiful clean, natural images and that was what i most liked about it. Some of the older film lenses have a pleasing rendering too.

John Ioannou Yes, that background blur is very, very attractive and can just make a picture.

+John Packard It's great to hear that and thank you, John.

Thanks - it's easy to take it for granted that faster is better for lenses -just as it is with cars - but nothing is for nothing and I feel strongly that other considerations can weigh against it. I think that comes from my professional view that equipment serves a purpose and sometimes that purpose is better served by smaller things. In my office we had a range of high speed Nikon tele lenses in the cupboard. The fact is that 99% of the 300mmm pictures were taken on an f/4.5 Nikkor because the fast one was just too unwieldy while the f/4.5 was always in the bag and just easier to use.

Tobeon2 Sleep well while you can. Do you have a 17mm lens you are happy with? The new 17mm f0.7 Polympasonic is the sharpest and fastest lens the world has ever seen and only £2,700. I'be bought two of them in case one gets broken. You _know_ you want one :-)

Onky 2,700 euros?, yikes !! Lol

That's very nice of you to say so, Vitaly. Thanks you.

Thanks! However, to avoid censorship I will start my videos in future with a shot of me wearing a back to front baseball cap and a cry of "Hi Guys"!!! . I will follow it with shots of me at a desk waving the review item about and regurgitating the spec sheet :-)

Glad to hear it- thanks for letting me know!

+Bruce Hammersley Thanks, Bruce and thanks for taking the trouble to say so!

Ws6er97 Thanks, glad it's been helpful. I'm doing the same as you, waiting for the 150mm f2,8, such a useful focal length. I'd like it if they did a high quality1.4x converter for it, too.

powermichiel I hope so too! That would be a lens that I would definitely like to have. If they made a 1.4x converter for it as well, that would be ideal.

Yes, I did this review before the onset of Dual IS and top notch IBIS on Panasonic bodies, Now that both makers have excellent IBIS lens stabilisation is icing on the cake, really.

No, a lens can only be so sharp. You really are paying the extra for the extra aperture. If you like to shoot at f/2, a practical aperture for portraiture to get adequate depth of field, it really doesn't matter you are using this or the Panasonic or Olympus slightly slower lenses. But, if there are occasions when you really want the extra speed, you can't open an f/.7 to f/1.2!

Frederick Hagan The contrast between the two lenses is highlighted by the fact that one is value for your money whereas the other is a bargain. If Olympus had brought the 45mm in at a 30% higher price, I doubt it would have dented the sales at all. Like you, if I hadn't already had the 45mm I might have thought about the Panasonic, though I think I would have bought the 45mm anyway.

I think you're right and it largely succeeds. There is a wide variation in body sizes and especially lens sizes. An Olympus E-M10 is a different animal from a Panasonic GH5 but fit the 12-32mm and the GH5 doesn't feels so big. Fit an Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 to the E-M10 and it feels quite big. One of the reasons I went to Micro Four Thirds was so that i could use the same lenses and accessories on my go-walkies body and my work body. Micro Four Thirds will always suffer in some photographer's eyes from a smaller sensor but if that sensor will give razor sharp 24 inch prints or more than fill a 4k monitor, what is the purpose of more?

That's certainly how i use it. My camera is for my travelling and hiking mostly, but i just took it out in the snow...and it barely feels like i had it on me! But if i wanted to do photography for its own sake, like still-life, wildlife, portraits, street and just play around with perspectives...i also have a good enough set-up for it...it might not be top of the class, but i'm not a Pro. I'm an enthusiast who likes to make photos.

***** Yes, I found it hard to put down. Just gazing through the finder and seeing your subject standing out like 3D is a real pleasure.

It's a good combo, 15 and 42.5. With those and a little leg work, there's not much you can't cover. The 100-400mm, it's a good job that it's an Micro Four Thirds lens. If it was built to do a simialr job on FF, it wouldn't be called Superman, you'd need him to carry it :-)

freedriv082000 Thansk! And yes, certainly a gold standard lens in terms of performance. I stick pretty much to MFT cameras, simply because my reviews depend on me knowing the equipment very well and using it daily myself. If I extended my reach. Nonetheless, if a Fuji came my way I'd be very interested to try it.

Thanks, Pete. Yes, lovely lens.

It's funny, because I frequently get comments saying how pleasant and relaxing my voice-overs are. For myself, I started out not long ago never having even recorded my voice, let alone written and recorded a voice-over. Ditto video, I'd never pressed a video button until I started my Micro Four Thirds channel. So my videos are not how they are from my choice but because that's the best I can do. I tried talking to camera like all the 'hi guys' people with their baseball caps and who just talk extempore but it wasn't for me because I make my videos for information rather than my ego. I just finished up not saying half the things I thought were important. So, there it is. Balanced and comprehensive, you have expressed, in a nutshell, exactly what I aim to be - thanks!. That Attenborough, overrated, you know. Doesn't know what he's talking about. All that stuff about animals and the planet, it'll never catch on😆

Thanks so much, Richard - I'm flattered!

freedriv082000 I'd love to do that. Unfortunately the Olympus don't even acknowledge my emails,let alone answer them!

bajigurwedangronde The little Olympus fits in my jacket pocket so it's usually around for me to use.. The Panasonic I'd have to plan for, take a bag. I'd love to have one but I wouldn't take it out unless I was pretty sure I was going to use it.

Jerubei When photographers talk about equivalence, they mean angle of view. This 42.5mm gives the angle angle of view of an 85mm on a 36x24mm sensor and that is what the photographer will see. However, if the exposure is 100th@f/1.2 on a FF camera, the exposure will the 100th@f/1.2 on an MFT camera. The actual quantity of light matters only to a scientist, it has no bearing on practical photography and serves only to confuse what is an already confusing subject.

David Thorpe I couldn't disagree more and I'm surprised to see someone separating science from photography, as if photography is not subject to the laws of physics. You state that we should apply the crop factor to the angle of view (although the correct term here should be "focal length"), but not the aperture or the ISO. You are aware that a crop sensor receives much less light than a full frame sensor, simply because it has a smaller surface area. The difference between the total light hitting each sensor is exactly the difference between their sizes - 1.5 times less light for APS-C and 2 times less light for m43 systems. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this question - why do m43 systems don't offer the same depth of field as full frame cameras? In other words, why does an f1.8 photo on an full frame system has a much shallower depth of field as compared to an f1.8 photo on an m43 system? The answer is that people forget to multiply their aperture by 2 (on an m43 system). Using the above example, a photographer, who would like to achieve the same depth of field on both systems, would have two options: - On the full frame camera, he would have to shoot at f1.8 x 2 = f3.6, to have the same amount of depth of field, as that on the m43 system. - On the m43 system, he would have to find a lens with aperture of f1.8 / 2 = f0.9, which will compare to the depth of field on the full frame camera, shooting at f1.8. The above example assumes that both the focal length and the distance to the subject are equivalent (e.g. a 70mm f1.8 on the full frame vs 35mm f0.9 on the m43 system). If you don't believe me, take a full frame and a cropped body, with equivalent lenses, and compare the depth of field of the test shots. All of this confusion comes from marketing gimmicks, which many people fall for - after all, imagine how photographers would feel like, if they realized that they've spent thousands of dollars for glass, which they believed was f1.8, but it is in fact f3.6. There will be many people throwing their m43 cameras in the garbage, when they realize there aren't any low light lenses for their system - at least until recently, before the arrival of the f0.95 Voigtlanders and the Panasonic f1.2 lens in your review. I can point you to several sources, including RU-vid videos, explaining what I've just written, if you so wish.

Jerubei Honestly, I am just a bloke who has earned his living from photography all his working life. I never found it necessary to apply mathematical formulae to sell pictures and technical matters are only about 5% of using a camera professionally anyway. As far as I am concerned a camera is a machine for making pictures and that's it. It's not that I don't believe you it's that I don't think that what you say has any relevance to me. I think of a picture and go out and take it. That's it.

David Thorpe I understand your point, especially if your shooting style doesn't include low light photography. But you should agree that by stating that this is a 85mm f1.2 lens to 24,000 people, you help spread misinformation. That's why I suggested you investigate this further, maybe create a video about it, and continue with your otherwise excellent reviews.

Jerubei You say that I state this is an 85mm f1.2 lens and that my style may not include low light photography. I've just realised that you haven't watched the video! First of all there are many, many low light shots in it. But mainly, at _no time_ in this video do I say that this lens is equivalent to an 85mm f1.2. I describe it equivalent to a full frame 85mm _portrait_ lens. I think you may be so keen to make your point that you are nor hearing what I say correctly.

***** Thansk, John

It wouldn't unless you screwed it really, really hard as it doesn't bear directly on the lens barrel. Glad you like the videos. thanks!

Nice!

Oh, come one ND - _Don't Be Cruel_ 🙂

@@DavidThorpeMFT Couldn't resist 😂

@@breadyegg _That's All right_ , its just that your comment left me _All Shook Up_ 😆

Haha! I knew my videos would come in useful for something!

Jean V Thanks. And good luck with the lottery :-)

***** I don't know about that but it's mazing to hear it said - thanks!

Wile-E45 I'm far from always right(!) but it's the use of things that interests me, much more than actual technical information. I read one report on this lens talking about uneven exposure across the field. I looked for it but couldn't see it in any of my pix. But, If you photograph a test chart, I suppose it must be there. Most of us don't, though, do we?

Shaka Thanks Shaka! I shall keep my nose to the grindstone :-)

:)

:-)

Bart Nelis Thank you, Bart.

I specialise in Micro Four Thirds so that would be my choice. It's a great size and weight for street work. Olympus 17mm f/1.8 and 45mm f/1.8 make a classic street outfit. Panasonic's 12-32mm and 35-100mm mini lenses give away nothing in optical quality but give you an amazingly versatile travel outfit that doesn't even need its own bag. It's when you read my lens choices and realise there are so many alternatives that you see the great advantage of the Micro Four Thirds system. Want a 17mm - choose from f/1.8, f/2.8 or f/1.2? Standard zooms? - any number of them from cheap and cheerful to expensive and razor sharp.

malcolm russell Yes, in my view the one must have lens in the MFT system. Classic portrait angle of view, small, light, very sharp and ideal for any situation where you want to limit DoF - and currently less than £200 in the UK.

Conrado Sosa Thanks Conrado. Yes, cheap it isn't so it needs a bit of thought before committing to buy it.

Thanks! Yes, he's a handsome beast isn't he? Knows it, too. I really must try one of the Voigtlanders one of these days.

@@AdrianVenturaMusic Sounds like an artistic effect to me 😀 That sort of thing doesn't bother me very much as I only use such a thing - or an EVF - for framing. I gauge the scene by eye and then just photograph it. For street work with a 54° angle of view lens it's sometimes best just to watch the scene by eye and raise the camera somewhere near the face or neck and shoot blind with focus at around 2.5m and f/4 or 5.6.

PrometheusDrago What can I say? Thanks!

studioviper Thank you!

It's good and sharp at f/5.6 from what I read. But then so is my 14-140mm zoom. Interesting lens but one to play with rather than buy, I reckon, considering it is twice the price of the Nocticron which may be a stop slower but is still very, very fast and is perfectly usable wide open. Try manual focusing on a fast moving child at f/0.85 for a bit of fun :-)

Yes, it is. The much more expensive Panasonic probably has the edge in sharpness but it's not something you'd notice in everyday work. Thanks for the kind words, much appreciated.

attentionaddicts Glad you liked it - thanks!

I haven't used a 75mm, though I would like to. For me, it is a little too long for general portraiture indoors so a bit less versatile than the Nocticron which is fine in or out of doors. The out of focus areas of both are very pleasantly rendered but the 75mm will appear to blur the background more in spite of its slightly smaller aperture. That's due to background objects being rendered bigger due to the more compressed perspective compared to the 42.5mm. So, if I wanted portraiture mainly indoors, the Panasonic it would be. Outdoors, I'd go for the Olympus. Another way of looking at this - if you have the budget for the Nocticron, you could buy the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 or Olympus 45mm f/1.8 PLUS the 75mm and still have a couple of hundred over.

Thanks for putting it that way! I didn't realize how much more expensive than the 75 the noctocron was! Since I already have the 42.5mm 1.7 I might just save up for the 75mm down the line! Thanks for your insight!

chevypowertogo Thanks!

Console yourself with the thought that some people _prefer_ the f/1.7 on account of its size.

Alex Martin Thank you, Alex!

If you are very, very good and and ask Father Christmas, who knows :-)

David Thorpe Yes I gonna ask Sinterklaas for the lens! :) Something offtopic but maybe you know something about it. I have 2 GH3 camera's now both are firmware 1.2 . the old GH3 is from nov2012 and the new GH3 from nov2013. Both are set identically. But on the old version the ISO dial is on top and on the new version the ISO dial is on the back. The dial settings are the same in the menu. What is wrong and do I miss a setting? I prefer the ISO dial on top.

+Scott Shumski I think the f/1.2 is really only worth it if it is going to be used at f/1.2. Personally, I used to shoot portraits on my Hasselblad with 150mm lens at f/5.6/8 to get enough leeway and f/4 on my Nikons with the 85mm. That would equate to f/2 for similar depth of field on the MFT lenses. For general portraiture, I wouldn't use f/1.2, too shallow focus - I use my Olympus 45mm at f/2. I agree over the look when being used professionally, though, That would be my main reason for buying such a big lens. Otherwise, the f/1.7. No difference in performance and the DoF difference is there but marginal. But since the G7 is quite a small camera, probably the smaller lens suits it better. Difficult!

+David Thorpe Thanks David. I really think it's an esthetic thing for me. Although i do like to shoot wide open in low light, i can't see the value. I will have to wait until i have the chance to buy a decently priced used one to warrant the $$. I really appreciate the feedback & what you contribute with your vids!

+Scott Shumski Thanks for that Scott. I think used is probably the best way to go with lenses like these. Takes the edge of the price bit not the performance!

+David Thorpe That's for sure! I used to buy/sell/trade them in Philly when I was younger. I learned then but even more so now with the changing electronic technology. Actually just picked up the 45mm macro for $400. And the 7-14 a month ago for $950. :)

+Scott Shumski You sound like a happy man!

igetsmart The f1.2 is a bit more than 2x the brightness of the Olympus, so 100th @ f1.8 on the Olympus would translate to 150th @ f1.2 with the Panasonic.That's in mathematical terms, of course. Is that what you meant? In reality the different glasses and contruction would have an influence so it wouldn't be that exact. Glad you liked the review!

Hi Richard - everything you say points to buying a 'proper' macro lens. The Nocticron is at best 'close focusing' at about 0.5m - about 1:10. My personal favourite and one of my most used lenses (for product shots on my videos among other things) is the 60mm Olympus. That will give you up to life size 1:1 and the lens is formulated for that close focusing, less distortion and a greater focus movement for more accrate focusing. Autofocus is fine, too. Finally, if you will be using a tripod, the speed of the Noctilux will be superfluous. I'd look at the 45 and 60mm macros but generally, 60mm is a more useful focal length, giving you a little more breathing room between you and subject for lighting and shadow avoidance.

One of life's truths.

The cat is single shot single focus. For most sports I use the same because it is so fast you don't need continous focus. If something is approaching or receding fast at an acute angle continous works best.

Thanks, Ferita!

No, I haven't reviewed the Olympus. Olympus don't deal with minnows like me. At this level, I wouldn't think there wold be any practical difference between them, any differences would only be seen on test charts and the like. The only advantage of the Panasonic would be on Panasonic bodies where you would have the dual stabilization. No that I've ever noticed Olympus stabilization needing augmenting!

The best of all worlds except one.....money :-)

netsurfer912 Yes and it's not going to be a mass market seller so the price probably won't reduce that much. :-(

Thanks, Mike! The other point is that there are plenty of alternatives to these bigger lenses so no-one loses anything because they exist.

+batterista I think the 12-40 is fabulous, if a little large. If someone had told me that they would be producing an f/2.8 zoom with virtually no practical sharpness hit compared to 3 primes covering the same range, I'd have said pull the other one. Focusing, ultimately it is the camera body doing the work of saying where focus should be, the lens's job to carry out the body's instructions. That's mostly a mechanical consideration, weight of lens elements being moved, quality and design of motor. I'm surprised if the 12-40 let you down in that respect - a consistently out of focus result would be most likely the fault of the camera itself. For busy scenes, the smallest possible focus area needs to be set. Busy scenes are usefully coped with by back button focusing too - actually the 12-40 has that great function buitton on the d=side purpose designed for such difficult situations.

+David Thorpe I'm lost. :) I've been photographing for years and don't know what back button focusing is! Do you have a section on that?

+David Thorpe hey, I just figured it out, back button focusing that is...it's a GAME CHANGER!!!!

+batterista That's great - it's a very, very useful technique. Takes a bit of practise to get the feel of it. For anyone who doesn't know it, essentially you set the camera's AE/AE lock button so that pressing it actuates focusing, letting it go stops focusing. Then set the camera to continuous auto focus. Now, when you press the button it follows focus but if the subject stops, taking your finger off the button leaves focus on the subject. So, if you are following a player who looks likely to score a goal, you can move focus point to the goalkeeper and release the button. Thus, anyone player who momentarily gets between you and the goalkeeper will not divert focus. It's useful for more than just that, of course. Some Olympus lenses have a function button on the lens which is an AF lock by default. While I'm at it, another useful little attribute of Olympus lenses with the focusing clutch, where you pull it back and it engages manual focus. If you manually focus on something and then push the ring back to resume autofocus, when you next pull the ring back to manual, focus will return to where you previously set it. Very useful!

+David Thorpe yeah, I tried the continuous focus thing on my EM5 and it still performed poorly. :( Was using the Panny 100-300...I think there's something wrong with my camera. I've heard there's a way to troubleshoot or test your cameras autofocus. Mine tends to see through the target to back focus with subjects at distance. It's an infuriating issue which has cost me a lot of shots.

nef li Lots of fun trying this lens.

Focusing speeds are no different on Olympus or Panasonic bodies with either marque of lens. Even so, it might seem tidier to match Olympus with Olympus or there may be aspects of either lens that you prefer. I'd probably prefer the f/1.8 45mm Olympus as a match for the EP-5 since it is so much smaller. You pay an awful lot in extra money and weight and size for for an extra stop or a bit less of speed. In practical use, the f/1.8 is just as sharp.

Yes, the scratches are a bit ugly. This lens was lent to me by ePHOTOzine so it's been sent around all the magazines and bloggers and seen a very hard life. I don't think you'd see the damage in a lens that was used by an individual. Why hood screws rather than bayonets on I don't know. Yes, I was hoping for that 150 f2.8.

Marek Kolesar No, I was there a couple of weeks ago, mostly in the Union Bar with some Associated Press photographer mates. You can be sure it is me if there are crowds of beautiful women vying for my attention and my pink Lamborghini parked on the concourse :-) I was hoping I'd hate the lens, too and I admit to starting out with a prejudice on account of its size. I've written a bit more about it on my blog. I'm struggling just as much as you, I hate to say!

David Thorpe

David Thorpe

It look sort of sweet, doesn't it?

It's an Olympus so sadly was never going to have stabilisation. It's too big for my taste but plainly a superb lens. Panasonic is getting a bit left behind now in the lens stakes and will be more so when Olympus's 300mm f4 comes out.. I think that Panasonic sales to stills photographers will suffer if they don't respond. The GH4 is a superb stills camera but so is the EM1 and if Olympus have the lensesmore stills shooteers will turn to them. Who wants an unstabilised 300 or 600mm equivalent. Glad you like the reviews. I love dojng them.