Lens Indecision 2011-12

[Brian Pascale]

I am leasing my gear and therefore had to order everything at once. I would have preferred trying out the lenses before I bought, but then I would have to come up with the money at that point and it was easier and cheaper to do as a package order from two venders. Therefore I have ordered and received the following lenses:

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Canon 16-35mm f/2.8
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L EF II

I do a lot of quick shooting, documentaries, and the dramatic work I do is low budget.

Given some negative feedback on the Canon 16-35mm and 24-70mm being soft, I have been considering returning those lenses, which I can do with a $195 penalty. What I would replace them with depends on what time of day you talk to me. Some footage I have seen posted with Canon lenses that has been processed look pretty good (at least on the web), so am I worrying too much?

I was going to go with Nikon lenses initially as my research found them to be regarded as sharper, but since I want to do time-lapse and control exposure, I will be getting a Canon camera for that, most likely a 60D. And since the Scarlet came out with the Canon mount first, I went the Canon lens route and have order the TI mount.

Would I jumping through hoops using Nikons on Canon cameras? I think I loose the autofocus ability doing that. And I worry if I mix too many brands, color grading could be a problem. I have heard great things about the Nikon 14-24mm lens, super sharp, but many people don’t like the range and you cannot put filters on it. I do have a matte box, but it would be nice for protection and when you don’t want to use a matte box.

Or I could fill the gap with Canon primes since it looks like I would be using the Zoom lenses to get multiple focal lengths and not trying to zoom while shooting.

Or Leica M lenses that people seem to just love.

Don’t think I want to go the PL mount route as I want to stay light and compact, not to mention don’t want to screw up my order and go back to the end of the line.

So many choices and too much time on my hands to make a quick decision, but I do have to decide in a couple weeks or I will not be able to exchange them. Any advice is appreciated.

[Josh Negrin]

The Canon 17-40 L f/4 is tack sharp, as is the 24-105 L f/4. But you're losing an f-stop because they're both f4 lenses. For the 70-200, I'd suggest you get the IS version, if you're doing handheld shooting. IS is Image Stabilization, and helps a lot.

[Brian Pascale]

Thanks, I did get the IS version. Would hate to loose a stop, but I will try those lenses when I get my Scarlet.

[Dave Blackham]

The 16 35 and 24 70 are sharp. They might be different between examples but they are good lenses.

[Tom Gleeson]

Do not worry they are all good lenses. Don't get freaked out by the pixel peepers who are zooming into the images looking for the ultimate sharpness. In real world shooting and presentation these tiny differences between quality lenses are not visible and sharpness is only one of the parameters for good glass.

[Brian Iannone]

Canon's 24-70mm f/2.8L, in my opinion, is not a sharp lens. It does, however, have a nice range for a general-use lens.

[paulherrin]

they're all sharp enough... you're never going to know the difference in real world video shooting, i promise. if you want them to be even sharper... stop them down, which you'll likely be doing anyways running around.

if you do want to trade them out, which i would if you don't want/need zooms - look at leica, zeiss, or nikon lenses over the canon L's - or if you want something much cheaper get some canon mid-range primes.

for quick shooting it's nice to have a good range zoom, or a couple of them... right now i'm running around with a wide-range zoom (28-135) and 28, 50, and 135 primes. i'd like to have another prime in the 85-100 range as well, and maybe a 200/300 - but honestly, it's pretty easy to move around and get what you want... it's also really nice to have that tokina 11-16, def hold onto that :)

in short, relax - your lenses make good images. i'd look more into cost/performance and what fits your shooting style more than anything...

[stu aull]

Brian-
your over thinking this.
Your list is identical to my wish-list.

we're good.

Worst case you try them, then sell off for something else. Lots of folks will step up to buy your lenses. Canon glass has good resale value.

Stu Aull
Alaska

[Julio Quintana]

I do a lot of quick shooting, documentaries, and the dramatic work I do is low budget.

For those sorts of projects, you have a great lens package. You are covered from 11-200mm for $6000. That is the best value you are likely to find for your Scarlet.

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Do not worry they are all good lenses. Don't get freaked out by the pixel peepers who are zooming into the images looking for the ultimate sharpness. In real world shooting and presentation these tiny differences between quality lenses are not visible and sharpness is only one of the parameters for good glass.

I'm not sure if I would take that position. This test (which I have posted on a different thread) says a lot about how poor the 16-35/2.8 L is wide-open, even in the centre:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/slr...comparison.htm

Of course it could be sample variation, but that is not a get-out-of-jail card.