Do L series lenses, used for video+stills, make a difference = quality+contrast?

A

andrew00

Well-known member
I much prefer prime lenses to zooms. When I got my 5dmk2 I got the 24-70 L zoom but sold it as I wanted something lighter for the work I was doing at the time (filming live music w/lots of movement and arm muscle related work).

I'm now doing more 'convergence' related stuff - stills, motos, short fashion films etc, along w/music videos.

I'm wondering if it's worth me investing in a L series lens, prob the 50 1.2, maybe the 35. I currently have the 50 1.4.

I don't know if there's actually a quality difference, or if it's one of those tangible differences felt when you're dealing w/real pro work etc. I mean, I am a 'pro', but in the sense that most of my work is video that involves the usual 5dmk2's imperfections. Essentially I'm wondering if the quality increase to the L series lenses will have a knock on for video or if it's negligible.

As I said I also shoot stills a lot too - fashion etc - so quality is important there too, though I'm no rich man so whilst I'm game for spending the money, the investment needs to be worth it!

Basically - what do y'all think, is it worth it or should I stick?

Cheers!

Edit - Oh and if anyone is curious, I also have a Sony NEX-5 and use that w/a Voigtlander 50 1.4 SC lens and appreciate the nicer images it gives over the Sony 16mm f2.8 lens, as well as the bigger aperture, more so in this case admittedly), specifically the detail and contrast resolving. Recently I've become intrigued by this, I got a Tiffen Ultras Contrast filter that I've been using to try to give a lower and more natural contrast etc. Ergo I'm interested in the extra 10% etc.
 
Last edited:
For shooting stills AND video, absolutely yes, I'd say "L" glass is worth it. When I switch to my "L" glass (from Canon and non-Canon lenses), the images just feel like they have better contrast, better color, and the out of focus areas feel much more pleasing to me.

But if it were me, I'd go with the 35mm f1.4L over the 50L.
 
My boss talks up and down with his L lenses and I mean they look nice but I would love to see a side by side.
 
The Canon 50/1.4 is really nothing to write home about. I have done extensive tests on 50mm's and it came in 22nd place out of about 30 lenses.

If you want to shoot AF, the Sigma 50/1.4 is about half the price of the Canon 50/1.2 and is really a terrific lens. It has a little more CA, but the bokeh is terrific. Great glass.
If you don't need AF then there are a host of other lenses out there waiting for you. Forget the Zeiss ZF wide open. The older C/Y Contax version is better wide open for instance.
If you want budget AF, then believe it or not the older version Canon 50/1.8 (with metal bayonet) is just great. No CA anywhere to be found. Sharper wide open than most lenses out there, including many L lenses.
Not easy for manually focusing however, so can be problematic for video. Cost? Found a used one for 40 euros last year.
 
I use the 50mm and the 85mm f1.2 at work and they are absolutely fantastic, but for the mere mortal with slightly less money and a little bit more sense, I'm going to agree with yoclay and say that the 50mm 1.8 metal mount is a winner in the bang per bucks category. Even the "plastic fantastic" is usable for stills, although with no USM focusing and that god awful focus ring it doesn't come anywhere near the metal mount in terms of usability, it's considerably easier to track down.

I have heard of Sigma's primes being a great intermediary between Canon's fast L primes and their budget range, it might be worth checking them out if you can take your camera to a shop or see if you can't get a deal on a day rental of a few primes that take your fancy. Better yet, charge the rental to a client! It's much better to try them out first hand than to splash out and buy an expensive piece of glass just on a few recommendations.
 
The main thing with 50mm lenses is that they are essentially the most straightforward design which is why many people just say get the 50 1.8 as it is the cheapest. The only issue is the focus control - it gets progressively better from the 1.8 to the 1.4 to the 1.2. But if you're manual focussing on video you could always get ANY adapted manual focus 50mm to cover that scenario.
 
evilken said:
The main thing with 50mm lenses is that they are essentially the most straightforward design which is why many people just say get the 50 1.8 as it is the cheapest. The only issue is the focus control - it gets progressively better from the 1.8 to the 1.4 to the 1.2. But if you're manual focussing on video you could always get ANY adapted manual focus 50mm to cover that scenario.
Click to expand...


That 50/1.8 v1 is not only one of the cheapest, it is one of the sharpest and with less/no CA. It will beat their L series 50/1.2 (even at f1.8) any day of the week. That darn focusing ring though...
 
Aye, I intend to use it for stills and video, and for the video I think the 1.8 ring is just too thin, you need something to get a hold of and alas I don't think you can consistently do that with that lens!
 
I shoot video and stills, and I like the L glass for feel, look and constant f stop at all focal lengths.
If you want primes, the difference is there, but not as much (compared with same lens of single focal length).

You need to use a prime for about a week before you think about buying one.

My advice is, many think the technical qualities out weigh the feel, and functionality of a lens.
I think the reverse.

The 24-70 L lens is far more user friendly than any other lens i own.
I can tell you it is the easiest to shoot with though.

If I want sharp, I use the 28mm nikon with adapter. It is sharp, but you have to be really, really good to pull off video with sound using that.
You have to nail your exposure, nail your focus, and nail your sound, while holding your camera. Not many can do that.

I have taken thousands of moving model photos, of them walking down the runway with film cameras, so exposure and focus I tend to take for granted.
I only realized how hard it was when I shot the same subject with someone else trying to do the same thing.

My whole point is, unless you can nail exposure, focus, and sound, none of this should be more important than how much easier the lens makes all this work.

I will tell you, get the auto zoom canon L.

It makes everything more easy.

Shooting with canon slrs for video, and sound is a night mare....
It can be done, but you have to be good.

Look around, and tell me how many videos do you see with:

1) native video
2) not locked down
3) native sound

of a moving subject.

Usually you will have 2 of the three.


The L lens makes it easier, the rest must come from you.

People spend a lot of money on primes, especially ones that don't go with the Canon system.
I think doing that makes the rest of the work harder.
A canon lens, give you feedback that is so valuable, and makes it easier.
A canon prime, to me, is so much more expensive , with little direct pay off.

That is why I like the Canon L zooms, you get good, while making the process easier, and it feels good in hand.
That is more valuable, to me, than anything else.
 
I did a test on this. Check it out here: http://ihdslr.com/archives/87

andrew00 said:
I much prefer prime lenses to zooms. When I got my 5dmk2 I got the 24-70 L zoom but sold it as I wanted something lighter for the work I was doing at the time (filming live music w/lots of movement and arm muscle related work).

I'm now doing more 'convergence' related stuff - stills, motos, short fashion films etc, along w/music videos.

I'm wondering if it's worth me investing in a L series lens, prob the 50 1.2, maybe the 35. I currently have the 50 1.4.

I don't know if there's actually a quality difference, or if it's one of those tangible differences felt when you're dealing w/real pro work etc. I mean, I am a 'pro', but in the sense that most of my work is video that involves the usual 5dmk2's imperfections. Essentially I'm wondering if the quality increase to the L series lenses will have a knock on for video or if it's negligible.

As I said I also shoot stills a lot too - fashion etc - so quality is important there too, though I'm no rich man so whilst I'm game for spending the money, the investment needs to be worth it!

Basically - what do y'all think, is it worth it or should I stick?

Cheers!

Edit - Oh and if anyone is curious, I also have a Sony NEX-5 and use that w/a Voigtlander 50 1.4 SC lens and appreciate the nicer images it gives over the Sony 16mm f2.8 lens, as well as the bigger aperture, more so in this case admittedly), specifically the detail and contrast resolving. Recently I've become intrigued by this, I got a Tiffen Ultras Contrast filter that I've been using to try to give a lower and more natural contrast etc. Ergo I'm interested in the extra 10% etc.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top