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.
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.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
By area it's actually 1/4 the image circle.
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.
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
So, besides being nicely made ... I do not see a market for this.
Just my thoughts .. Rainer
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.
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!