Expensive Lenses and Video... Do They REALLY matter?

K

KennonF

Active member
Now, this is only ONE example, at ONE stop... but, you'll be surprised to see how similar the expensive Zeiss 35mm is to the kit 18-135.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIi8q0mKvR4

I didn't put the clip in, but the 18-135mm set to 50mm looks just like the 50mm 1.8 as well. My thoughts are, since its only 1920x1080, does a good lens really make that much of a difference aside from wider aperture?

Honestly, the Zeiss lens is almost too sharp to the point where it creates a little bit of aliasing. First time I've noticed it on this camera.
 
Are you shooting stills or video? If you're shooting video, then why did you essentially shot a still for this test?
 
subtleinspiration said:
Are you shooting stills or video? If you're shooting video, then why did you essentially shot a still for this test?
Click to expand...

It's video, if it were stills it would be a lot better looking :P

As I said, this is only one sample of it, I can shoot more if need be. Obviously the Zeiss will be better in low light, but ultimately my point is that people who race to get expensive lenses might be over-doing it ... it seems a bit unnecessary is all I'm saying.

I shot this to show the same focal length and detail in the tree, I shot a couple shots of my girlfriend with all three lenses (18-135, 50, Zeiss 35) and the difference in quality is barely noticeable between the three.
 
But perhaps a Zeiss holds more/better detail during movement...wouldn't that have been something you would want to know?
 
Kennon, your observations are correct. The Zeiss lenses are way, way, way sharper than a DSLR needs for video, and they create massive amounts of aliasing. And yes, in video, the 18-135 kit lens is every bit as sharp as a $1500 Zeiss ZF.

The video mode is the "great equalizer". The SLR absolutely does not benefit (in terms of resolved detail) from using premium glass.

You might notice a difference in color or contrast or flare control or rectilinear wide angles or something like that from the better glass, but no... not in terms of sharpness and resolved detail. I've tested this extensively with my 7D and GH1 using cheapo lenses, stock lenses, and a complete set of ZF's, and it's absolutely the truth.

And you say that the Zeiss is "a little too sharp" and creates "some" aliasing -- go take it outsize and shoot a wide-angle shot at f/5.6, you'll see an astonishing amount of aliasing. I've found that the lenses actually make MUCH better looking wide shots if you stop them all the way down to f/22; that way diffraction comes into play and softens up the image and cleans up a LOT of the aliasing. I wish they'd go to f/32, it'd probably be about a perfect match for the SLR sensor/sampling system.

(however, none of this applies to stills... for stills, better glass is unquestionably better and the results of better glass will show up in your still photos).
 
Barry_Green said:
Kennon, your observations are correct. The Zeiss lenses are way, way, way sharper than a DSLR needs for video, and they create massive amounts of aliasing. And yes, in video, the 18-135 kit lens is every bit as sharp as a $1500 Zeiss ZF.

The video mode is the "great equalizer". The SLR absolutely does not benefit (in terms of resolved detail) from using premium glass.

You might notice a difference in color or contrast or flare control or rectilinear wide angles or something like that from the better glass, but no... not in terms of sharpness and resolved detail. I've tested this extensively with my 7D and GH1 using cheapo lenses, stock lenses, and a complete set of ZF's, and it's absolutely the truth.

And you say that the Zeiss is "a little too sharp" and creates "some" aliasing -- go take it outsize and shoot a wide-angle shot at f/5.6, you'll see an astonishing amount of aliasing. I've found that the lenses actually make MUCH better looking wide shots if you stop them all the way down to f/22; that way diffraction comes into play and softens up the image and cleans up a LOT of the aliasing. I wish they'd go to f/32, it'd probably be about a perfect match for the SLR sensor/sampling system.

(however, none of this applies to stills... for stills, better glass is unquestionably better and the results of better glass will show up in your still photos).
Click to expand...

Right, for stills the lens would be fantastic!

I'm glad I made a correct observation on this; there seems to be a common misconception amongst a lot of DSLR shooters that I know that the L series glass is necessary to get good quality video - and maybe it IS nice to have a lens like the 24-70 F/2.8 because of the normal range of zoom and a pretty decently wide aperture... but as far as resolved detail... that's something people don't get is that it doesn't really change it.

All that aside, I really do like the 35mm F/1.4 L, that's a fantastic lens to shoot with (photos AND video), but I think I'll be going for cheaper lenses since I primarily shoot video. The 50mm F/1.8 is a wonderful lens for the price... as is the Tamron 70-300 Macro - at only 150-200$ depending on where you look you cant beat it!

However, if I could have 3 or four lenses right now, I'd pick the Tokina 11-16mm, Canon 35mm F/1.4 L, Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L, and the Canon 70-200.

Now I'm just rambling :P Thanks for the great response Barry, always informative. Check out what I've got brewing up!

http://vimeo.com/10011394
 
I keep hearing about these problems with aliasing when shooting wide shots with deep focus outdoors. Could someone please post a screen grab or video clip or something as an example. I'm planning to shoot a film that will probably use a lot of wider lenses and some deeper focused shots, and I'm planning to use the 7d. Now I'm worried. Again, could someone post an example?
 
Better Lenses do make a difference.

I refuse to go further on this subject.

Rent an Arri Master Prime or Cooke S4 and put it on a HotRod Cameras PL7D. Project it.

You will see the difference.
 
Hmm,
' Barry this post is kicking my butt.
I just compared a Tamron 17-50 today to various expensive Canon glass and could see the difference just in the viewfinder by looking in the 5x and 10x's mode.
So I'm about to sell the Tamron.

However it sounds like your saying that may be completely irrelevant in video?

Lenny Levy
 
Dan_Kanes said:
Better Lenses do make a difference.

I refuse to go further on this subject.

Rent an Arri Master Prime or Cooke S4 and put it on a HotRod Cameras PL7D. Project it.

You will see the difference.
Click to expand...
Nobody said that there's no difference in the look.
 
I cringe everytime someone boasts about buying "tack sharp!!!" glass to shoot video...

When shopping for glass for video use, you should be looking at bokeh shape and quality, flaring, contrast, vignetting, distortion, physical construction, stabilization, and lens "speed". Lens sharpness should probably be the least of one's concerns (actually, too much sharpness can emphasize aliasing and moiré).

Now if you plan to use the glass for stills... then it's a different story. :-)

--X
 
I think bokeh, breathing and distortion are the biggest factors for my eye. Couldn't care less about the 'sharpest' image, in fact I think a little softer is more pleasing.
 
Dan_Kanes said:
Better Lenses do make a difference.

I refuse to go further on this subject.

Rent an Arri Master Prime or Cooke S4 and put it on a HotRod Cameras PL7D. Project it.

You will see the difference.
Click to expand...

What Barry and the others are saying: the way VDSLRs produce their videostream, a lot of the quality high-end lenses give you in photos, will be thrown out anyways.
But of course some lenses have a certain look and feel and this look will translate into the downsampled HD video as well...

But you may be right with projecting the footage, although I guess only a few here may run into this "problem"...
 
Yeah, I accidently had 'creepy ghost mode' selected instead of 'portrait'.

Plus I've been told by several girls that I look much nicer in blurry images.
 
KennonF said:
However, if I could have 3 or four lenses right now, I'd pick the Tokina 11-16mm, Canon 35mm F/1.4 L, Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L, and the Canon 70-200.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty indisputable selection of lenses, that would hold you in good stead for a long long time (budget permitting!)

You could whack a few G's off that by choosing slower zooms, but I'd rather just buy the faster lenses as I could afford them and rent if I seriously needed something for a project.
 
Dan_Kanes said:
Better Lenses do make a difference.

I refuse to go further on this subject.

Rent an Arri Master Prime or Cooke S4 and put it on a HotRod Cameras PL7D. Project it.

You will see the difference.
Click to expand...

As I said, and Barry said... Better lenses are better for a reason and you pay more for a reason... in the Canon 7D video mode however, it makes almost no difference in detail and sharpness. As far as bokeh, aperture, depth of field, etc.... they all vary with different lenses.

If you want to spend 5k to get a PL mount on a DSLR and thousands more on glass to use for the mount just to have a slightly better image... you may as well just buy a RED ONE at that point honestly. For all the money spent buying a 7D, CF cards, batteries, PL Mount, PL Lenses... you could easily buy the RED body - at least.

I have seen what those lenses make things look like, and it is very nice... is it worth the price tag? Ehhh.... not really (IN MY OPINION). The 7D is a nice cheap in-between and I intend on keeping it that way until I can afford a RED that has much better resolution than the 7D will ever have anyway.

So my point is: IF you're one of MANY using a 7D primarily for video and video only... think twice before you jump into buying really expensive glass thinking that it will increase the quality of your image 100x. It might only be a little better than your kit lenses would be (FOR VIDEO)
 
I actually experienced nice results with old manual and quite mediocre sharp k-mount lenses adapted to EOS. Apart from the nice "warm" color touch, they didn't produce as much aliasing than my EF lenses, yet footage didn't look too soft. Just less harsh, giving it a more even, filmic and less videoish look out of the box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top