Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Canon L Lenses - Zoom or Prime?

J

Jack Shanahan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
762
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
NYC
I am totally torn between the Canon L Primes and Zooms:

More particularly the 14 (2.8), 24 (1.4), 35 (1.4), 50 (1.2), 85 (1.2)
vs
24-70 (2.8)

Prime Pros:
-speed
-weight
-quality

Zoom Pros:
-Cost
-Focal Length Range
-Ability to zoom! :)

Anyone with experience please wight in on this:

-Do either lenses breath much?
-is autofocus really going to be worth it anyway?


Thanks!
Jack
 
Specifically anyone who has used the canon 14mm 2.8 - how is the barrel distortion on Mysterium X sensor?
 
Jack Shanahan said:
Specifically anyone who has used the canon 14mm 2.8 - how is the barrel distortion on Mysterium X sensor?
Click to expand...

Haven't used the 14mm on an MX but I did use it on a 5D Mark II and a 7D for photography, and there is not that much distortion on the 5D, on the 7D there is almost none at all.
 
Hi Guys,
I use zoom lenses (24-70 mm L - F 2.8 and 16 - 35 mm LF 2.8) or some fixed (50 mm L 2.8 - 85 mm L 1.2) and also a set of Zeiss primes (CP2).
When I'm in studio I prefer to use fixed lenses, outside, I'm lazy and I prefer zoom lenses (the backpack weighs mooore less).
But I have no experience with RED ... currently I use 5D, 7D and Sony F3. I'm waiting to get my first scarlet - X Kit EF
Bye,
L.
 
I have one prime the 50 1.4. I also have the 24-70 2.8L. I got the zoom due to budget right now. The primes are all great from Canon as I've rented or used them at one time or another. If you looking for cost effective you can't go wrong with the 24-70. How much low light will you shoot? What environment?

I shoot outside and move around alot. Zooms work better in that instance for me personally.
 
Beside the functional implications of zooms versus primes, you'll have to decided which you prefer.

In this particular case you have a single 24-70mm f/2.8L versus 14mm f/2.8L, 24mm f/1.4L, 35mm f/1.4L, 50mm f/1.2L, and 85mm f/1.2L.

If cost is a concern and functionality is part of the equation, a 24-70mm and 14mm combo package would be very useful.

However, I know I'm a "prime guy". I have 42 lenses and only two of those are zooms. Although I plan on adding two zooms into that mix pretty soon, you can clearly see I like slapping different lenses on the camera getting that lenses properties and feel.

Another question for you is: Do you often shoot in low light or like shallow depth of field effects? The advantage here is that the f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses literally open up a new world to you where as you'll be starting at f/2.8 on the zoom.

I really like fast primes due to their speed (maximum aperture), control over depth of field, and image quality once stopped down.
But you don't get the added time saving function of zooms by just leaving it on the camera.

Different strokes for different folks.
 
I'm in total agreement with Phil.

It really depends on what/how you shoot.

Personally, I love primes for the reasons Phil mentions. You'll also notice that some of the greatest cinematographers use prime lenses. There is a reason for that.

A lot of people love the 24-70mm f/2.8L because of it's flexibility and cost. I actually hate this lens. Every person who has shot for me, I tell them never to use that lens. I feel that it makes people lazy and it's fine to be a lazy shooter, but not if you're going to work for me. It is more a philosophy of filming. If you're a lazy shooter, then you're telling me you are not giving your best. The last time I checked, the best films weren't produced because someone was being lazy. It never fails that when I see someone film with that 24-70mm, I can find evidence of sloppy footage.
 
It really depends. For most gigs I prefer to have all three Zooms if possible 16-35_24-70_70-200. Going solo Zooms are key, can save you time from constantly swapping lens, getting gear dirty, etc. Primes are sweet when you have an AC. If I have to pick one it'd be a 24-70 but thats on a MkII sensor so on MX 16-35 would do, unless your thinking of upgrading to Dragon but hopefully by then you'll have both.

Primes wise I prefer the Zeiss but I have been considering getting a few Canon Primes. Worked on a shoot a few months back with the 24 (1.4), 35 (1.4), 85 (1.2) and I was bloom away. Not as sharp but it adds a type of smooth finish which in some scenarios can be very handy, especially for portraits of old folk. Zeiss can be a little too crisp at times, all depends what your going for and how good your subject can handle each lens type. Another reason is to help out the guys on the post end, if you go from Canon to Zeiss there is a subtle difference in look. With all canon lens you eliminate that extra chore.

you should get...

Zoom
16-35
70-200

24-70 down the line

Primes
85
24

35
50
14....down the line
 
Louis Maddalena said:
Haven't used the 14mm on an MX but I did use it on a 5D Mark II and a 7D for photography, and there is not that much distortion on the 5D, on the 7D there is almost none at all.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The EF 14mm has significant distortion in my experience. As you say, though, it will have less on a smaller sensor like the Scarlet, especially windowed. But then you have to ask yourself, how sharp is the lens, really? Not very sharp compared to the EF 16-35, IMO.
 
For better or worse I went with the 14mm and the 24-70mm. Both lenses 2.8 thruout - not the fastest but consistency is nice.
Tom the fact that you are saying the 14mm is not that sharp and has some unwanted distortion makes me cringe a little bit - but I really wanted the wide angle for the high FPS stuff. Plus a little softness doesn't hurt these days - especially when shooting models etc right? Fashion is mainly what I shoot now.

I'll test them both out asap and see how they look. I am a prime person too - just didnt have the budget. I agree how zooms can make people lazy but then again -- guns dont shoot people - people shoot people -- and I will always keep in mind - a change in focal length does not equal a change in camera to subject distance.

Thanks for you advice. I'll post tests asap. Please anyone who has a Scarlet + Canon L lenses post if you can! :)

Jack
 
Last edited:
Tom Lowe said:
I disagree. The EF 14mm has significant distortion in my experience. As you say, though, it will have less on a smaller sensor like the Scarlet, especially windowed. But then you have to ask yourself, how sharp is the lens, really? Not very sharp compared to the EF 16-35, IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree with Tom. Compare the 14mm to the Nikon 14-24mm and you'll see a very big difference.

Marcos
 
I don't want to hijack this thread, but it seems to me with Canon EOS mount you don't need to ask this question, these aren't Zeiss Master Primes. The great thing with this mount is the huge variety of vintage lenses out there right now that don't cost arm & a leg. Takamur 50mm lens, sharp great lens can be had for about $100, Zeiss flekatgons, Leica "R" lenses, M42 mounts, nikon mounts to name a few all are cheaper than L glass options. Hence I would encourage everyone who is getting the EOS mount to yes have some Canon L glass but also explore just how much high quality other glass you can hang of this mount gaining exceptional results whilst investing minimum dollars.

P.S. Because they're all full frame they cover 4K.
 
I'll be using my Zeiss ZF with EOS adapters! They've rocked for me all these years, and I think they'll rock on the Scarlet-X too! I agree with Mike on the older lenses. I like full manual control over the lens and don't really like to rely on the electronics of the camera to dial the iris in. I love that we can use anything to shoot with these cameras. When you get your X, go shoot with anything you got and experiment with it!
 
This has all been quite informative. In my small experience working with primes the bit of time it takes to set up again to get the shot is well worth the improvement of quality - I do feel as though I would be a "prime guy" too. I can't really afford any more than 3 lenses (budget is say 4 thousand) to begin with, would love to hear your thoughts on the following. I'll be getting the Tokina 11 - 16 simply for cost effectiveness, and it's use for wide shots/2 and 3k high fps/time lapse in 5k. The other lenses I have in mind are:

24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2, 70 - 200mm 2.8 II

Does it make sense to scrap the 85mm and get a 70 - 200 as it covers that plus more, considering it's overall quality? Most reviews have said it's one of the best lenses Canon offers in the price range. And if I were to choose between a 24 and 35 1.4 considering I have the Tokina, which would better compliment the 50mm?

I'm really set on making my first big investment in glass worth it. While money is a factor I'd rather wait and get fewer lenses and have higher quality glass, than try to get as many as I can to cover the best range - so if any of the ones I've suggested aren't the best in terms of quality, I'd greatly appreciate any info on what to avoid and replace them with.

Thanks
 
JosefGatti said:
Does it make sense to scrap the 85mm and get a 70 - 200 as it covers that plus more, considering it's overall quality? Most reviews have said it's one of the best lenses Canon offers in the price range.
Click to expand...

If you don't need the extra stops on the 85mm then I believe so, yes. The 70-200 II is a very well made lens, sharp as hell. One of my favorite lens ever.
 
Anthony Vu said:
I'm in total agreement with Phil.

It really depends on what/how you shoot.

Personally, I love primes for the reasons Phil mentions. You'll also notice that some of the greatest cinematographers use prime lenses. There is a reason for that.

A lot of people love the 24-70mm f/2.8L because of it's flexibility and cost. I actually hate this lens. Every person who has shot for me, I tell them never to use that lens. I feel that it makes people lazy and it's fine to be a lazy shooter, but not if you're going to work for me. It is more a philosophy of filming. If you're a lazy shooter, then you're telling me you are not giving your best. The last time I checked, the best films weren't produced because someone was being lazy. It never fails that when I see someone film with that 24-70mm, I can find evidence of sloppy footage.
Click to expand...


Wow! Wonder what Mr Jannard would have to say about this. A couple of weeks ago he shot a landscape with that lens and I think he made a rather sizable print with the image. The 24-70 is a great lens, nothing lazy about it or the people who use it.
 
That depends on the work. For still photography the 24-70 is great, not lazy. But for motion, I can see Anthony's point.
 
JosefGatti said:
This has all been quite informative. In my small experience working with primes the bit of time it takes to set up again to get the shot is well worth the improvement of quality - I do feel as though I would be a "prime guy" too. I can't really afford any more than 3 lenses (budget is say 4 thousand) to begin with, would love to hear your thoughts on the following. I'll be getting the Tokina 11 - 16 simply for cost effectiveness, and it's use for wide shots/2 and 3k high fps/time lapse in 5k. The other lenses I have in mind are:

24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2, 70 - 200mm 2.8 II

Does it make sense to scrap the 85mm and get a 70 - 200 as it covers that plus more, considering it's overall quality? Most reviews have said it's one of the best lenses Canon offers in the price range. And if I were to choose between a 24 and 35 1.4 considering I have the Tokina, which would better compliment the 50mm?

I'm really set on making my first big investment in glass worth it. While money is a factor I'd rather wait and get fewer lenses and have higher quality glass, than try to get as many as I can to cover the best range - so if any of the ones I've suggested aren't the best in terms of quality, I'd greatly appreciate any info on what to avoid and replace them with.

Thanks
Click to expand...

That 85 is amazing keep that, the 70-200 USM II is an amazing lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top