PL or EF... your first-hand experience in today's industry

L

leeburnett

Active member
So the new C100 mark II is out soon and it seems it comes in either a PL or an EF mount. I'm planning to move out of the DSLR market, although granted not that far away with the C100. Either way I love the image this camera produces, and it will be a vast improvement from my 5d III.

With it I am going to invest in some new glass. Probably a set of 3 good cinema primes, and I will experiment with a couple of older russian zooms for documentary run-n-gun shooting. I want to do a bit of both narrative and documentary and I think this set-up will provide me the most options with the simplest and easiest camera for both styles of lenses. I may be wrong?

Firstly, I want to say that I know the basic ins and outs of PL vs EF. I understand the mechanical differences and the benefits of PL. That being said I don't know quite what to listen to when reading the vast swathes of opinions online. The world of film is changing every day, and I'm definitely coming from the new generation who have entered this through DSLR. Considering I'm going to be investing a good chunk of my savings on some new glass, I want to get this right. Also, I have no experience of PL lenses, and little experience of cine lenses.

What are your first hand two cents for how to make a decision on this because I've hit a brick wall. Do I get the EF mount, and go for EF cine lenses, or am I going to kick myself hard in the face later on if I start heading more down the narrative route?

Is it possible to use PL lenses on an EF mount if I go the EF route and then have a situation where I am using PL lenses.

If I get a PL mount and PL glass, is it easy to adapt it for EF lenses which I will no doubt have to use on a lot of jobs?

I know I may be fretting over not much. It seems a lot of people's experience on here is high-end, high-budget narrative shooting where it's possible to rent in a new body and lenses on demand. My experience is very different, which may have something to do with the route in which I have entered the film industry. (freelance, DSLR, stills lenses) Some of the opportunities I have had are purely down to having my own kit. It may not make sense financially to some of you, but I want my own high-end kit that I can use on jobs where renting in is just not possible
 
I'm EF till I die, but if you're really worried and you could still use EF glass on a PL mount then maybe PL is the one for you?
 
Which kind of lenses do you own and which are you plannung to use?

Proper and expensive cine lenses with follow focus and ACs for that as well?
Go PL.

You already own EF-lenses and you like how they perform and it's price range?
You rarely have an AC and use follow focus but like AF for certain situations.
Go EF.

If you go the PL-route, there's no way using non-PL lenses as the flange focal distance of
PL is really big (52mm). With the EF-mount (ffd 44mm) you can still use PL lenses via adapter,
but loose the sturdyness of the mount...
 
leeburnett said:
So the new C100 mark II is out soon and it seems it comes in either a PL or an EF mount. I'm planning to move out of the DSLR market, although granted not that far away with the C100. Either way I love the image this camera produces, and it will be a vast improvement from my 5d III.

With it I am going to invest in some new glass. Probably a set of 3 good cinema primes, and I will experiment with a couple of older russian zooms for documentary run-n-gun shooting. I want to do a bit of both narrative and documentary and I think this set-up will provide me the most options with the simplest and easiest camera for both styles of lenses. I may be wrong?

Firstly, I want to say that I know the basic ins and outs of PL vs EF. I understand the mechanical differences and the benefits of PL. That being said I don't know quite what to listen to when reading the vast swathes of opinions online. The world of film is changing every day, and I'm definitely coming from the new generation who have entered this through DSLR. Considering I'm going to be investing a good chunk of my savings on some new glass, I want to get this right. Also, I have no experience of PL lenses, and little experience of cine lenses.

What are your first hand two cents for how to make a decision on this because I've hit a brick wall. Do I get the EF mount, and go for EF cine lenses, or am I going to kick myself hard in the face later on if I start heading more down the narrative route?

Is it possible to use PL lenses on an EF mount if I go the EF route and then have a situation where I am using PL lenses.

If I get a PL mount and PL glass, is it easy to adapt it for EF lenses which I will no doubt have to use on a lot of jobs?

I know I may be fretting over not much. It seems a lot of people's experience on here is high-end, high-budget narrative shooting where it's possible to rent in a new body and lenses on demand. My experience is very different, which may have something to do with the route in which I have entered the film industry. (freelance, DSLR, stills lenses) Some of the opportunities I have had are purely down to having my own kit. It may not make sense financially to some of you, but I want my own high-end kit that I can use on jobs where renting in is just not possible
Click to expand...


Two different applications. If you are doing videography or smaller one-man-band / lower budget productions, EF is likely the way to go, IF you are a Canon lens guy.

PL mount is stronger and more universal for CINEMA lenses, meaning lenses you should be using on a set run like a proper cinema production. You can also use a huge amount of modern and vintage glass, although most are expensive.

My biggest issue with EF mount cameras is image shift when changing focus direction. Unless you have an extra locking mechanism (like Red uses on their EF mount) I find the tolerances of the EF mount and the EF lens flange too loose and when I make quick and short focus direction changes I can see the image 'jump' (called image shift.) It's caused by a small amount of flex within the flange and mount, creating the image shift. Typically, you will also see this with any system that uses lens adapters that aren't very tightly machined.

I've had this issue on many many C300's and EF CP.2's. Sometimes great enough to have to avoid the lens or warn production ahead of time.

EF lens mount was never designed as a suitable cinema lens mount... It has however been used to mixed results. Certainly not ideal for most top professional standards, but the exceptions have been made.

However, I have been talking about Union level production for the most part. As mentioned, if you are not a larger scale production and you like EF lenses, than go for it. The EF mount is more economical for sure.

It sounds like EF is your match.

Also note there are a few lens sets with interchangable mounts. Perhaps this might help your dilemma? Of course changing the mounts requires careful and proper procedure but it's not too difficult for the average joe who takes the time. This would allow you to perhaps rent your lenses out to PL camera productions or future proof your lenses (should you want to commit to them in the long run) for a future PL camera.

Now for being completely off OP's topic... PL mount, as wonderful as it is, might be due for an update. By no means should it be replaced with EF or anything like it, but the flange distance is great due to spinning mirrors in optical path cameras. Those are so far declining in popularity, and lens designs would greatly benefit from using that space. In the future, if we can all agree on giving up optical path reflex viewing cameras, we should make a smaller flange depth cinema standard with matching 'positive lock' (PL) type technology for securing the lens firmly in the mount. We would be able to get better performing lenses and a smaller cost, from my understanding of lens design.
 
Last edited:
I find it likely that for any shoot where you'd need the benefit of PL glass/mounts, you will be using something a bit above the c100. It's all up to you and how you intend to use your camera and what kind of shooting you'll be doing, but the c100 really shines imo on lower-budget productions, super-low-budget features, documentaries, indie music videos, particularly for easy set-up-and-go type stuff-- one man band stuff, often. I don't expect these are the kinds of situations where you'd benefit from a PL mount or get a decent enough return on expensive PL glass.
 
EF is easily accessible - meaning there are tons of fantastic inexpensive lenses available. On some medium to even high end productions that use multiple cameras - this economy IS important. As Ryan mentioned above there is a image shift happening when quickly re-focusing which IS noticeable so the production needs to predict if this will be a deal breaker. That said, on those productions whoever is in charge is usually experienced person so the decision is ALWAYS made project specific.
 
PL is for professional crews that work like a well-oiled machine (and are paid accordingly). The benefits of cinema-grade lenses are mundane and mechanical. Same length, so you don't need to move the matte box. Same filter diameter, so you can use the same filters. Big focus ring, so the guy whose sole job is to pull focus can do it well (a big focus ring might even work against you if you're a one-man band).

EF is for one-man shooters, people who buy their own equipment, own their own business, just getting started, etc. Don't forget you can adapt it to the Nikon mount, too.

These are just generalities. You can buy PL if you really want. Most will say you can take that money and spend it elsewhere that will make a more visible difference in your final product.
 
Thanks for all the responses, definitely got a lot more direct advice than my hours of online reading has produced.

Today I read an article somewhere that definitely stated it would have the option of EF or PL... I can't find that article right now so maybe I'm wrong, but I will try to find it and post it later.

FIrstly, the reason I'm going for the C100 is that it gives me a big improvement on my 5d III for when I'm on one-man-band low budget projects. I don't want the C300, I don't think it's worth 3 or 4 times the C100. Unless I go toward the RED range (where I will be spending most of my budget for something not suited to me), it seems like much of a muchness. So yes you're probably right that productions that call for PL mount will not be using my c100, that was my thinking originally, just slightly clouded thinking.

I will be investing a good hunk of money in my glass, looking around it will be about £10,000 for 3 lenses, although I may go second hand. This means that some PL lenses are within my budget which is why I asked.

What is it exactly that makes PL lenses so specific to high-end production over EF? If I'm using cine primes then what's the huge difference?

Based on the advice here I think I will be going EF (if there is ​an option) as I think I am gearing towards documentary, but I really want to keep as cinematic in style as possible, hence the cine primes over still zooms. I know this presents challenges, but the benefits are worth it to me.
 
You can adapt a PL lens to an EF camera mount. IBE(they make the HDx35 B4 to s35 adapter among others) now makes a PL to EF adapter. There are existing adapters out there, but I've heard mixed reviews on them. I'm guessing this one may be "the real deal" based on their other products. I own a C300(EF mount) and a set of Canon Cine primes(EF). If this adapter is the real deal, then I'm probably done buying anymore cine glass in EF and will buy everything else going forward in PL(you can now have the Canon primes converted to PL if you so desire, but it's a one way one time deal from what I understand), especially since I've been test driving an F5 this week.

I'd love for someone to explain why the Canon zooms can be fitted with an adapter that allows the user to switch them back and forth between PL and EF, but they can't do the same with the CN-E primes.
 
Run&Gun said:
You can adapt a PL lens to an EF camera mount. IBE(they make the HDx35 B4 to s35 adapter among others) now makes a PL to EF adapter. There are existing adapters out there, but I've heard mixed reviews on them. I'm guessing this one may be "the real deal" based on their other products. I own a C300(EF mount) and a set of Canon Cine primes(EF). If this adapter is the real deal, then I'm probably done buying anymore cine glass in EF and will buy everything else going forward in PL(you can now have the Canon primes converted to PL if you so desire, but it's a one way one time deal from what I understand), especially since I've been test driving an F5 this week.

I'd love for someone to explain why the Canon zooms can be fitted with an adapter that allows the user to switch them back and forth between PL and EF, but they can't do the same with the CN-E primes.
Click to expand...

http://www.ducloslenses.com/pages/cne-pl

Why make EF mount Cinema lenses at all? I know the answer, but my point is that Canon just wants to promote their mount first and foremost. Yes, the EF mount makes sense for lower budget purposes and single shooters. Cinema lenses are after all for cinema type productions. However, Canon doesn't really care about what works best. My theory is somewhat supported by the fact they released EF C300's ahead of the PL. They just wanted more people on their system, with their lenses.
 
This is the problem I'm facing... There's so, so many opinions on the subject and I don't quite understand the exact reason for some people's views.

Things like 'Big focus ring, so the guy whose sole job is to pull focus can do it well' doesn't make sense to me, because surely if I get an EF cine prime over a PL version of the same lens, the focus ring is the same length. I absolutely do not want to get stills primes anymore, I want cine primes and one or two cine zooms.

What are the exact differences between a zeiss CP.2 in EF and PL???... If I'm going to slog £3000 a piece for each lens I'm about to get, I really want to know why I'm buying the EF version over the PL, and I'm still slightly confused?

What exact reasons would I have for choosing EF over PL, or vice versa, of exactly the same lens?
 
Everything I have seen regarding the new C100mkII indicates that the camera is only going to ship with an EF mount just like version I.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1086125-REG/canon_eos_c100_cinema_eos.html


You indicate that you have a budget of around £10,000, which is roughly $16K in US funds, to spend on lenses for your new camera.

I may not be the best shooter out there, but I have pretty good business sense, which makes me ask… What lenses are you using now with your 5DmkIII?

Let me also ask… Do you only shoot single camera stuff, or would keeping your 5DmkIII as a second camera benefit your business?

I'll also ask… who your clientele is? For example… If you were to invest in expensive PL mount cine glass would your current client base cover the cost?

One thing I have learned over the years, is self control. Putting your emotions in check. Want vs need!

I may want that new 30-105 zoom, but from a business perspective I don't need it.

After all this is the film "business"

On a final note…. I do not know a single shooter who was hired because of which lens mount was on their camera.

 
Last edited:
leeburnett said:
What are the exact differences between a zeiss CP.2 in EF and PL???... If I'm going to slog £3000 a piece for each lens I'm about to get, I really want to know why I'm buying the EF version over the PL, and I'm still slightly confused?
Click to expand...

It's crazy simple. The difference between cine lenses with PL or EF mount is exactly that, the mount. The rest of the lens, optics, mechanics, housing etc is exactly the same.

PL mount is bigger, stronger, and tighter than EF and more cine lenses are made with PL mount. Using EF will enable autofocus on certain cameras (EF = Electronic Focus) and electronic control of aperture. IS (image stabilisation) is also available on EF mount lenses. EF mount opens your choices to a vast range of stills and specialty lenses. PL lenses tend to be expensive. Lots of great glass is available in EF.

Oh, and you can't afford a PL mount zoom. So, forget that.
 
OK, looking into it again I must have got my wires crossed on the C100 mark II... must have been a rogue article or my own tiredness.

I currently shoot Tamron 24-70, and older Zuiko primes and zooms from my dads 35mm photography collection. I get great images from these most of the time, but the issues I get from them are never-ending (different color casts, different shaprness and contrast, focus pulling is a chore... which is why I want cine lenses)

For me it is not entirely important whether my clients will always foot the bill for the higher-end glass. My true passion lies in cinematic documentary, a few things I am working on now are directed by friends, there is almost no budget at the beginning of shooting. In this situation money doesn't come into it as a factor for me. I currently have money to upgrade my kit. I want to have the kit to push these productions into a more professional and cinematic direction regardless of cost, this will open doors for me no doubt, and make things a hell of a lot easier in post.

Besides this I want to get the glass for all of my paid commercial work, usually short narrative style advertisements and music videos. For this I will almost undoubtedly be using my 5d III as a second camera. And also for this I will no doubt be charging higher rates when I get my new kit. Maybe not the industry-standard rates of kit hire, but definitely more.

Given that I'm steering towards documentary, I'm certain I won't be getting PL lenses. I am looking at a decent cine zoom to start with, now questioning the prime route. So many questions and slowly stomping ahead to a decision.
 
leeburnett said:
This is the problem I'm facing... There's so, so many opinions on the subject and I don't quite understand the exact reason for some people's views.

Things like 'Big focus ring, so the guy whose sole job is to pull focus can do it well' doesn't make sense to me, because surely if I get an EF cine prime over a PL version of the same lens, the focus ring is the same length. I absolutely do not want to get stills primes anymore, I want cine primes and one or two cine zooms.

What are the exact differences between a zeiss CP.2 in EF and PL???... If I'm going to slog £3000 a piece for each lens I'm about to get, I really want to know why I'm buying the EF version over the PL, and I'm still slightly confused?

What exact reasons would I have for choosing EF over PL, or vice versa, of exactly the same lens?
Click to expand...

If there is a version of a cinema lens that is offered in EF or PL, they are typically exactly the same lens with a different mount. The discussions previous were referencing EF lenses generally as the typical photography lenses one would use with an EF mount.

EF cinema lenses are kind of rare. In fact, only Canon makes them, with the exception of some 'more affordable' Zeiss CP.2's / CP.z's, and the little known fact that Aneinieux will do EF upon special request (among other mounts though I believe non-interchangeable on users end.)

(If I ever come across someone with a Angenieux 24-290 (a 24lb, $70,000 lens) with an EF mount, I'd probably face palm myself into tomorrow, as that negates any of the EF advantages, but hey. This is an art, right? No wrong answers?)

Anyway, what is the difference between the two lenses? Well, as of today, nothing except the PL mount is much more sturdy. This results in less image shift from focus direction changes, less need for lens supports, and a camera-lens connection that will be potentially more durable/strong in extreme conditions found in cinema production.

Yes, EF mount cameras can usually communicate with EF lenses for IS, aperture control, and other electronic communications, but this is only for photography lenses. Cine lenses don't usually have or need this.

Edit: Edited for some slightly wrong info. Canon lenses do communicate with lens data for some models like CN-E and advertised for 17-120 zoom. Similar to i/tech and LDS systems, but obviously no IS or Aperture control.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
EF cinema lenses are kind of rare. In fact, only Canon makes them, with the exception of some 'more affordable' Zeiss CP.2's / CP.z's, and the little known fact that Aneinieux will do EF upon special request (among other mounts though I believe non-interchangeable on users end.)
Click to expand...

Schneider Xenons are available in EF. So are everyone's favourite affordable cine lenses, Samyang. Then, there's the Tokina 11-16mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top