Panasonic 12mm f1.4 announced

[ntblowz]

On 6/17/2016 at 6:11 PM, John Matthews said:

Actually, I'm a little confused about why the bokeh balls are bigger at F2. Does the size of the front element decide that?

Like how 35mm 1.4L @ F2's bokeh is 50% bigger than the one from 35mm F2 IS USM, so yeah could be one of the reason

 

[John Matthews]

3 minutes ago, ntblowz said:

Like how 35mm 1.4L @ F2's bokeh is 50% bigger than the one from 35mm F2 IS USM, so yeah could be one of the reason

Thank you for responding. I'm genuinely interested in the reason for why that is because the difference seemed huge (almost double in size) between the Panasonic f1.4 and the Olympus F2! I know you can change the shape of the bokeh by placing a dark piece of paper with it cut in the shape you want in front of the lens, but I didn't know the front element size determines the size of the bokeh ball... interesting.

[MattH]

On 18/06/2016 at 2:00 PM, John Matthews said:

Thank you for responding. I'm genuinely interested in the reason for why that is because the difference seemed huge (almost double in size) between the Panasonic f1.4 and the Olympus F2! I know you can change the shape of the bokeh by placing a dark piece of paper with it cut in the shape you want in front of the lens, but I didn't know the front element size determines the size of the bokeh ball... interesting.

Yes, this is very interesting. I didn't believe those samples at first. I thought there must have been something changed between those shots at f2. I thought it was defined by the aperture opening.  So if this is true this would explain why full frame often seems to have more blur for the equivalent depth of feild. Because it's a longer focal length the front element is larger so the bokeh balls and also bokeh in general will be more spread out so to speak.   Which makes me think, this panasonic 12mm F1.4 could perhaps be thought of, in essence, as a full frame 24mm 2.8 with built in speed booster? Except designed from the ground up of course.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

On 6/18/2016 at 5:15 AM, Shield3 said:

...which is why I left ISO off of my point.  I was simply stating all things being equal, 12mm 1.4 on a 2x crop = 24mm 2.8 on full frame.

But it's not. It's a 1.4. The exposure will be exactly the same as a 24mm 1.4, just with more depth of field.

[Michael Coffee]

On 18/06/2016 at 11:07 AM, dbp said:

There was a big thread on bmcuser arguing the same thing. Someone else posted an example proving that assuming crop + aperture math is correct, the look will be the same. 

Though at some point, there won't be a lens wide and fast enough to mimic certain full frame lenses.

According to this site, with subject at 180cm -  a 25mm f1.4 on MFT will give you about a 20 cm plane of focus, while a 50mm 2.8 on full frame with give you about 21.5 cm... so the MFT is only a little better than half, but not much. Real world shooting seems to bear these numbers out too..

 

http://dofsimulator.net/en/

 

[sanveer]

On 16/06/2016 at 5:34 AM, tdonovic said:

Its f1.7, not 1.4, so not really a fair comparison

Please read this. 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/768816-REG/Panasonic_H_X025_Leica_DG_Summilux_25.html

[hmcindie]

On 6/18/2016 at 3:50 PM, ntblowz said:

Like how 35mm 1.4L @ F2's bokeh is 50% bigger than the one from 35mm F2 IS USM, so yeah could be one of the reason

The focus is off on the 35mm f1.4L, it's focused closer to the camera and thus the focus point is blurry. The text on the left side of the frame is WAY more blurry, which also accounts for the bigger bokeh balls.

[John Matthews]

2 hours ago, hmcindie said:

The focus is off on the 35mm f1.4L, it's focused closer to the camera and thus the focus point is blurry. The text on the left side of the frame is WAY more blurry, which also accounts for the bigger bokeh balls.

Please explain this then: why are the bokeh balls almost double the size at F2?

[Inazuma]

19 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

Please explain this then: why are the bokeh balls almost double the size at F2?

 

IMO it has to be user error. 

[John Matthews]

12 minutes ago, Inazuma said:

IMO it has to be user error. 

I'll let you judge for yourself:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Leica_DG_Summilux_12mm_f1-4_H-X012/

Then, come back and tell me what you think as to the reason for why this is. I said front element, but I'm not 100% certain.  

[Fritz Pierre]

Taken in the context of image quality and comparing this lens to the cost of cine lenses, this lens is actually a bargain. As for the tired old FF/M4/3... John Mathieson/Alien/Blade Runner/Gladiator etc...shot everything on 200 ASA film and lit for F5.6 period!...that's because any larger aperture would be impossible for the focus puller on a feature/commercial/tv series/documentary.

This lens finally fills the much needed niche for M4/3 users...a wide fast lens with very good optics...wide and fast equals pricey!

[tdonovic]

14 hours ago, sanveer said:

Please read this. 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/768816-REG/Panasonic_H_X025_Leica_DG_Summilux_25.html

I replied to a mention of the 15mm f1.7, where you said it was f1.4. 100% there is a 25mm f1.4, I have used it. That lens IMO needs to be replaced, the plastic body and ehh af needs to be replaced with something a bit newer.

I don't think its fair to compare the 25mm f1.4 to the 12mm to say the 12mm is overpriced, just look at the price difference between the canon 50mm f1.4 vs the 24mm f1.4.

In AUD is $400 vs $2k. Fast wide angles are really expensive.

[hmcindie]

17 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Please explain this then: why are the bokeh balls almost double the size at F2?

 

Because they are (for some reason) comparing corner bokeh, not center ones. The upmost corner (right side). The corner bokeh is stretching a bit for the Summilux, kinda like the Canon 50mm f1.2 has ovally looking (and pretty cool too) bokeh balls in the edges of the frame. It could be that the lens is focusing on a different point depending on how farther you get from the edge.

There' also something weird going on at f1.4 -> f2  where the bokeh is completely differently sized on the same Summilux lens. Maybe they cropped into the corner on some lenses but not always? It's jsut too obvious the f1.4 shot is taken from a different position, the bokeh balls are just so different versus the f2 ones. And that makes the testing suspect. Unless the lens is really that weird.

 

[cantsin]

I recommend downloading the sample images at DPReview and opening them in a raw editor that does not apply software-based distortion correction. Turns out that this lens isn't optically corrected and distorts heavily unless software correction is applied.

Software-corrected out-of-the-cam JPEG:

Raw image without software correction:

I wouldn't recommend this lens on any camera that does 1:1 sampling of sensor pixels (which includes the GH4 and Blackmagic cameras) since you'll lose quite a substantial amount of resolution.

Panasonic's pricing of this lens is, well, ambitious.... 

 

 

[John Matthews]

3 hours ago, hmcindie said:

Because they are (for some reason) comparing corner bokeh, not center ones. The upmost corner (right side). The corner bokeh is stretching a bit for the Summilux, kinda like the Canon 50mm f1.2 has ovally looking (and pretty cool too) bokeh balls in the edges of the frame. It could be that the lens is focusing on a different point depending on how farther you get from the edge.

There' also something weird going on at f1.4 -> f2  where the bokeh is completely differently sized on the same Summilux lens. Maybe they cropped into the corner on some lenses but not always? It's jsut too obvious the f1.4 shot is taken from a different position, the bokeh balls are just so different versus the f2 ones. And that makes the testing suspect. Unless the lens is really that weird.

 

Thanks for the response @hmcindie. Cameralabs does pretty good work and I think Gordon would have gone through the right process for his shots. He could have made a mistake though... He talks about the balls in his article and the difference in size and their shape (the speculars were not round to begin with)... he doesn't give a reason though. Maybe, I'll just ask him. But are you saying it's impossible to have such a difference at F2 from one lens to another regarding bokeh balls? Is F2 always F2 regardless the lens or how wide of an aperture it starts?

[John Matthews]

I wrote Gordon and here's his answer (thank you for the quick reply):

Quote

 

Hi John, I'm not a member of that forum, so I can't post personally, but I had a quick look at the comments.

One thing I would like to point out - as stated in the text in my review - is that the sources of light weren't points or even circles. They were LEDs where the element was more rectangular than circular. So unfortunately this has spoilt the comparison somewhat, as when the aperture is even closed one stop, you'll see the true shape of the bulb become more apparent. I realised this as soon as I started the test but with it being late at night and the lenses being returned the following day, I had no choice to shoot anything different. So yes with these lights, the bokeh does look quite different between f1.4 and f2 on the Summilux lens.

When comparing lenses I also like to see how they handle the same composition, so I always try to match the subject size and position on the frame. For different focal lengths, this involves shooting at different distances. You'd think two lenses quoted as being 12mm would share the same magnification and field of view, but there are slight variances, so I had to move the camera very slightly to match the subject size and position. In this case only by 2 or 3mm, but it will have had an impact on the size of the blurring. This is on purpose. I want to see how two lenses handle the same composition, the same subject size and framing. You can see another example of this in my Olympus 40-150mm review if you scroll down to the bokeh section.

cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_M_Zuiko_Digital_40-150mm_f2-8/

If I get both lenses at the same time again I would try and attempt an outdoor comparison with lights effectively at infinity.

I hope that helps explain the testing a little more and that you still find some aspects of the review useful.

Gordon

 

 

[jase]

So, now that this lens is floating arround for some time: did anyone actually buy and use it?

[wolf33d]

On 6/23/2016 at 5:05 AM, cantsin said:

I recommend downloading the sample images at DPReview and opening them in a raw editor that does not apply software-based distortion correction. Turns out that this lens isn't optically corrected and distorts heavily unless software correction is applied.

Software-corrected out-of-the-cam JPEG:

Raw image without software correction:

I wouldn't recommend this lens on any camera that does 1:1 sampling of sensor pixels (which includes the GH4 and Blackmagic cameras) since you'll lose quite a substantial amount of resolution.

Panasonic's pricing of this lens is, well, ambitious.... 

 

 

Can you please explain why this lens would loose a lot of resolution with gh4?

[Santiago de la Rosa]

"Can you please explain why this lens would loose a lot of resolution with gh4?"

Same question but with BMPCC

[jonpais]

1 hour ago, jase said:

So, now that this lens is floating arround for some time: did anyone actually buy and use it?

Michael Ma's got one.