Optically the Nocticron employs 14 elements in 11 groups, compared to 11 in 8 on the Voigtlander, 10 in 9 on the Olympus 75mm f1.8 and 9 in 8 on the 45mm f1.8. This makes it the most complex optical design of the group, although it is also the only one with optical stabilisation. It also features some exotic elements including two aspherical, one ED and one UHR element; I’ll see if they have a positive impact in my optical results. To match the sharpness of the non-stabilised shot required a shutter speed of 1/20 which only represents one stop of compensation. I was surprised by this result as the view looked quite stable through the viewfinder and I ensured the lens IS priority was enabled on the EM1, but repeated tests saw the same result. I’ll retest with a Panasonic body soon to see if there’s greater potential to be enjoyed. My favourite three high-end general-purpose zooms are the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f2.8 PRO (which offers a useful 24-80mm equivalent range with a constant f2.8 aperture but no optical stabilisation), the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-60mm f2.8-4 OIS (costing a tad more and losing the constant aperture, but extending the range to 24-120mm equivalent and including optical stabilisation), and the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-100mm f4 IS PRO (which costs around 50% more, but boasts an even longer 24-200mm equivalent range, as well as being one of the few Olympus lenses with optical stabilisation).

As such, expect to see lenses with smaller focal lengths than you might expect. A 12mm focal length on a full-frame system is ultra-wide, for instance, but on an M43 camera it captures a wide standard view. That's about the same as the main lens on your smartphone or a 24mm lens on a full-frame camera. The rule of thumb is to double Micro Four Thirds focal lengths to directly compare them with full-frame. Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III + Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 (1/200 sec, f/1.8, ISO200) (Image credit: James Artaius) At the beginning we established that, in the case of OM-D E-M5 Mark II – based tests, the best fixed focal length lenses are able to reach 80-85 lpmm and the decency level we set near 47-49 lpmm. Of course we clearly indicated that these values could change with the enlargement of our tests database. The last resolution record achieved by the Panasonic Leica DG Elmarit 200 mm f/2.8 POWER O.I.S.,which maximum result exceeded 91 lpmm, makes that decision fully justified. Currently we should say that the decency level is set within 48-50 mm range and the best fixed focal primes should be able to get to a level of about 85 lpmm or higher. The obvious difference in price, size and design may already be enough to convince you one way or the other but we cannot help but ask ourselves: how big a difference is there between the latest optical wonder and the first portrait prime for the system released six years ago? Let’s find out! At the end of this part of the test traditionally we present crops taken from photos of our resolution testing chart, saved in JPEG format along RAW files we used for the analysis above.

Spis treści

In this first series taken at a close focus distance, it is interesting to note that the 45mm PRO, at both f/1.2 and f/1.8, is sharper than the 45mm 1.8 at f/1.8. The PRO lens does an excellent job of highlighting all the little details in Mathieu’s eyes even at f/1.2, while the results from the 45mm 1.8 are noticeably less defined. Reference Image The Leica Nocticron is a premium short telephoto lens for the Micro Four Thirds system with a 42.5mm focal length and bright f1.2 aperture. When mounted on a Panasonic or Olympus Micro Four Thirds body, it delivers equivalent coverage of 85mm, making it ideal for portrait work or capturing tighter views than a standard lens. The bright f1.2 focal ratio gathers twice as much light as f1.8, making it ideal in low light, while also delivering shallower depth of field effects, again perfect for portrait work. If you photograph distant subjects like birds, then the best overall option for Micro Four Thirds owners in my view is the Panasonic Leica DG 100-400mm f4-6.3 OIS with its long 200-800mm equivalent coverage and optical stabilisation; I’ve used it on both Olympus and Panasonic bodies very successfully. There’s also the Olympus 100-400mm to compare. If you think you can work with a fixed focal length long telephoto, then also consider the Panasonic Leica DG 200mm f2.8 OIS or Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 300mm f4IS, both of which offer optical stabilisation

The lens doesn't show any visible distortion, a plus for one with such a wide aperture. There is some dimness at corners when shooting wide open. We see a -1.2EV drop at f/1.2 and a -1.1EV deficit at f/1.4 when comparing the corners of an image with the center. Conclusions While photographing the Cor Meibion Bro Dysynni‘s 50th Anniversary Party, for example, I used the 45mm PRO at f/1.2 for most of the evening, which allowed me to maintain a shutter speed of 1/100 to reduce motion blur and set the Auto ISO to a maximum of 1600. The optimal sharpness wide open makes it the perfect choice for an entire evening of shooting at f/1.2 and the extra stop also helps you isolate your subject better when shooting at a longer distance. E-M1, 1/100, f/1.2, ISO 800 – M.Zuiko 45mm PRO E-M1, 1/100, f/1.2, ISO 640 – M.Zuiko 45mm PRO E-M1, 1/100, f/1.2, ISO 250 – M.Zuiko 45mm PRO

Comments

Plus, the lenses were a joy to use and hold thanks to their compact size and metal feel – quite a contrast to the larger, high-quality plastic full-frame lenses I’m used to.

The 45mm 1.8 is completely usable at 1.8, but I’m surprised at how many people are saying it can compete with the new Olympus 1.2. I’m actually staggered at how ridiculously sharp the new lens is at 1.2 – a whole stop faster than the 1.8! I would normally say that it wouldn’t be a fair comparison to compare a 1.2 lens at 1.2 vs a cheaper lens at 1.8, but the 1.2 actually wins out at these apertures comparatively (you couldn’t say the same for a Canon 1.2 lens vs. a cheaper 1.4 lens for instance). You usually pay for that extra speed but the compromise has never been great results at 1.2 for sharpness traditionally. Let’s not forget that the difference between using a 1.2 lens and a 1.8 lens could be the difference between having to use the ISO which you find unacceptable and one that you do not – ISO 6400 vs. IS 3200 for instance. Of course there is more to these lenses beside the image quality they put out. There is build, size, feel, usability and then the IQ. I LOVE the Nocticron and at one time had two of them, somehow, here in my home. But with the new Olympus, it only seems natural that it would beat the Old Nocticron as it is much newer and there is just no way Olympus would release a similar lens and have it be worse in quality. With that said, they are close! Panasonic continues support under its Lumix imprint, even though it's added a full-frame camera system to its catalog. It uses the Lumix G designation for its Micro Four Thirds cameras, which include mainstream models and specialty options like the tiny BGH1 video camera. As I suspected, the Nocticron is giving a tiny bit more “snap”, as in, subject separation that looks closer to a cut out than anything. The Olympus 45 PRO f/1.2 has a softer transition between what is in focus and what is not, and the Olympus is also sharper wide open. The 45 f/1.8 hangs in there with slightly less DOF. But the winner here, to my eyes is the Olympus 45 f/1.2 PRO but it was close, very close.From my tests I can confirm the Nocticron at f1.2 gathers exactly twice as much light as it does at f1.8, allowing you to use shutter speeds twice as fast with the same ISO. But when I lined-up exactly the same composition under the same conditions with the Olympus 45mm f1.8, the Nocticron required an exposure one third of a stop slower than the Olympus when both were set to f1.8. I can’t say which one is more accurate than the other, but I can say the Nocticron offers more like a 2/3 stop light gathering advantage over the 45mm f1.8 when both are wide open, rather than the whole stop difference the numbers imply. If budget isn’t an issue, there are many valid reasons to choose the new M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.2 PRO over the 45mm f/1.8. In terms of light gathering power, the f1.2 focal ratio of the Nocticron should in theory gather twice as much light as a lens at f1.8. It’s important to put that to the test though as some designs don’t always deliver what you’d expect. For example while I haven’t tested the Voigtlander myself, I have seen reports describing its light gathering power as being closer to f1.1 when wide open. What objective criteria led you to this conclusion? Is this code for "I can't afford higher quality systems"?"

Wydawc As you see, the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 45 mm f/1.2 PRO seems to be predestined to break resolution records and indeed, it does so with utter ease. It starts quite tamely because at the maximum relative aperture the MTFs reach 62 lpmm. Still it would be difficult to complain about such a result because you land noticeably above the decency level and it is better than the result of the Olympus 1.2/25. On stopping down the aperture the resolution increases sharply and by f/2.0, f/2.8, and f/4.0 you get brilliant values of 93.1, 96.3, and 92.0 lpmm respectively. Practically each of these could be a new resolution record, imagine that! In terms of build quality the Nocticron feels very solid with its metal body adding a degree of solidity and classiness over plastic-bodied models like the Summilux 25mm f1.4. It’s not quite up there with 100% Leica products, but then neither is the price – remember while the Nocticron clearly tips a respectful hat toward the legendary Noctilux f0.95 in terms of design and style, it costs almost seven times less. I’d rank it as being similar in build to the Olympus 75mm f1.8, and while that’s obviously in a different league to pure Leica, I have no complaints with that lens.Micro Four Thirds cameras first went on sale in 2008. At the time, the mirrorless concept was novel. Instead of using an optical viewfinder and mirror, like the Four Thirds SLR system that preceded it, M43 takes the view from the image sensor and sends it right to an electronic display. First and foremost is the optical quality, particularly at the fastest apertures. Not only is the PRO much sharper when both are set to f/1.8 but it also outperforms the cheaper lens at f/1.2 – not to mention that you can achieve better subject separation. It's an absolutely fantastic portrait lens that's also adept at day-to-day photography if you know how to use it. So while this is mainly one for the headshot hunters, it's more versatile than it seems –and if you want to try your hand at portraiture, it's such low price and great value that you can't really go wrong.