canon 24-70 L f2.8

[tiberghv]

What do you guys think of this lens ? is it a good investment ?
does it performs as good in video that it does in still photo ?

 

[Dave Blackham]

It works well but has an extending front element.

 

[Miguel "Macgregor" De Olaso]

Too heavy, too short, too expensive and too slow. It would be interesting to know the real T of photography zoom lenses. They are considerably darker than fixed ones. EDIT: see David´s test in the next pages, i was too extreme. His lens appears to be only about half a stop darker than an equivalent fixed lens.

 

[Stephen Strangways]

It works well but has an extending front element.

I've shot with it, and found an interesting solution to that: put the lens hood on. The hood doesn't move while you zoom, so I throw a donut on the end and swing the mattebox over it.

Macgregor's right, it does seem slower than other 2.8s, but it works well outside in daylight, and the price was right in our case - already owned by a Canon stills shooter at the company.

 

[Steve Gibby]

I disagree Miguel...

The Canon 24-70 f2.8L is one the lenses I use most on my FF35 Canon DSLRs. Other lenses I also use a lot on my DSLRs are the Canon 16-35 f2.8L MKII, and the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS. I really like all three of those zooms. I haven't used them on any of my RED One cameras though. I will test them out on Epic and Scarlet, with RED's new electronic Canon mount. Some people shoot genres which inherently call for primes, while others shoot genres which call for zooms. Because of the genres I shoot, my kits are mostly zooms, but I still own several primes for when they may be the best choice for a particular shot.

For the genres I shoot - travel, sports, nature, music, documentaries - I find f2.8 plenty fast. In fact most of my shooting is between f4 and f11. I use 35mm stills lenses exclusively on my RED One cameras - 28 Nikon lenses, and two long focal length Canon FD lenses - and none of them is faster than f2.8.

In my opinion its cine lenses that are too heavy, too short, and too expensive - not 35mm stills lenses. That's why I don't own any cine lenses - and don't intend to.

 

[Steve Gibby]

I've shot with it, and found an interesting solution to that: put the lens hood on. The hood doesn't move while you zoom, so I throw a donut on the end and swing the mattebox over it.

For ease, lightness, and increased mobility, I'd simply use the 24-70 the way it was designed to be used - with screw on filters. I own multiple RED One cameras and 30 different 35mm stills lenses I regularly use on them - and all my filtering is done via screw on filters. In fact, I don't even own a matte box (or follow focus), and I don't want to or need to for the genres I work in.

If someone works a lot in narrative, certain crew environments that require cine style accessories, or genres where a matte box is expected, then they obviously should use one. If they don't, then they certainly have the option when using 35mm stills lenses to filter them in the way they were designed for - screw on filters.

The bottom line is how the footage comes out. My results have been stellar using screw on filters, and the increased mobility of lighter rigs, plus cost savings by not buying a MB and expensive stage filters has been a good choice for me.

But to each their own...

 

[Matthew Duclos]

Still photo lenses are not marked in T-stops which is why they seem slower.
They are calculated f stops which can be a very different number.
The 24-70mm Canon is a nice lens optically, but it's mechanical construction is where you will find most of your problems. Because it is an auto focus lens it holds very loose tolerances that will surely be noticed when reversing focus direction or when zooming during a shot.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM is a fantastic lens, in fact a much look after "LOOK" which is very specific to this lens, and as Steve said, this is great on FF sensors so will perform always even better in cropped sensors such as in the RED ONE and or S35 Epic/Scarlet as the lens will not be utilized in the full covered circle but in the sweet center spot.

Problem is that as Matthew said, this lenses have not been designed for Video or for Motion capture but for Still capture, and there for their design is technically challenged when used for Motion capture, as the focusing elements will mecchanically be challenged to saty in position while making any focusing and will not take full position till they come to a full stop, which in Motion Capture is not good, also when doing Macro work with this lenses via adaptors, such extension tubes and or Close Up filters such as the Canon 500D, you will see clearly that there is a ever small, but present, shift in focus when changing the Focus direction.

Other then that it is no doubt a great lens, and I find t=its CON's very easy to deal with as we did when first testing this lenses two years ago on the first Prototype unit of the Birger.

So I will use it with no worries, just don't ever expect the same level of qualities, both mechanical and by final Image results, as you could from a fully Manual lens, and off course I'm not going to say a Cine lens, but a Still Manual lens.

 

[tiberghv]

thank you all for the informations.
then what would be a good alternative to such a zoom more appropriated to video in the same range of price ?

 

[david_winters]

I have shot many Red days with this lens. I love it. For the work I do, stage bound dialog, it has all the focal length I need. For the money it is a great lens for the Red when combined with the Birger mount. It has almost no breathing and we are able to get semi-repeatable marks with a manual FF.

I just wrapped a two day job working off a dolly with the 24-70 and wireless Impero with lots of focus pulls. One shot was 27 takes and every focus pull was consistent and problem free.

Check out this clip, from a recent 3 day interview shoot on black limbo. Rack focus from minimum focus to infinity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aprlI5Wqskk

 

[Tom Lowe]

The beauty of shooting with a Canon 16-35 f2.8L MKII, for example, even on the Epic X, will be that you get all of the sharpness (and this lens is sharp!) without the vignetting that is so troubling on a FF35 sensor at f/2.8. The 16-35 II will probably be one of my go-to lenses on the Epic X.

 

[Steve Gibby]

The 24-70mm Canon is a nice lens optically, but it's mechanical construction is where you will find most of your problems. Because it is an auto focus lens it holds very loose tolerances that will surely be noticed when reversing focus direction or when zooming during a shot.

Good point Matt. Many of my stills zooms that I use on RED One have surprisingly good tolerances, breathe very little, and hold focus throughout a zoom. Some of them don't have as good of tolerances, breathe a bit, etc. By now I obviously know the strengths and limitations of each of my zooms. When shooting, my style is to rarely zoom during a shot unless a shot really calls for it. I use my stills zooms as variable primes, re-framing quickly then recording, then re-framing, etc. People like me who shoot a lot of non-narrative styles and genres don't have the time or luxury of carrying a camera with a prime lens to each framing. We shoot subject matter that requires high mobility and constant re-framing. There isn't time to walk to re-framings, it could spook the subject matter, or it can be flat out dangerous.

So, 35mm stills zooms without matte boxes are far and away the most practical and fiscally smart equipment to use on RED for certain mobile styles and genres. The bottom line - the footage results have been great.

The above said, even though I exclusively use 35mm stills lenses on my REDs, they are all hand picked for quality and the focal lengths I need - and as you know, I regularly have them serviced at an excellent lens shop (Duclos)

 

[PatC]

It is nice to hear your good experiences. I am planning on purchasing this lens for the 7D. This certainly helps.

 

[Miguel "Macgregor" De Olaso]

The problem with the 24-70 or the 70-200 is that the Tnumber might be closer to T4.5 than you think, while a prime lense like the 50 f1.4 could be a T1.6 (i´d love if some lens review website started to do this tests, which are very very important and no one seems to care). That´s a very slow zoom in my point of view. I´m not talking the sharpeness is bad at all. It´s just that it´s a lot of money for such a slow and heavy lense. A $90 50mm f1.8 will yield much better results (light transmision, weight, sharpness, corner to corner sharpness, color aberrations and so on) and it´s the cheapest lens from canon.

But i undestand for some shoots you need a zoom lens like this one. ;D

Note: i remember some years ago when i needed a nikon tele lense i bought a 80-200 f2.8. When making a quick comparison with the 300 f4, the difference was obvious. The fixed lens was way faster, meaning the amount of light hitting the sensor at f2.8 was 1 stop darker than the 300 at f4 (meaning a light transmission of about T5.6 for the zoom lens). Crazy!

 

[Miguel "Macgregor" De Olaso]

The beauty of shooting with a Canon 16-35 f2.8L MKII, for example, even on the Epic X, will be that you get all of the sharpness (and this lens is sharp!) without the vignetting that is so troubling on a FF35 sensor at f/2.8. The 16-35 II will probably be one of my go-to lenses on the Epic X.

Don´t you rather take the tokina 11-16 f2.8 for your superwide timescapes?

 

[Tom Lowe]

Don´t you rather take the tokina 11-16 f2.8 for your superwide timescapes?

I have not tried it yet. I am interested in the lens.

Also, the Nikon 14-24, of course.

For me, I really enjoyed shooting on the Canon EF 16-35 II, but the vignetting at 2.8 was a deal-breaker for me.

 

[Steve Gibby]

You're assuming Miguel that everyone shoots lenses wide open for the genres they work on. That's simply not the case. Sure narrative guys regularly seek wide open apertures. But those who work in a lot of other styles and genres shoot a lot of mid-apertures.

For example, the genres me and my crews work in are adventure travel, alternative sports, wildlife, documentaries of various types, music, cultures, and many others. Our shooting style is hybrid non-hardlined EFP, using 35mm stills lenses, no matte boxes (screw-on filters), no follow focus (hand racking of lens barrel), eye focusing by shooter using 1:1 image magnification, and exposing quickly using zebras and histogram. The workarounds using 35mm stills lenses don't bother us a bit - we're just after very good, cost-effective images. Our footage results have been stellar. The usual aperture range in our work is between f4 and f11. Occasionally we'll shoot wide open for creative b-roll and 2nd unit shots. As you can see, f2.8 stills zooms are ideal on RED for the work I described in this paragraph. There is no way they are "too slow, too heavy, and too expensive". They're plenty fast, much lighter per focal length than cine lenses, and much less expensive than cine lenses - and yet well shot 35mm stills footage on RED One looks stunning and quite often indistinguishable from footage shot using cine lenses.

Everyone doesn't shoot narrative and everyone doesn't seek wide open apertures. In fact, the number of workers worldwide in the genres listed above absolutely dwarfs the total number workers in narrative cinema.

You asked about the Tokina 11-16. I've been using a stock version of the 11-16 on my REDs, with a Nikon mount, ever since the lens first started to ship. I love that lens. It is clean, crisp, good contrast, etc. It didn't surprise me in the slightest that my friends at Duclos chose to "cinevise" the 11-16.

I also use the Nikon 14-24 extensively for my wide needs. It is clean, crisp, good contrast, and free from weirdness. It didn't surprise me that Stuart at Focus Optics chose the 14-24 to re-house and make into his Ruby cine lens.

BTW - I enjoy your work Miguel - I think you're a very talented artist.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The Nikon 14-24 and 24-70 are amazing lenses. IMO, the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is superior to the Canon 24-70. I have not had a chance to use the Focus Optics rehoused version of the 14-24, but it looks great.

Back to what Macgregor said above about T-Stops. I have to agree. It would be great if lens reviewers could put lenses on a t-stop bench and tell us what we have. Then again most stills shooters I deal with on a regular basis don't even know what a t-stop is. And far too many people think f and t stops are pretty much the same thing.

FWIW, the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 looks like it's about a T3.0-3.5 to me when wide open, but I don't have a way to directly test this. The lens has almost no ramping, so it holds the same speed throughout the zoom range. I can only compare exposure between it and the same subject shot with another lens of known speed.

While I shoot a lot of outdoor subjects and rarely shoot wide open, I do find it much easier to work with lenses marked in t-stops. That way I know how much light I am dealing with and how much ND or exposure compensation I should try to use. To me that's a whole lot easier than just knowing the size of the aperture and what the light transmission should be if the glass were 100% efficient.

Then there's lenses like the Tokina 11-16, which is rated at F2.8 and according to Matt Duclos the lenses still test out at T2.8. And it seems this is true with mine. Love this lens, BTW. I bought the Duclos cinevized version and then bought it with Nikon mount too.

 

[Felix K.]

A general in-between question:

The DOF is unfluenced by the aperture, right? So the DOF is actually to be measured by the F-stop not the T-stop, right?

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

A general in-between question:

The DOF is unfluenced by the aperture, right? So the DOF is actually to be measured by the F-stop not the T-stop, right?

Correct. F-stop or F-number is the representation of aperture diameter or size in relation to focal length. T-stop is a representation of how much light actual passes through the lens. A T-stop will equal F-stop only if a lens can pass 100% of the light through.

And to further confuse things, certain lenses out there are using F-stop marks that are calculated or not always true representations of their aperture/length relationship. But this is done for consistency of light transmission amongst lens groups and/or for manufacturing control and tolerances.

The aperture diameter in relation to focal length is the largest determining factor for DOF. Of course DOF is also influenced by the distance to the subject, circle of confusion, optical design of the lens, etc..