Slow Lecia R lenses vs Canon fast primes for the big screen?

L

Lliam Worthington

Active member
Hi everyone,

Wondering if anyone has had experience shooting 7D footage that was released/shown on a theatre screen?

Is a lens like a Canon EF 50mm f1.4 producing images that are sharp enough?
I've read DOP's say they are not... I only have one L series lens in my kit. (100mm macro)
So I'm considering getting some second hand slower Lecia R glass instead as I've heard they are very good for my purposes (Indi feature looking for a potential theatrical release) but I'd like to hear peoples thought?

Note: As I'm mainly shooting in bright sun I'm thinking I could afford to go to for a couple of slower elmarit Lenses.

Greatly appreciate any advice.

Best
LW
 
With my 50D I took lots of good photos with lenses that were not the ultimate in sharpness - Tokina 12-24 and 28-135, so I'm sure for video you can do just fine in video with second hand Leicas. Test them out....if you like the look go for it. As far as big screen goes - you should check out Phillip Bloom's site - specifically a video segment with Phillip and Vincent Laforet talking DLSR filming. They both mention how when the image is blown up...it actually looks better, and how some of the things they see on monitors aren't present on the big screen.
 
I shot a short that was shown 2k in a theater on the 7D. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 was one of the lenses I used and it was plenty sharp. I also used the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, the Canon 24mm and 22mm, I don't remember the f-stops, (they were low). In fact, the footage was compressed to MPEG2 Blue Ray and played off disc in the theater. The entire production pipeline was digital and post was done at 2K with 16bit color. Some sharpening was used in the creation of the final image.
 
I helped out on a feature that was shot on the 7D, 5D, and RED One. It was shown at 1080 on a theater screen and looked awesome (very sharp, very clear). I believe that about 95% of the film was shot on Canon L series glass.
 
In my experience with both Canon and Leica optics the real differences with the Leica lenses is build quality, quality control and consistancy of performance. Canon lenses, especially the L series are very very good, the build quality is excellent but the Leicas are built even better, I always thought they were the still lens built most like a motion picture lens. Occasionally you will find a bad sample of a Canon design, its rare but it is even rarer with leicas, QC or tolerances in the manufacturing chain are different between the manufacturers. All the leicas I've tested were exceptionally consistant in performance across the entire aperture range, most nikons and canons have a sweet spot but you can usually use leicas wide open with confidence, especially the APOs. Leica lenses cost a fortune and its a little difficult to justify it (in my mind) when you can get performance that is so close from other manufacturers. If money is no object. . .why not?
 
The Canon 50mm 1.4 should be sharp enough. Other lenses, though, like the 20mm f2.8, while it's a good lens, it's soft at the corners. Should be fine on a 7D, but on a 5D, you can really see it. The Leica 19mm is very sharp from edge to edge.

I think people go for Leica over Canon because of the difference in look (contrast, etc), although I think Canon lenses have a really cool look also.
 
Yes Leica lenses are awesome! I wouldn't say sharpness is the main reason to choose leica. They are sharp, but the long smooth focus throw, manual aperture, neutral color, unique flare properties, bokeh and "cinema correct" focus direction are bigger reasons. FYI the leica lenses tend to be a stop slower than other brands, but you can shoot them wide open and that is not the case with many other manufacurer's lenses. What lenses are you looking at and what camera are you shoot? I would also consider L series primes for certain focal lengths (especially the wide end where old lenses get slow).

I would reccommend this kit

Tokina 11-16 (great on APS-C and good as 16mm prime on FF)
Canon 24 F1.4L II
Canon 35 F1.4
Leica summicron R v2 or Canon 50 1.2L
Leica 60mm macro elmarit
Leica 90mm Summicron R
Leica 135 Elmarit R
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't call f/2.8 to be "slow"; it is slower than f/1.4, but it's already wider than you want to use in most shots (most shots in most movies are taken at the DoF equivalent of f/3.5 for APS-C, f/5.6 for fullframe)

also, you may want to read this:
http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/02/06/still-lenses/
http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/07/03/leica-r-mount-lenses-for-the-canon-hdslrs/

I own an elmarit 35mm and an elmarit 90mm, and I'm extremly happy with them; I also plan to get a summilux 50mm when I move to fullframe
 
NormanBates said:
I wouldn't call f/2.8 to be "slow"; it is slower than f/1.4, but it's already wider than you want to use in most shots (most shots in most movies are taken at the DoF equivalent of f/3.5 for APS-C, f/5.6 for fullframe)

also, you may want to read this:
http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/02/06/still-lenses/
http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/07/03/leica-r-mount-lenses-for-the-canon-hdslrs/

I own an elmarit 35mm and an elmarit 90mm, and I'm extremly happy with them; I also plan to get a summilux 50mm when I move to fullframe
Click to expand...

The 90mm Elmarit is in my opinion a real sleeper, it is generally excellent at all apertures, relatively close focusing and good examples can be found for under $300. I love mine. It makes you scratch your head how the 50mm summicron regularly goes for almost twice as much.
 
yes, that 90mm is the sharpest leica-R lens to my knowledge

some Leica-R lenses ordered by weighted MTF sharpness at f/2.8 (and at f/4), best to worse (numbers from photodo.com):
0.81 (0.86) – ElmaritR 90mm
0.81 (0.84) – SummiluxR 50mm
0.79 (0.87) – SummicronR 50mm
0.78 (0.81) – ElmaritR 35mm
0.75 (0.78) – SummicronR 35mm
0.74 (0.80) – ElmaritR 180mm
0.74 (0.79) – ElmaritR 28mm
0.73 (0.78) – PC Super AngulonR 28mm
0.71 (0.75) – ElmaritR 24mm

note 1: notice how the elmarit 35mm is slower but much sharper than the summicron 35mm

note 2: for those who don't know: elmar=f/4 elmarit=f/2.8 summicron=f/2 summilux=f/1.4 noctilux=f/1.2 or lower (I don't know about any noctilux for leica-R, only for leica-M, which won't work on canon or nikon DSLRs)

plus: I thought the summicron 50mm was way cheaper, around $200 to $300, and it's the sharper and faster summilux 50mm that costs around $500 to $600
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top