24-70 L II vs L primes by NAKED EYE

[Maik Müller]

Maik,
What do you mean by polarizing? I don't have any issues with the 50mm Zeiss and the autofocus on my Canon f1.4 was very slow, hence I've given up on autofocus and happily am in training for PL glass and use manual focus only.

I read lots of not so good impressions about the 50/1.4, especially wide open, but there also people who like it a lot and call it's look character. Many seem to prefer the 2.0 macro over the 1.4. I guess i have to look at it by myself one day.

AF is slow and doesn't find it's target always, true true... I still use it often for non moving objects before a shot.

I would like to have something like AF-specialized lens-mount with a integrated translucent mirror. Well, integrate this into the motion-mount, please. LOL, just dreaming.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Just get the Sony FS700- it has the translucent mirror adapter already.
And the AF works very good with it...

 

[Alan Peterson]

I know that tests like the ons done by Digital Picture are excellent - I use them for guidance myself. But sometimes plates and Chro Ab charts don't tell the whole story..
I just love the simple (cool) color you get from the Zeiss's. I cannot disagree that wide open there is a smoothness but it's really only a stop that changes all that..

art, is art...eh!

Simon

There's nothing wrong with liking the look of it, but anyone who's looking at buying that lens needs to understand that it's not going to produce footage that matches the rest of their set until you stop it down a bit. It's like a 50/2.8 that has a bit of extra latitude for specialty shots in which a soft look is preferred.

 

[Simon Knight]

I think you'e dead right there Maik.. Its all about character isn't it!?

I actually like the image I get from my lenses... knowing they aren't the "traditional" Canon L's.... but then I am odd!!

Simon

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

When compared to other contemporary 50mm lenses, the image quality on the Zeiss 50/1.4 is pretty poor until you stop down past f/2.8 or so:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The test also shows that the much cheaper Canon 50mm f1.4 is sharper then the Canon 50mm f1.2.

 

[Alan Peterson]

It does. There are a lot of compromises that go into making a f/1.2 lens unless you're willing to pay Master Prime prices.

 

[Jeff Whitehurst]

I wonder how the new 24-70 II is being utilized with a Mattebox? Donuts I guess? That's a significant bonus in using primes. With the old version you could cut off the lens hood and clamp it, but now the hood extends with the front element.
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=286167331453013&oid=241064322629981

 

[Simon Knight]

I cheat and use the D-matte clip on mattebox. Hold the two Formatt filters ok and just moves with the lens...

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

It does. There are a lot of compromises that go into making a f/1.2 lens unless you're willing to pay Master Prime prices.

Oh, I didn't mean the test wasn't reliable - just that it proves the price difference isn't always 'worth' it.

 

[Maik Müller]

Just get the Sony FS700

Hehe, no chance.

 

[Peter Majtan]

I wonder how the new 24-70 II is being utilized with a Mattebox? Donuts I guess? That's a significant bonus in using primes. With the old version you could cut off the lens hood and clamp it, but now the hood extends with the front element.

The 24-70 front element extends as you zoom, so providing you use it as a variable prime (i.e. - you don't zoom during the shot, which IMHO is a trademark video move as traditionally in cinema you move the whole camera instead of zooming), you can set the FOV and then the front stays "put" as you focus.
Contrary to that many (especially the older) primes will either extend or rotate the front element (sometimes both) as you focus...

IMO the biggest advantage of primes is the faster aperture. It's a common knowledge that no lens is at its best wide open. You need to stop it 1~2 stops to get the best results. Most 1.2/1.4 primes looks their best at 2.8 and most zooms look great at 4 or 5.6.

So it comes down to what You are likely to shoot the most:
- if you move around a lot and need to carry your gear and light is not major issue - set of zooms will serve you the best
- if you mostly shoot on a sets with an assistant - then by all means get yourself a set of primes

My two yen

P

 

[Jeff Whitehurst]

- if you move around a lot and need to carry your gear and light is not major issue - set of zooms will serve you the best

Yep that's why I went with zooms. I just wanted to point out the mattebox issue with some zooms in case someone reading this thread had not considered it. I would love to have the new 24-70 II, but that front element/hood telescope feature just ruined that option for me. A clamp on only mattebox sounded good when I first started using zooms, but once I loaded up the box with filters and flags, it just didn't work safely. I now use the MB rod supported and clamped, way better.
Cheers, Jeff

 

[Thomas Koch]

After testing the Zeiss 50mm I opted for the zeiss Makro 50mm. It's a far superior lens. However, it is nearly twice as big. I'm talking about the Cp.2 version.

 

[jorge krausch]

I think ill go first for a 24-70 L iI, then slowly get primes in this order: 35mm Sigma 1.4, 50mm Zeiss ze 1.4, 85mm Zeiss Ze 1.4 then a tokina 11-16..

Mostly because I need a zoom for alone work..
Wonder if the sigma 35 matches the look of the zeiss..

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

jorge the sigma 35 1.4 has a different rendition than the zeiss ze lenses...why not the 35mm f2 ze which is very good and (relatively) cheap?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

I wonder how the new 24-70 II is being utilized with a Mattebox? Donuts I guess? That's a significant bonus in using primes. With the old version you could cut off the lens hood and clamp it, but now the hood extends with the front element.
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=286167331453013&oid=241064322629981

Correct, what it is shown on the Facebook video will not work with the v. II as the v. I the hood actually screws in on to the main body of the lens, while on the new v. II it screws in on the actual telescoping front element of the lens, so that option can't be used, but you could make use of an other MB like form Prime Circle which actually moves back and forward on rails with the front telescoping element of the lens, also keeping the same distance of the front element of the lens with the filters on the MB it self, which makes for a much better form of using an MB and filters then with the v. I.