Can you tell the difference between the Ls?

NorBro

NorBro

Major Contributor
Say you're using two 5DII/IIIs and you're shooting the same thing, same composition, same correct exposure, etc...

Would you really be able to tell the difference - quality wise (video mode) - between a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a f/4....or a 24-105 f/4 and a 50mm f/1.4....or any other lens that is slower or faster, but still both "L" lens??

I know the extra money pays for a better build, a larger aperture, IS, etc. etc...but can you be so bold to say this image is cleaner, sharper and better on the more expensive lens? Remember, all "L" lens comparisons.

Thoughts? Thank you.
 
I think in all honesty you'd be hard pressed to find a real difference from a standard audience point of view, but from someone that knows each lens and their characteristics I'd say the answer would be yes. Zooms are typically softer than primes, and there's a difference to be had when it comes to the 50mm 1.4 and 1.2.
 
When I review footage I invariably discover that the best stuff has always been shot with the 70-200mm F/2.8L USM IS II. It's a fantastic lens that I would use all the time if I could just stand back far enough. The sharpness clarity colour etc are all just superb. The other lenses that I am shooting with are decent too 24-70mm F/2.8L 24-105mm F/4L 50mm F/1.2L 16-35mm F/2.8L II etc but the 70-200 stands out from them. Probably the only other lens I have that rivals it is the 135mm F/2L.
 
I use the 24-105 and the 70-200 f4 and there is a difference. Does it know you over the head? No, but as Nigel just mentioned, the 70-200 footage just stands out as better. Hard to describe. If you were going to DVD then no issue, for HD the more expensive lenses look better. Sounds simple but manufacturers price upon image quality. They know what looks good and what is just o.k.
 
"for HD the more expensive lenses look better"

Though I will throw out "better" is subjective. More "IQ" in the sense of sharpness/resolution may not actually look "better" for the subject matter.
 
maarek said:
Those are for stills. There is a reason there are no crops from videomode. Because in video...there is no difference.
Click to expand...
This is completely false and it can be shown over and over and over that sharper / better glass produces significantly higher quality video images. This is because the better the image going to the sensor the better use canon's processing can make of the detail, contrast and color.

An extreme example is the difference between the older 17-35 f/2.8 L at 24 mm and the 24mm f/1.4 L II. In video mode the new 24 II produces orders of magnitude better images in video mode. Same with the 24 II vs the 24-70 L f/2.8 at 24. It's night and day.

The 70-200 L f/4 is one of the better lenses Canon has ever made and it actually sharper, even in video mode than the f/2.8 II. It just doesn't have quite as much contrast and brightness at a given f/stop.

Great glass makes a bigger difference on Canon's than many other brands. I believe the term is accutance. It's a combination of sharpness and micro contrast that really improves Canon video performance when you have more of it.

Cheers,
Pete
 
c3hammer said:
This is completely false and it can be shown over and over and over that sharper / better glass produces significantly higher quality video images. This is because the better the image going to the sensor the better use canon's processing can make of the detail, contrast and color.

An extreme example is the difference between the older 17-35 f/2.8 L at 24 mm and the 24mm f/1.4 L II. In video mode the new 24 II produces orders of magnitude better images in video mode. Same with the 24 II vs the 24-70 L f/2.8 at 24. It's night and day.

The 70-200 L f/4 is one of the better lenses Canon has ever made and it actually sharper, even in video mode than the f/2.8 II. It just doesn't have quite as much contrast and brightness at a given f/stop.
Click to expand...

Hmm. No.

There simply is not enough resolution in videomode for any kind off sharpness difference. There are contrast/color differences which may account for an increased sense of sharpness but even the s*%ttiest lens will deliver the same amount of sharpness as really sharp ones in video. You can test it quite easily by using an f1.4 lens. Set it at f1.4 in videomode (check that the focus is 100%) and slowly take it to f4 where it's the sharpest. And low and behold, very little difference. This is with a lens that has a HUGE difference in stills between f1.4 and f4.

Considering this, I don't believe that a 17-35mm f2.8 will look any different sharpness wise than the 24mm f1.4. I will test them if I get a hold of them.

It's funny when you say "it can be shown over and over again" but no one has actually ever shown it. They just keep talking about it.

Now if you use something like the C100/300, you will see a difference. Though on a 2 megapixel image that difference will be NOTHING like those stills posted (which are 22mp for 5dmarkIII).
 
Last edited:
maarek said:
Hmm. No....
Click to expand...
Hmm. Yes.

It's plain that you've never tested it. Here's the difference between f/1.4 and f/5.6 on the 24mm L II in video mode from a T3i. It's about as good a lens as you can get between wide open and the sweet spot. It clearly shows a significant increase in sharpness on the center 1/4-20 screw which was the focus point in this 200% crop. Again these are frame captures from 1080-30p video using Flaat 10n picture style.

http://www.c3di.com/images/image1.gif

I no longer have my old 17-35 L f/2.8 so I can't show you that one, but the difference between it and a newer Tokina 11-16 was so resounding that I finally had to pay attention to moire and aliasing with the tokina. Something I never had an issue with using the 17-35. I have a number of vintage lenses that are rather soft, particularly the wider ones, wide open that are simply not capible of providing video images that are in any way close to those with the most modern high end canon glass.

There's a reason virtually all productions with the Canon's have been shot with the highest quality glass. The way you make it sound, a kit lens and a top of the line L lens would create an indistinguishable image in video mode and we all know that is nonsense.

Cheers,
Pete
 
"I have a number of vintage lenses that are rather soft, particularly the wider ones"

Which is one reason I shoot exclusively on them. That and the color and the long focus throw.
 
Also remember there is a deal of variation with Canon lenses, especially the zooms I have encountered. I have used 24-70s that are so soft they look out of focus and I have used 24-70s that look just like primes.
 
Interesting. The reason I asked is because I think I am ready to upgrade to my next camera. People seem to recommend investing in glass, but I never did because I'm constantly jumping around using new tools and I feel like technology is moving way too fast. I've been using DSLRs (Canon 5DII mostly) for the past 3 years, but I am getting tired of the look..maybe it's the codec/compression. I want something different. Some commercials I see on TV are so amazingly crisp and sharp and beautiful and I wonder..what are they shooting these with? RED, Alexa, etc? And I know it's about the lighting and the grading, etc. but I think a $10k Zeiss prime on a 5D will only take you so far, you know?

So at the end of the day, is the camera more important than the lenses?

Merry Christmas.
 
I would say 5D MK2 with a 10k prime lens is not going to cut it compared to an Alexa/Red with old Nikon primes.
Merry Xmas
 
Norbro, you raise some tough questions. It kind of all depends upon the level of work & compensation you do and expect. I also see the production values of commercials and they look fabulous. I wonder how much work & budget goes into getting that look. Yes, the camera is as important as the lenses as well everything else in the production. You can drag a RED Epic to shoot a horribly lit, un-eventful scene and it also will not look like those great commercials...but it may be sharp!

Buying great lenses for still work is easier as FF is the main format for pros. In video, FF is but one section of the market. I think great lenses hold their value longer than cameras.

In the case of the MKII, I think it is tired as a video camera. I never liked the color/gamma and the codec is weak. I use the MKIII and the color is much more accurate with a better gamma. And the codec does not kill the footage. Surprisingly, there seems to be a gap from the DSLRs to proper SDOF video cameras. The C100 is trying to fill that void along with the AF-100 but nobody has knocked it out of the park yet. Seems like a good time to be waiting to upgrade.
 
I hear that! I have been thinking about upgrading for a few months, but I can definitely wait longer. I think 2013 will be a crazy year for cameras.

I am certain that I will never purchase another camera in my career that's not a FF or Super35 (or something in that size range APS-C, S16, etc.)...so I hope we seem some good stuff soon!
 
Crazy times for sure. I'd say: hold on to your money as long as you can; buy what you need, when you need it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top