[Biro]

quite right, although I don't see what your point is because that lens is bigger than the 8 element 50mm f/1.4 takumar made in the 1960s, even the FA50mm f/1.4 is smaller - Wasn't the concept of m4/3rds to provide it's users with small fast lenses, on a small equally fast camera? as far as i'm concerned the only camera manufacturer that really "gets" smaller sensor lens design is pentax, just take a look at the DA limited lenses - those lenses are actually built for a sensor that is bigger!

Perhaps... but it certainly seems small enough to me.

43 Rumors | Blog | Leica 25mm priced 599 Dollars at Adorama (+ new tests!)

Don't get me wrong: I understand what you are saying. But in a world where most digital SLRs are fairly huge in comparison with their film counterparts (your note about the 1960s Takumar fits in well here), micro four-thirds is a viable format for many of us... and there is fast, high-quality glass coming. In the meantime, I have no complaints about my Lumix 20mm f/1.7.

Still, your point about Pentax is quite valid... which is why many of us really want to see them take a crack at mirrorless. I love the DA Limiteds... but note that the fastest speed for any of them is f/2.4... with others at f/2.8, f/3.2 and f/4. Therein lies the problem: There is no free lunch.

Perhaps that 50mm Takumar of the 1960s is smaller than the new 25mm Leica for micro four-thirds. But I'll bet there are no other 25mm f/1.4 (for MFT) or 35mm f/1.4 (for APS-C) primes that are as small as the new Leica. Yet. I'd love for Pentax to show us all how it's done.

[Blue]

At $599, it would be nice if the lens was built as well as one of the DA ltd lenses. The 2 of the 3 main things I don't like about the lenses are no dampening for mf, and 25mm is functionally a normal lens.

25/1.4: 200g, 63 x 54.5, plastic fantastic
FA 43/1.9 ltd: 155g, 64 x 27, metal and glass

Both are in the same price arena.

Edit: This brings me to the point that I don't know why many get upset at the idea of an aps-c type retro type thing from Pentax that can handle the ltd series lenses. even with an adapter, the 43 is still as small as the 25 and smaller than the 45mm/2.8.

[eddie1960]

At $599, it would be nice if the lens was built as well as one of the DA ltd lenses. The 2 of the 3 main things I don't like about the lenses are no dampening for mf, and 25mm is functionally a normal lens.

if they build this to the standards of the RF lenses (assuming it's a leica lens made by leica and not one of the panasonic leicas) it will be a well built lens
it can keep the size it has because it has to cover a smaller image area
comparisons to the old MF lenses isn't really a fair comparison either as the 50 1.4 is not a normal lens on aps C. the size of the 31 ltd id the closest but it was built to cover ff, the 40 ltd isn't fast so could be smaller..... yuou get the idea

it would be nice to see faster lenses coming in the primes from Pentax that is for sure
the leica 25 for MFT looks interesting though (i just have no interest in the sensor)

[Blue]

if they build this to the standards of the RF lenses (assuming it's a leica lens made by leica and not one of the panasonic leicas) it will be a well built lens
it can keep the size it has because it has to cover a smaller image area
comparisons to the old MF lenses isn't really a fair comparison either as the 50 1.4 is not a normal lens on aps C. the size of the 31 ltd id the closest but it was built to cover ff, the 40 ltd isn't fast so could be smaller..... yuou get the idea

it would be nice to see faster lenses coming in the primes from Pentax that is for sure
the leica 25 for MFT looks interesting though (i just have no interest in the sensor)

It is quite fair considering I use my 50/1.4 and FA 77/1.8 on my MZ-3 bodies as well as the K20d, K200d, and *istD. When I shoot with the e-p1, I feel like I'm shooting digital 110 only with a gi-normous body compared to my old 110 slr. Granted, those lenses were f2.8. Regardless, the e-p1 is currently my point and shoot.

It still doesn't matter, these lenses are not made out of materials you expect of Leica.

[Digitalis]

f they build this to the standards of the RF lenses (assuming it's a leica lens made by leica and not one of the panasonic leicas)

Its a panasonic leica, if that 25mm f/1.4 was made to leica's construction standards you should add $2000 to its current $599 price tag.

[eddie1960]

The Body size is the biggest issue with the DSLR from all lines not just Pentax. Pentax has some of the smallest. I know they could be made smaller while still being functional, I don't expect them to be the size of an MX with a M 50 f1.7 though. too many electronics which need the ability to cool, pack them to tight and you are just asking for shorter lives and higher breakdown ratios caused by the heat generation.
i would be happy if they could get closer to the size of an lx with the lx viewfinder
with a FF sensor
.....
i'm not holding my breath though I was talking with someone at Pentax the other day who figures there is no FF in the works at all right now

the apsC Milc coming does intrigue me though as a second/backup to the DSLR (more accurately as a replacement for the 3 DSLR i have sitting around besides my K7)

[eddie1960]

Its a panasonic leica, if that 25mm f/1.4 was made to leica's construction standards you should add $2000 to its current $599 price tag.

LOL of course you are correct Digitalis, and i doubt it will be anywhere near as nice as a real leica lens. The Panasonic Leica product (including the re-badged cameras) bear little resemblance to the true leica product, and the lenses are made by robotics to a spec that wouldn't be used for any leica made lens, just and acceptable standard for them to make some money off the low end

[johnmflores]

LOL of course you are correct Digitalis, and i doubt it will be anywhere near as nice as a real leica lens. The Panasonic Leica product (including the re-badged cameras) bear little resemblance to the true leica product, and the lenses are made by robotics to a spec that wouldn't be used for any leica made lens, just and acceptable standard for them to make some money off the low end

Some samples:



















More here:

Google Translate

What does everyone think?

[Winder]

The original Leica 25mm f/1.4 for 4/3 is probably the best prime lens available for the system. The new 25mm f/1.4 for M4/3 should be just as good. Very, very sharp lens. If the new EP-3 is an actual step up I might buy it and that lens.

[Aristophanes]

Don't get me wrong: I understand what you are saying. But in a world where most digital SLRs are fairly huge in comparison with their film counterparts (your note about the 1960s Takumar fits in well here), micro four-thirds is a viable format for many of us... and there is fast, high-quality glass coming. In the meantime, I have no complaints about my Lumix 20mm f/1.7.

Depends. Most electronic AF cameras of the 1980's to 90's were as large as the K-x, easily. This was due to AF motor and sensor, electronics, etc. The Nikon F6 is the last flagship 35mm in production and it is a large camera.

[eddie1960]

Depends. Most electronic AF cameras of the 1980's to 90's were as large as the K-x, easily. This was due to AF motor and sensor, electronics, etc. The Nikon F6 is the last flagship 35mm in production and it is a large camera.

the F6 is a monster(the Eos 1V with the Battery pack was maybe a little smaller) but i think the winner in 35mm for size was the f1 high speed motor drive camera

157 x 70 x 262 mm, 2,180 g (4.8 pounds cripes that's more than my Nikon F photomic with bulk back and drive weighed)) (and manual focus of course)

Canon Camera Museum | Camera Hall - Film Cameras

[eddie1960]

the K5/7 is smaller than the F6 is. But not many people shot pro level (f5 for example) Nikon that size. even a lot of pro's used the second line a fair bit the old FM series was a staple MF and the F100 a good AF alternative both these were smaller than a DSLR but not much

f6
158 × 119 × 77.5 mm, 975g

K5
130.5 x 96.5 x 72.5 mm 740 gr w battery and card

[v5planet]

Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

Here is an example where you can see diffraction setting in at f/11 on an 8MP APS-C body. By f/22 the detail in the fabric is gone. Using their calculator diffraction on a 24MP APC-C sensor would start to be an issue at f/8.

So if you own a super zoom with an f/5.6 max aperture you don't have much room to work. These lenses are already some what soft and they will only become more limited as the MPs increase.

I'm not sure this is the best way to look at it, as the same article you linked to makes clear in multiple places that an increase in pixel density cannot lower the resolution of a lens, i.e. its ability to resolve details of a certain size at a certain distance. There is just a point at which no additional detail can be wrested by making sensor pixels smaller and more numerous for a given f-stop, but the image is not degraded in any way -- it just contains a lot of extra information that contributes nothing to the file but bytes. With lenses of sufficient quality, gains in resolution would still be made at wider apertures as pixel density increased.

I certainly don't disagree that slow lenses wouldn't stand to benefit (as) much from a higher resolution sensor, but they wouldn't become worse.

[aheadfordinci]

Some samples:



















More here:

Google Translate

What does everyone think?

I think I should have waited some year to get into m4/3 format, given my little budget: the last iterations of sensors/lenses for these cameras look very good!

The new Summilux pictures seem to have a great sharpness, a nice bokeh; the lens itself looks lovely.

[edit:] sorry I don't understand what camera the person in that forum used for the sample, a G3 or a Gf1 with the other camera' color profile applied to the pictures?

Nevertheless, if I had not bought in to that trend two years ago, I wouldn't now probably: the coming dslr look more promising.

[Winder]

I'm not sure this is the best way to look at it, as the same article you linked to makes clear in multiple places that an increase in pixel density cannot lower the resolution of a lens, i.e. its ability to resolve details of a certain size at a certain distance. There is just a point at which no additional detail can be wrested by making sensor pixels smaller and more numerous for a given f-stop, but the image is not degraded in any way -- it just contains a lot of extra information that contributes nothing to the file but bytes. With lenses of sufficient quality, gains in resolution would still be made at wider apertures as pixel density increased.

I certainly don't disagree that slow lenses wouldn't stand to benefit (as) much from a higher resolution sensor, but they wouldn't become worse.

I never said it would lower the resolution of the lens. As MPs increase smaller apertures will become less useful and detail loss will be more significant. That has nothing to do with the resolution of the lens. It is a result of aperture size combined with pixel size and the size of the airy disk.

It is not brick wall. If the resolution gained by stopping down is greater than the detail loss from diffraction then you will still have a net gain.