Switching to the body-based stabilisation of the EM1 delivered the best result of all, with a sharp image at exposures down to 1/5, representing three stops over my non-stabilised version. Leica Nocticron optical construction The Nocticron is supplied with a classy metal lens hood that fastens with a thumbscrew rather than a bayonet, and can be reversed snugly around the barrel for transportation. The generous length which is almost the same as the lens itself means you won’t be able to access any of the controls or the aperture or manual focusing rings when reversed. Leica Nocticron focusing You are not capable to appreciate high quality images, otherwise you wouldn't be asking stupid questions. You take your toy camera, shoot and stitch 6 images, process it wisely, put it on a big 40"+UHD screen and compare it with your regular snapshot.

In terms of focusing sound, all three were very quiet, but there were audible differences: the 45mm f1.8 was the quietest (perhaps not surprising given the minimal weight of optics to shift), followed by the Nocticron, leaving the 75mm as the noisiest. Although again noisiest seems a bit unfair as all three are very quiet at focusing and the sound of any stabilisation in action – especially the in-body Olympus system – will drown them out. Out of all the lenses on this list, the one I love most is the Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro. While it is large for a micro four-thirds lens, it feels wonderful in hand, is glorious to use, and it produces wonderful-looking images. 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. 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.I've used this lens extensively for professional assignments and private commissions, and it has come through every time. Obviously it's designed as a portrait lens, but I also find it great for street photography and reportage (which are typically the realm of 35mm equivalents). Panasonic and Olympus have both done a great job with their kit zooms which all generally deliver very respectable quality for their prices; indeed I’d say for most Panasonic and Olympus owners, I’d recommend complementing the kit zoom rather than replacing it.

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! 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.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! 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 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 In the video above, I manually pulled focus using the Nocticron mounted on an Olympus OMD EM1, using the viewfinder for guidance – unfortunately there’s no magnification, nor focus peaking to help once you start filming on this model. I just about nailed the closest and furthest focusing points, but found the focusing ring wasn’t 100% smooth when turning it from the side – as such you can see the speed of focus pulling vary a little during the clip. Leica Nocticron image stabilisation

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. Here in shot above I see the Olympus 45 f/1.2 winning again. The Bokeh is nicer, the contrast is perfect IMO and it’s the sharpest of the lot. Here you can see the 45 f/1.7 difference with the Bokeh.

Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 45mm f/1.2 PRO Specifications

For many years our Micro 4/3 optics tests were based on the Olympus E-PL1. Some time ago we’ve also started to test lenses using the Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II as we felt the time has come for changes. That’s how we found out that between sensors of those two bodies there is a very small difference, amounting to 5-7 lpmm at most, to the advantage of the newer one with a higher pixel count. Mind you that difference is possible to notice only in the wide area of the maximum relative aperture and it decreases when you employ apertures limited strongly by diffraction. Also related to the f/1.2 aperture is the fact that you can work in very low light conditions without worrying about excessively high ISO values or low shutter speeds. This isn’t to say that f/1.8 is unacceptable for low light work but f/1.2 certainly does provide some added latitude in these situations.