[davidmanze]

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.

[popo]

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.

[Scythels]

By area it's actually 1/4 the image circle.

[Brightcolours]

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.

[davidmanze]

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!

[Rainer]

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

[Klaus]

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.

[dave9t5]

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!  

[Brightcolours]

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!  

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".