«

»

Mar 15

Fuji 56mm f/1.2 vs. Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 Nocticron

telephoto_battle2It is time for another battle!  Both Fuji and Panasonic have released fast 85mm equivalent lenses with f/1.2 maximum apertures over the past month, and both are turning out to be truly outstanding lenses.  While there are likely few people who are contemplating which to buy between the two (as that would require simultaneously having both Fuji and Micro 4/3 systems…which is something I have, but is not too common), with two fantastic lenses such as these coming out around the same time, there’s bound to be comparisons.

I reviewed the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 recently and found it to be a truly stellar lens. My review of the Panasonic Leica 42.5mm is also now up.

So let’s take a look at these two lenses and how they stack up.

Important note:  This article was updated on 3/20/14 to reflect new findings on the Fuji 56mm f/1.2. I recently discovered that my Fuji 56mm had a faulty focus motor (it arrived this way, making odd sounds that stopped after a short while, but I later discovered the focus clutch had broken, making it unable to hold focus when the lens was pointed up or down).  I received a replacement lens yesterday, and noticed that not only did it have the properly functioning focus motor that you’d expect, but that the lens was sharper as well.  In comparing cross-frame sharpness, the second lens did not display what I viewed as a ‘mid-frame dip in resolution’ in the original test.   Based on the more even sharpness profile, I conclude that the first tested copy of the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 had a slightly misaligned element that caused a drop in sharpness towards the edges of the frame at wide apertures.  It also decreased contrast.  This comparison has been updated for the first portion of the test to reflect that second lens.  While I feel the ‘portrait test’ on page 3 would likely similarly be affected, I can’t really exactly recreate that shot, though I may try in the next few days to get it close and will update the article at that time. 

Tale of the Tape:

The first contender is the Fujifilm Fujinon XF 56mm f/1.2 R.  The lens weighs in at 405g, and measures in 73.2mm in diameter and 69.7mm long.

The second contender is the Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2.  The lens weighs in at 420g, measuring 74mm in diameter and 77mm long.

As you can see from above, despite needing to cover a smaller image circle and having a shorter focal length, the Panasonic Leica 42.5mm is the larger of the two lenses, coming in nearly a centimeter longer and very slightly heavier.  In practice, the two lenses feel relatively similar in size and weight, but it is interesting.  One other interesting thing of note is that the 42.5mm lens is capable of covering an APS-C sensor, though of course you can’t do much with this since focus is by wire.

The two lenses both have bodies built entirely of metal.  Both have well damped focus rings and aperture rings, and both are very solid.  Overall, I think the Leica 42.5mm has a little nicer fit and finish, and feels a little more premium in the build department, though the Fuji isn’t far behind.  Both are very well-built lenses.

Fight!

Fight!

The Test

Please note that this test is limited in scope.  In using both lenses, I have noticed some additional things about each lens that aren’t really showcased in this situation.  I will summarize those findings at the conclusion, as I don’t really have solid head to head test shots to show you, but they may be worth noting.

I set up the book you see, which is in a hard case that is very flat.  Focus distance is approximately 1 meter. I ensured the camera was square to the book.  I set the crystal decanter behind the book by about two feet to provide a good target for evaluating bokeh.  The cameras were tripod mounted, set to the exact same exposure parameters (ISO 200, f/1.2 and 1/8 second, adjusting aperture and shutter speed while keeping ISO constant for smaller apertures).  Shots were triggered with 2 second self timer.  There are very slight differences in camera position left and right due to where the tripod plates sit on the cameras, but otherwise, the cameras were in identical positions for each shot.

Images were processed in Lightroom 5.3 and were converted straight from RAW aside from my standard sharpening and custom white balance from the white letters on the book.

Here are the overall scenes at f/1.2:

Full Scene - Fuji 56mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2

Full Scene – Fuji 56mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2

Overall Scene - Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2

Full Scene – Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2

To evaluate sharpness, I took crops from the center and upper right corner of the images at f/1.2, f/1.8, f/2.5 and f/3.5.  The results are shown below.  Click on the image, then click on the green arrow below to view full size.

100% crops - Click to Enlarge

100% crops – Click to Enlarge

Some interesting results, in my opinion.  Getting the obvious out of the way: both lenses are fantastic.  Each lens is very sharp in the center right from f/1.2.  At f/1.2, the Fuji has a slight edge in the center of the frame, while the Leica has a sharper center at f/1.8 and f/2.5.  By f/3.5, the Fuji has caught up again with the Panasonic, though the X-Trans sensor prevents the moire that is present in the Panasonic crop.

In the corner, the Fuji has an edge throughout at this focus distance.  While the Leica 42.5mm has an edge in overall contrast at f/1.2 and f/1.8, the Fuji 56mm is resolving more fine detail in the corners at these apertures.  By f/2.5, the Fuji has a notable boost in contrast while keeping a slight resolution edge.

When I originally did this test, I had noticed my first copy of the 56mm showed some weakness a little ways in from the corners of the frame and simply assumed it was how the lens performed at f/1.2.  Upon receiving a replacement lens, I could see that it was not the case for a properly assembled lens. Below are crops taken from the lower right side of the frame.

Mid-Zone 100% Crops, f/1.2

Mid-Zone 100% Crops, f/1.2

Mid-Zone 100% Crops, f/3.5

Mid-Zone 100% Crops, f/3.5

As you can see here, the Fuji again has the lead, both wide open and stopped down (though both are very sharp stopped down).

Overall, the sharpness comparison is pretty darn close.  At this focus distance, which is approximately 1 meter,  the Fuji is showing itself to be a little bit sharper all things considered.

Continue: Bokeh

About the author

Jordan Steele

Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Admiring Light; Photographer; Electrical Engineer and Dad

49 comments

9 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. Pikachu

    Nice article ^^ thank you

  2. Michel

    Dear Jordan

    Thanks so much for this interesting comparison! I have just bought the Voigtländer Nokton 42.5 for my Olympus E-M1 and I am really happy with this wonderful and interesting lens. But of course I am still interested to read what your experiences with the PanaLeica Nocticron are.

    Keep up the good work! You are my number one resource for MFT and Fuji reviews! Thanks so much for your effort and your passion.

    Best regards

    Michel Mayerle

  3. Peter F

    I think if I were shooting a portrait I might shoot a FF camera 90mm lens at F4, a Fuji 56mm at F2.8, or a Panasonic 42.5 or Olympus 45mm at F2…. for comparable DOF.

    I wonder how the Fuji at, say for example, F2.8 compares with the Panasonic at F2. In other words comparing them assuming one is trying to match DOF, rather than trying to match F stops.

    Just food for thought.

    Peter F.

    1. Jordan Steele

      The crops are there….look at them for comparable DOF. match the f/1.8 crops against the f/1.2 crops and check for yourself. In the portrait example, the f/1.6 shot is exactly that…the matching DOF for the wide open shot on the PL.

  4. HF

    Nice comparison!

  5. Albert Erickson

    Great review, I am very interested in the 42 for my oly ME. 1. I own the leica 25 and love it. What camera did you use for the test? BTW love your work. I too am in Columbus and always looking for interesting places to shoot, if you have time write about what inspires you.

    1. Jordan Steele

      The Fuji shots were on the X-E2, the PanaLeica was shot on the Oly E-M5

  6. mahesh

    just the comparison i was looking for. i was waiting to invest in either fuji or olympus based on this comparison, looks like they are equally good after all. one wins on price and the other on slightly more 3d pop. the speed of fujis still lags behind micro 4/3ds. so i will go with panasonic lens and a micro 4/3rds then, probably em10.
    can’t wait for the full comparison as well.

    Thanks so much

  7. JL Williams

    Interesting article. The comparison images are too ad-hoc to make hair-splitting judgments, but it’s clear both are excellent lenses.

    Possible tie-breaker for the unlikely few who might be trying to choose which mirrorless system to buy, based on these two lenses: the Panasonic offers image stabilization on every camera (Panasonic or Olympus) on which it can be used, whereas there is NO way to get stabilization with the Fuji lens.

    1. Gryfster

      Why does stabilization matter for an f/1.2 lens? In most cases the shutter speed is going to be really fast at f/1.2 and this is a portrait type lens so its doubtful you will be going slower than 1/160. Anyway whatever floats your boat.

      1. Friiduh

        Because you are often required to use 3-4 stop ND filter with these lenses so you can shoot with that f/1.2 in day time.

        Otherwise you are forced to shoot with smaller aperture as you can’t get below ISO 100-200 or faster than 1/4000-1/8000.

        1. Eddie

          But surely if you’ve run into max SS limitations (requiring an ND filter) then even the adjusted SS is going to be so high as to render stabilization redundant. No?

          Ed

    2. Rick D

      The in-body stabilization is nice, but for this field-of-view equivalent focal length — (and as stated in this article) I’m not sure if the extra $600 is worth it. For *me* — I shoot things that are often moving so shooting at a lower shutter speed vs. a non-stabilized lens/body isn’t a benefit. Again, this is for me. If you’re shooting static subjects then I definitely see how a stabilized setup is a good thing. Then again, I’m not sure it’s worth it for 60% more cost ($600) in this case.

      1. Fri13

        The IBIS is great with moving subjects toi because panning feature what helps a lot to get good motion blurred background to moving subjects like running kids or cars etc.

        But it can ruin them if enabled with wrong settings. Still, it is benefit in so many situations that I would take it.

  8. Tobias

    The results are a lot better, especially from the Fuji lens, if the focusing distance is higher. Unfortunately this test is too close to the subject to mean anything. Portrait distance should be at least 1 to 1.5 meters, so that’s what you need to test. My own tests indicate that the Fuji is much sharper at such distances. I haven’t had the chance to try the Panasonic/Leica one yet.

    1. HF

      One shouldn’t pick only a sweet spot of the lens to compare. I don’t use a lens only at one single distance.
      But all that doesn’t really matter at all. Other than at 100% differences are mostly too small to notice. So both are great.

      1. Jordan Steele

        It is worth noting that both lenses perform as well, if not better, towards infinity, even at wide apertures…I just have it had time to do that comparison.

  9. ian

    The problem is your comparing two different formats and when taking the crop factor into account its an 84mm F1.8 fuji Vs a 85mm F2.4 panasonic, yes the different size sensors do affect the aperture as well and it can be clearly seen that the fuji is not only much brighter than the panasonic at a given aperture & exposure settings but also the background is noticeably out of focus to a greater degree.

    1. Jordan Steele

      It is very hard to compare transmission in a test like this, as it’s hard to separate how much the camera’s rating of ISO figures into it. I do think the Fuji passes a hair more light for a given aperture, but how much I can’t really say.

      As to depth of field, compare the crops you want to compare…that’s why they’re there….the thing is, the m4/3 shooter isn’t going to care whether the Fuji can do shallower depth of field (though the samples I’ve provided show that, and the portrait test has Fuji shots at both f/1.2 and the equivalent depth of field aperture of f/1.6. )

    2. Chris K

      I disagree, Ian. I think Jordan did a good job of comparing cross-format, and I found the review very useful. The lenses have the same AOV:

      55 * 1.5 = 82.5mm-e
      42 * 2 = 84mm-e

      And Jordan showed comparison photos with the Fuji stopped down to give similar DOF. Look at the Fuji f/1.8 versus Panasonic f/1.2, for example; both have similar blur, but the Panasonic has more subtle gradation on the specular highlight from the bottle.

      As for the brightness factor, it’s well-known that cameras and lenses are not consistent when it comes to labeled versus aperture, transmission, ISO, or even shutter speed. To expect that the numbers will line up is optimistic!

      I don’t really see how the comparison could be done better, considering it’s across two formats. How would you propose to improve the comparison?

      Personally, I’d love to see the new Olympus f/1.8 compared to the Panasonic in the style of this review. I never could justify the Canon 85/1.2 when I shot a 5D despite its beautiful rendering, and I was disappointed to learn that the Panasonic while the Panasonic seems to match the Canon’s performance, it would mirror Canon’s pricing.

    3. CT

      Dear Ian,

      Your argument only works from the DOF point of view. If we assume the “quantity of light” point of view, they are two 1.2 lenses with one mm focal length difference (less than 1.5% in the short tele range, which is very little).

      For me for example, DOF is not really important, but light is.

      Your conclusions hold though …. yesterday I tried the Fuji 56mm/1.2 on a XT1 and I was blow away by it. One thing people do not realise is how little “case” there is, and how much glass …. this is the first thing that hits you. The second is the size of the front lens, and how round is the diaphragm: when you have it mounted on the XT1 it looks like there is nothing but a large floating front lens. It is also light, and on the XT1 it is really, really well balanced: it makes you want to take pictures with it.

      Thanks for the very, very useful comparison Jordan.

      Best,

      1. CT

        PS: Less than 1mm difference equivalent, of course :)

    4. Fri13

      The crop factor doesn’t affect to DoF but only to cropping part of the image. Lens is still exactly same what is reading in its specs. Only if you want 1:1 ratio to subject on frame, you need to shoot further and that means same aperture at longer distance causes a deeper depth of field. The problem is as well that people claim crop affects to lens light passage what isn’t true, the aperture stay exactly to same as specs say, but the aperture isn’t same thing as T-stop what is value of the light passage trough lens, while F-stop is only a standard to limit light between different F-stops equally. So one lens f/1.2 can have a 1/3-2/3 stops better light passage than another f/1.2 lens and it has nothing to do with the sensor size but the manufacturer lens design itself.

      A f/1.2 42.5mm on FF camera behaves exactly same as if you would just mount it to drop camera, except the content around center of photo isn’t stored and cause the shooter need to shoot twice as long distance as FF shooter with a same lens and that distance difference means DoF is larger by two but lens is still a f/1.2 by its nature, instead like f/2.4.

      Everyone should just think it like FF shooter gets just wider shot and is required to shoot closer or later on crop 1/4 of the frame (compared to m4/3) to get same subject size and they will suffer from shallower depth of field what forces them to use higher aperture value to keep subject(s) sharp and then boost ISO by 2 stops to maintain fast enough shutter speed to stop motion (indoors, two persons in frame or moving subject toward/away camera). And if you really want to get that ultimate smooth background then don’t waste money too much for aperture as you don’t need than little enough to separate subject and then you do rest in post. Get a smaller aperture value lenses only when you need higher shutter speed and you can’t boost ISO (already on max real ISO).

      The 42.5mm f/1.2 is beautiful but too rarely needed so that price would say it (or any same aperture FF lens) wins a cheap high quality Olympus f/1.8 45mm in time of use and possibilities. Only when you start shooting at longer distances than few meters, like 10-15 you get value for that shallower depth of field lens to help you in post process.

  10. Frank Thoma

    Well, I also belong to the small group of Panasonic and Fujifilm users :-)
    Nice comparison but no surprise. I expected both portrait lenses to be excellent. I will go for the Fuji 56/1.2 mm because of its shallower depth of field and its financial advantage. There is one more point: I already use the Olympus 45/1.8 mm with my Lumix GX7. This ridiculously cheap and tiny lens shines even at f/1.8. For travelling light and small this alround lens is far better than the new Panasonic 42.5/1.2 mm. Just my two cents.

    Frank

  11. PhotoDreamer

    The Fuji wins for me! Going to pass on the Panasonic Leica.

  12. John

    Dear Mr. Steele,

    In these : http://admiringlight.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/pl_fuji_crops.jpg crops, the Panasonic shows crossed lines abe f2.5 where the Fuji shows nothing (just flat white area). Are these artifacts or is the PanaLeica really that much sharper? I’m not referring to the moire within the tower but the area around.

    Btw. I think it’s not totally fair to say that the PanaLeica is better corrected given the larger physical aperture of the Fuji lens which should make corrections a little harder for the latter lens. Still, an awesome review, very informative. Thanks a lot!

    1. Jordan Steele

      I think it’s a type of moire, caused by how sharp it is there. As to whether it means it’s just crazy sharper than the Fuji there? I can’t verify that with a bayer sensor (I don’t have an X-A1). The X-Trans sensor does a great job of eliminating moire by the way the color filter is laid out, so I can’t test whether that isn’t present on the Fuji due to better moire control or simply not enough resolution. For my purposes, the Fuji is also brilliantly sharp in the center.

      1. John

        Thanks for your fast response. I agree that both lenses are more than adequately sharp for probably any kind of meaningful application. Taking another look at the crops I reached the same conclusion as you did, that this must be moire as the pattern seems to extend into the towers. What surprised me is that the moire pattern seems to weaken at 3.5 compared to 2.5. I checked some other tests (such as the renowned Olympus 75 1.8) and it indeed seems that the effects of diffraction already begin between f2 and f3 for these high end lenses. of course the drop in sharpness again has no implication for real scenarios but that was a bit surprising as I had always thought that effects of diffraction only become visible around f4 for the 16mp m43 lenses.

        1. HF

          I don’t think these cameras are diffraction limited when using such a lens. This depends on the Airy disc and circle of confusion and should start a little earlier than f8, but not at f2 to f3. Cambrideincolor.com lets you calculate that.

  13. Steve

    How do you find the Auto Focus performance indoors between these 2 lenses.

  14. BobTB

    The DOF of the Fuji is 0.7 of a stop shallower than the Panasonic so you are not comparing like for like at any setting. Combine the fact that Fuji have a noticeably better sensor and their lens { designed for a larger sensor } is actually £360 cheaper . I would never consider the Panasonic. As a long term mFT user { since it came out } I must admit to being very disappointed with the mFT image quality when compared to the best APS options , if it were not for poor video on Fuji I would already be gone.

    1. HF

      Please detail what you mean with noticeably better sensor. It’s not even possible to fully and accurately demosaic the RAW files until now. Due to the 3×3 pixel arrays you need to interpolate. And that means detail losses (transfer-function in Fourier space drops to zero for large wave numbers (small scales and therefore detail). So there seems to be a noise reduction already in RAW and sometimes false detail. Of course you have a stop better high ISO. But duo you regularly print A3/A2 or larger? As a pro I would use A7r if detail and good high is what I need.
      Don’t understand me wrong, I like the Fuji cameras especially the Xt1 looks nice. But in my opinion all cameras with sensor from 4/3 and up are able to produce excellent pictures with differences mostly seen at 100%. This is why many pros use these cameras.

      1. John

        Perhaps you should consider working on your shooting before exaggerating how bad the IQ is on the mFT cameras. The differences between MFT and APS-C are there but largely negligible. As shown from this comparison, good glass can and is an equalizer even given sensor size differences. And finally, how you shoot can and will make a difference as well. I remember my first boss challenging me to produce the same colors without the blowout/crush on a Canon rebel xsi, vs a 5D. It was super hard at first but doable, and taught me that a photograph’s weakness often isn’t the camera but the user.

    2. Chris K

      Claiming poor image quality in the face of results like this is a great way to highlight hyperbole.

      1. HF

        +1

      2. Gryfster

        +1

  15. Androo

    It’s pretty impressive that there’s essentially nothing to tell the difference between these two lenses, despite the different formats. A remarkable showing from both lenses, and one that should quite easily lay to rest the myth that you’re giving up image quality by choosing mirrorless.

    It’s a shame that the Leica is as expensive as it is – I can see the OIS being a big benefit for videographers using a GH3/GH4, but I suspect most of us would have preferred for Panny to omit the OIS in deference to a more Fuji-like price tag. Especially given that IBIS is beginning to look like a Micro Four Thirds differentiating advantage moving forward…

  16. JO

    I’d be more interested to see a comparison (with crops) between the PanaLeica 42.5 and the Olympus 45 1.8.

  17. Alex

    Great article!

    I’m shocked how better the contrast of the portrait on leica is.. This is pure win @ f 1.2 !!! And this is important because the aperture stays behind the price, even if it is “only” 999 USD.
    Now that I see the difference I’m realizing that on so many samples I’ve seen with fuji 58 @ f1.2 contrast could have been better!

    Anyway fuji did a nice attempt and I appreciate it!
    thanks again for this port!

    1. Rick D

      Jordan wrote that the Fuji portrait photos were taken with the first (defective) copy of the Fuji lens that he had. Looks like you may have skipped reading that fact.

      1. Alex

        I did not skip it. Maybe you skipped just the next sentence:

        “Given the improvement seen in this focus zone with the properly aligned Fuji 56mm, I’d imagine there would be some change in the resolution at the focus point for the Fuji lens.”

        Yes resolution means contrast, but word “contrast” has not been mentioned. Hope the non defective copy will be better anyway

    2. Karl

      A somewhat expensive “pure win”.

  18. mrjirey

    Wow both lenses did very well. Considering how shape the Fuji turned out to be it would be interesting to put it up against the Ziess Otis. Even if it ends up slightly soft, at 20% of the cost, it would be a great value

  19. DimaRU

    Thank you for this great comparison and beuty kid phtos! :-)

  20. kecajkerugo

    Hello all, Comparisons are useful but both lenses are just great- no need to select an ultimate winner!
    No need for any war between the great mirror-less systems like the X Fuji and the m43.

  21. zweitfoto

    Hey Jordan – I like your reviews most!
    As an owner of the 45/1,8 I’d like to read a comparison PanaLeica 42.5/1,2 resp. Fujinon 56/1,2 – Olympus 75/1,8 for portraiture (I know 85 vs. 150, but nonetheless VERY interesting). Since you have (or had) both, you would be the man for it :-)

  22. Graeme

    While it seems the optical performance of both lenses is pretty close, which in theory should hand a big win to the Fuji in cost terms, when taking the respective systems into consideration I personally come down on the side of MFT. The E-M1 is just a better photographic tool than any Fuji body (X-T1 included, though this seemingly significantly narrows the gap) for me (and I reiterate, for me). It’s combination of handling, AF speed, IBIS and build just can’t be beaten in the mirrorless world. Much is made of the APS-C sized Fuji sensors IQ advantage over MFT, but I’m sorry, I am just not seeing it, and the samples photos here reinforce my view. Only the jump to full frame seems to give a significant IQ advantage over MFT, and this comes at the cost of a huge jump in size (if not necessarily in bodies (A7r), then fundamentally in lenses). Then again, I have the Nocticron and EM-1, so I’m almost certainly biased (-;

  23. Paul F.

    Great head to head here. I gotta admit… the Fuji wins here simply because its $600 cheaper. Noct is great, but it is no better than the Fuji.

  24. agachart

    can’t compare different format/sensor & software correction(major of mirrorless system),
    use panasonic body + lens ,fuji is ok,

  1. Fujinon 56mm 1.2 - Seite 2 - Systemkamera Forum

    […] […]

  2. miXed zone: 10-24 hands on, 56 reviews, X-T1 tests and more! | Fuji Rumors

    […] For the comparison between the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 and the Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 for Micro 4/3 click here: “Overall, the Panasonic Leica is a little bit better corrected.  It’s slightly sharper […]

  3. Fuji 56mm f/1.2 vs. Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 Nocticron | Jordan Steele › By TOMEN

    […] See on admiringlight.com […]

  4. Blog for mirrorless and premium compact cameras Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 vs Fujifilm XF 56mm f/1.2 - which is better? - Blog for mirrorless and premium compact cameras

    […] Source: http://admiringlight.com/blog/fuji-56mm-f1-2-vs-panasonic-leica-42-5mm-f1-2-nocticron/ […]

  5. Fuji 56mm f/1.2 vs Leica 42.5mm f/1.2: Redux - Admiring Light

    […] been to this site over the past few days, you probably saw (or came to the site because of) my comparison between the Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 Nocticron and the Fujifilm 56mm f/1.2.  These are two absolutely stunning portrait lenses for their respective systems, and users on […]

  6. XF 56/1.2 vs Leica 42.5/1.2 Redux at admiringlight | Fuji Rumors

    […] Some days ago admiringlight posted a comparison between the XF56 and the Leica 42.5 f/1.2. The winner was pretty clear: it was the Leica. But the battle wasn’t fair. Jordan used a faulty 56mm for the comparison. Now he got a new one and repeated the test re-evaluated the results here: […]

  7. Das Panaleica Nocticron 42,5mm f/1.2 - Seite 36 - Systemkamera Forum

    […] […]

  8. Lumix GH4 Tests & Reviews - plus GM1 / GX7 / Olympus OM-D E-M10 - Systemkamera Blog

    […] Richtig viel Licht: Fuji 56mm f/1.2 vs. Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 Nocticron bei Admiring Light […]

  9. Sony Alpha 7R/7S, Leica T, Fuji X: Die neuesten Test, Reviews und Videos - Systemkamera Blog

    […] Fuji 56mm F1.2 vs. Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 Nocticron bei Admiring Light […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: