+- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com)
+-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Micro-Four-Thirds (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Thread: Leica DG Noctitron 42.5mm f1.2 for M43 announced. (/showthread.php?tid=1597)
Pages:
1
2
Leica DG Noctitron 42.5mm f1.2 for M43 announced. - davidmanze - 01-11-2014
Well, this Leica design appears to hit all the spots producing sharp results from the F1.2 "get go" (even at the borders), Leica M series owners might well be justified in scratching their heads, thinking why it costs $9400 less than their Noctilux 42.5 F0.95 which cannot produce very sharp edges until F4.
Leica DG Noctitron 42.5mm f1.2 for M43 announced. - popo - 01-11-2014
The Noctilux is both faster and covers a full frame sensor. The Noctitron only has to cover half the image circle. If you could somehow fit it to an M body, I think you'll find its corners are significantly worse.
Totally different application! You want a Noctilux equivalent, then you'll need to wait for a 25mm f/0.48. You could be waiting a while.Leica DG Noctitron 42.5mm f1.2 for M43 announced. - Scythels - 01-12-2014
By area it's actually 1/4 the image circle.
Leica DG Noctitron 42.5mm f1.2 for M43 announced. - Brightcolours - 01-12-2014
Indeed, as pointed out by popo and Scythels, the Leica 42.5mm f1.2 is only a 85mm f2.4 135 format equivalent, so not in any way comparable to that Leica 50mm f0.95. Still a very nice little lens, though.
I am scratching my head about how unattractive the results from that Leica 50mm actually are, though.
Leica DG Noctitron 42.5mm f1.2 for M43 announced. - davidmanze - 01-12-2014
Quote:I am scratching my head about how unattractive the results from that Leica 50mm actually are, though.I totally agree with you there! the $9400 price difference should have gone a long way to redress the performance on the FF sensor even with it's one stop advantage, but it didn't!
Leica DG Noctitron 42.5mm f1.2 for M43 announced. - Rainer - 01-12-2014
Albeit I do think that this 42mm f/1.2 is a nice piece of engineering ...
I do not really see a need for such a lens.
For object isolation using shallow depth of field, you're better off with a
85 f/1.x on full frame (regarding the price of the Leica lens, I would
personally prefer an old EOS 5D(1) with a EF 85/1.8 ... bought used,
I get away with half the price Leica asks for it's lens)
For fast shutterspeeds in low light, most cameras already offer
good to acceptable high-iso capabilities ... so f/2 is usually
good enough for that.
And finally, one main aspect of a m4/3 camera is "being small" ...
somehting that does not really apply any longer if you mount
the 42/1.2.
So, besides being nicely made ... I do not see a market for this.
Just my thoughts .. Rainer
Leica DG Noctitron 42.5mm f1.2 for M43 announced. - Klaus - 01-12-2014
The market is there for sure. The pricing is a bit insane though.
The question may be weather the Voigtlander 42.5mm may be a better bet though.
A 85mm is hardly an action lens so manual focusing is not out-of-question.
Leica DG Noctitron 42.5mm f1.2 for M43 announced. - dave9t5 - 01-13-2014
I'm not sure about the need for stupid xx.5mm increment marketing focal lengths. Couldn't they just call it a 43mm lens (both Voigtlander and Leica)?
This marketing number is surely more precise than the nominal (as-designed or as-computed) and actual (as-manufactured) focal lengths.
It could be acceptable on small-format wide-angle lenses where each 1mm translates to a more significant difference of field-of-view, but on a 43mm lens, it's only a 1% difference!
Leica DG Noctitron 42.5mm f1.2 for M43 announced. - Brightcolours - 01-13-2014
Quote:I'm not sure about the need for stupid xx.5mm increment marketing focal lengths. Couldn't they just call it a 43mm lens (both Voigtlander and Leica)?The reason they call them 42.5mm lenses is to make totally clear that they are 85mm FF equivalents.... Traditional 135 format focal lengths are the "standard".
This marketing number is surely more precise than the nominal (as-designed or as-computed) and actual (as-manufactured) focal lengths.
It could be acceptable on small-format wide-angle lenses where each 1mm translates to a more significant difference of field-of-view, but on a 43mm lens, it's only a 1% difference!