John Matthews Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 I'll just add my 2 cents. What makes a lens great: high micro-contrast high sharpness across the field excellent IS low distortion round bokeh balls low chromatic aberration no vignetting maintains colors easy-to-use and handle withstand torrential rainfall durable reasonable size aperture ring distance markings perhaps more?... The above looks mathematical, but if you like the look, you like the look. It's more subjective than people think. This lens checks a lot of boxes (no IS, but no big deal with a GX80). So, why does this lens cost so much? It doesn't. I'll argue in favor of buying this lens on the sole criterion: "I like the look." Lenses can range from free (someone gave me one once) to millions (think NASA). Now, the cost of ownership could be actually quite cheap (provided you don't break it). At $1299 (retail full price), it seems expensive, but how much can you sell it for later? I bet you could sell it for more than $600 by the time you move on to something else. Meanwhile, you've just shot a bumload of photos and videos with the "look" you like. How much would that be worth to you? In short, the Panasonic Leica 12mm sounds like a state-of-the-art lens for 2016. And, if you were to put your money in a lens for MFT, a fast wide one would be a good place. They're the more difficult ones to design and manufacture... period. Also, this thing is quite small (which is arguably THE POINT OF MFT). "But it's not full frame!" Who cares? People get caught up in this argument all the time and it's quite meaningless. Can I get shallow DOF on MFT? YES!!! "But I want only the cornea of the eye to be in perfect focus and the rest to be a beautiful bokeh ball!" Really? If there's one argument not often made against full-frame, it's that it lacks DOF (especially for videography)... just saying. It's no wonder that film industry rarely uses them. TheRenaissanceMan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 40 minutes ago, John Matthews said: I'll just add my 2 cents. What makes a lens great: high micro-contrast high sharpness across the field excellent IS low distortion round bokeh balls low chromatic aberration no vignetting maintains colors easy-to-use and handle withstand torrential rainfall durable reasonable size aperture ring distance markings perhaps more?... The above looks mathematical, but if you like the look, you like the look. It's more subjective than people think. This lens checks a lot of boxes (no IS, but no big deal with a GX80). So, why does this lens cost so much? It doesn't. I'll argue in favor of buying this lens on the sole criterion: "I like the look." Lenses can range from free (someone gave me one once) to millions (think NASA). Now, the cost of ownership could be actually quite cheap (provided you don't break it). At $1299 (retail full price), it seems expensive, but how much can you sell it for later? I bet you could sell it for more than $600 by the time you move on to something else. Meanwhile, you've just shot a bumload of photos and videos with the "look" you like. How much would that be worth to you? In short, the Panasonic Leica 12mm sounds like a state-of-the-art lens for 2016. And, if you were to put your money in a lens for MFT, a fast wide one would be a good place. They're the more difficult ones to design and manufacture... period. Also, this thing is quite small (which is arguably THE POINT OF MFT). "But it's not full frame!" Who cares? People get caught up in this argument all the time and it's quite meaningless. Can I get shallow DOF on MFT? YES!!! "But I want only the cornea of the eye to be in perfect focus and the rest to be a beautiful bokeh ball!" Really? If there's one argument not often made against full-frame, it's that it lacks DOF (especially for videography)... just saying. It's no wonder that film industry rarely uses them. I recognize a bit of rationalization there to try and talk ones self into a purchase. amiright? ;-). Been there. John Matthews 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Matthews Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 8 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said: I recognize a bit of rationalization there to try and talk ones self into a purchase. amiright? ;-). Been there. Ha! I wish. I think I'd love the look! But my wife wouldn't like the price tag! If I were a solo guy and I could make money at either photography or videography, I'd do it in a heartbeat! Unfortunately, I live in a lost part of France where the equivalent of craigslist rules the imagery world. I have to stick with teaching English- it's what I'm good at. Meanwhile, I need to buy my wife a new car- maybe version 2 of this lens... in 5 years. Jimbo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbp Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Price is the only thing that scares me away, but I'm sure it'll be a great lens. OIS isn't as big a deal on wider lenses anyway. I'm curious to see it on the BMPCC as mucxh as I am on the GH4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrorSvensson Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 8 hours ago, Andrew Reid said: The original A7?... hmm. Similar results to a GH3? Not really. It has bags of aliasing, moire, pathetic codec and a soft image. Not my cup of tea. If you're going to use the 55mm F2.8, why not put it on an A7S for 1080p? Yes 4K has a lot to do with it. You need better lenses for it. i dont shoot a lot of video, im more of a stils guy myself but when i shoot video i need 1080p 60fps and upload it to youtube and tbh the people who watch my videos are used to most people using t3i's shooting 720p so it defiently good enough for me. I see your argument and you make good points, still think that 1300 is ridicoulous price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredrik Lyhne Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 If this lens is in the same league as the 42,5mm f/1.2 Nocticron, which it most likely is, I think the price is worth it. The image samples look's great and the size of the lens is perfect on GH-cameras, doesn't look too big on the GX85 either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Coffee Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Review with test shots - looks nice, would like to see more... be aware the presenter is being filmed on a FS5 with Sigma lenses (and a speedbooster) Fredrik Lyhne 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Matthews Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 On 6/15/2016 at 11:03 PM, ntblowz said: Na not really, see how the new Leica is double the bokeh size vs Oly 12mm, both at same F2, the glass is not all about spec sometimes Leica 15mm 1.7 is metal build, only the 25mm 1.4 is plastic, just wish the 25mm can be updated with metal built and aperture ring. Actually, I'm a little confused about why the bokeh balls are bigger at F2. Does the size of the front element decide that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inazuma Posted June 17, 2016 Author Share Posted June 17, 2016 The most comparable lens is the fujifilm 16mm f1.4 wr. Like the Panasonic it is 24mm equivalent, weather sealed, has a f1.4 aperture and is a 5/5 rated lens with excellent sharpness and rendition. But this lens is $699. Do you really still think the $1299 price on this is justifiable? John Matthews 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Matthews Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 8 hours ago, Inazuma said: The most comparable lens is the fujifilm 16mm f1.4 wr. Like the Panasonic it is 24mm equivalent, weather sealed, has a f1.4 aperture and is a 5/5 rated lens with excellent sharpness and rendition. But this lens is $699. Do you really still think the $1299 price on this is justifiable? I'm going to say that it's not quite comparable. First, that lens has been on the market for some time. The list price is $999 when it first came out. This Leica has JUST come into the market. Second, I know Fuji makes great lenses and I'm sure this one is wonderful, but could there be more value in the "designed by Leica" made by Panasonic brand? I'm not sure. I bet this lens will come down in price a little within the first 3-6 months... especially if no one's buying it due to cost. I think Panasonic got hit with a heavy design cost by Leica and now they have to make it up. Perhaps, they gave it a "premium" price to get more pros... just an idea. This branding strategy is a little strange and contradictory in a way. It's like making a Ferrari designed Ford or something. How much would you pay for that? I guess if it looks and drives like a Cobra- that's cool. However, if it looks and drives like a Mustang with a Farrari engine- less cool. Not sure if that makes sense, but that's kind of how I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chris Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 4 hours ago, John Matthews said: I'm going to say that it's not quite comparable. First, that lens has been on the market for some time. The list price is $999 when it first came out. This Leica has JUST come into the market. Second, I know Fuji makes great lenses and I'm sure this one is wonderful, but could there be more value in the "designed by Leica" made by Panasonic brand? I'm not sure. I bet this lens will come down in price a little within the first 3-6 months... especially if no one's buying it due to cost. I think Panasonic got hit with a heavy design cost by Leica and now they have to make it up. Perhaps, they gave it a "premium" price to get more pros... just an idea. This branding strategy is a little strange and contradictory in a way. It's like making a Ferrari designed Ford or something. How much would you pay for that? I guess if it looks and drives like a Cobra- that's cool. However, if it looks and drives like a Mustang with a Farrari engine- less cool. Not sure if that makes sense, but that's kind of how I see it. Ford makes a Ferrari, the new $400,000 GT, and its absolutely amazing. Almost 7,000 have applied to buy one of the 500 being produced. https://www.ford.com/performance/gt/ Panny's pricing is going to bite them in the rear. This looks like a fantastic lens, but they aren't going to sell many, especially when the 12/2 is half the cost. Michael Coffee and John Matthews 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shield3 Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 On 6/15/2016 at 6:36 PM, Andrew Reid said: Much much more difficult and much more advanced, and F1.4 will give a completely different look & feel to an F2.8 on full frame, plus it's 2 stops brighter. It's not right to go around multiplying apertures by crop factor. An F1.4 on Micro Four Thirds is as a big a hole as an F1.4 on full frame. Wait, what? A 12mm F/1.4 with a sensor with a crop factor of 2 is the same as a 24mm 2.8 on a full frame. Period. You can't multiply the "effective 35mm focal length" without multiplying by the crop factor. It *is* just that simple. While lenses have different looks, the basic principles remain true - 2x 12mm @ 1.4 = 1x 24mm @ 2.8. How is it "not right to go around multiplying apertures by crop factor? Just because this is your forum doesn't mean you can suddenly change the laws of physics. The hole *isn't* as big as the micro four thirds lens doesn't have a 24x36 sensor to cover! The light INTENSITY is the same, but the light GATHERING is not. Big difference here. Next time it rains, put a small bucket outside next to one 2x the size. Which one gathers more rain? Oh, right. The larger one. This should help you out Andrew. JurijTurnsek 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbp Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRenaissanceMan Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 5 hours ago, Shield3 said: Wait, what? A 12mm F/1.4 with a sensor with a crop factor of 2 is the same as a 24mm 2.8 on a full frame. Period. You can't multiply the "effective 35mm focal length" without multiplying by the crop factor. It *is* just that simple. While lenses have different looks, the basic principles remain true - 2x 12mm @ 1.4 = 1x 24mm @ 2.8. How is it "not right to go around multiplying apertures by crop factor? Just because this is your forum doesn't mean you can suddenly change the laws of physics. The hole *isn't* as big as the micro four thirds lens doesn't have a 24x36 sensor to cover! The light INTENSITY is the same, but the light GATHERING is not. Big difference here. Next time it rains, put a small bucket outside next to one 2x the size. Which one gathers more rain? Oh, right. The larger one. This should help you out Andrew. Those results are highly contested. But let's not devolve into yet another equivalence argument. The internet has quite enough of those already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbp Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 ^ What is the counter logic? Not trolling, genuinely curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRenaissanceMan Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 1 minute ago, dbp said: ^ What is the counter logic? Not trolling, genuinely curious. The whole idea of ISO being multiplied by crop factor as well is the main thing I've heard rejected by people who understand sensor physics better than me. I'm told by the people I trust that for the purposes of exposure, ISO is ISO and aperture is aperture. While a shorter actual focal length/narrower field of view provides functionally less bokeh/more DoF, it will not affect your ISO/aperture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 I take it the GH5 has, or is, about to be announced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRenaissanceMan Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 It's supposed to be announced at Photokina. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Matthews Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 9 hours ago, The Chris said: Ford makes a Ferrari, the new $400,000 GT, and its absolutely amazing. Almost 7,000 have applied to buy one of the 500 being produced. https://www.ford.com/performance/gt/ Panny's pricing is going to bite them in the rear. This looks like a fantastic lens, but they aren't going to sell many, especially when the 12/2 is half the cost. Ha! Thank you for enlightening me about that Ford... looks really cool. I'm a little confused though about the pricing on it. $400,000 for a Ford designed by Ferrari? A Ferrari (new) is in the $250,000 price range. Why would I want that? I think Ford might have got this the wrong way around... this is ONLY for the Ford brand... not to make money. One of those, "Hey. look what we can do" type moments. Going back to the lens, we don't know if they're in limited quantities, but I bet they are. True Leicas are priced WAY higher than this lens. Take off the Panasonic name, make it in Germany in a Leica factory and you've just multiplied the price of this lens by 5-10 times. Now, is it overpriced? Again, if you like the look, there's no price for that... period. Not saying this lens has a great look, but telling stories is about art, not science. PS: Please don't ruin this thread by talking about lens equivalencies regarding full-frame... (directed at everyone, not you) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shield3 Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 6 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said: The whole idea of ISO being multiplied by crop factor as well is the main thing I've heard rejected by people who understand sensor physics better than me. I'm told by the people I trust that for the purposes of exposure, ISO is ISO and aperture is aperture. While a shorter actual focal length/narrower field of view provides functionally less bokeh/more DoF, it will not affect your ISO/aperture. ...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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.