Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

24-70 L II vs L primes by NAKED EYE

J

jorge krausch

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
407
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
UK
Is there a visible difference in the naked eye between using a 24-70 L II VS using Sigma 35mm, Canon 50 L1.2, Canon 85 L 1.2 ?

Im still deciding whether to start off with a great zoom lens or head straight for the sharper primes..

thanks for your thoughts...

I worry about the sharpness of the 24-70 L II still being more creamy than a prime. But perhaps nothing the naked eye can see on screen.
 
The resolving power of any L lens is more than enough for your needs. The 24-70 is a particularly sharp one as well.
The difference is more about whether or not you need to open beyond 2.8 and if you want more shallow DOF.

Personally, I think you would be better served to get vintage fixed lenses if you are only shooting video. Something like the Contax Zeiss's.
 
I'll chip in with standard Zeiss ZE's loving the f1.4 collection I'm building...

simon
 
Im using a Canon mount... sold my PL..

Are zeiss ZEs same price range?
 
jorge krausch said:
Is there a visible difference in the naked eye between using a 24-70 L II VS using Sigma 35mm, Canon 50 L1.2, Canon 85 L 1.2 ?
Click to expand...

NO.


Obviously this is if you shoot at the same Focal and Aperture.

Zooms are getting so good, that less and less people can distinguish them from Primes, apart of course the fact that you can shoot some Prime as wide as f/1.2, were zooms go to f/2.8, also Zooms for a matter of their built have a different number of elements and a characteristic evident Breathing effect, amongst other things, and the Primes will always be better, but if going back to your original question, can the naked eye see the difference... NO, it can't, only trained eyes can see it, and some time only via close scrutinizing of the image, the general public will absolutely never know one from the other, not ever!
 
jorge krausch said:
Is there a visible difference in the naked eye between using a 24-70 L II VS using Sigma 35mm, Canon 50 L1.2, Canon 85 L 1.2 ?
Click to expand...

I would second what ketch says. I have a 24-70mm and have also used L primes. Anyone who says they can tell the difference, would have to have a keen eye indeed. If you're on a budget don't be afraid to go with a zoom.
However, in low light primes, with their fast apertures win every time.

The Zeiss primes Simon mentions are EF mount, they are great lenses! If you can do without auto focus they are a great way to go.

Chris.
 
Last edited:
A thing to consider... if you're gonna use a zoom, you might need more money to buy lights to cover their slowness. If you buy primes, you might be able to shoot in low practical lights and tweak them for a good look.
 
Some are better than others. The Zeiss 35/1.4 is clearly a better performer than Canon's, but the Zeiss 50/1.4 is a bit of a dog. The 50/2 Makro Planar is a very nice lens and is probably the best choice for that focal length if you're building a ZE set.
 
Some things to consider with Canon L zooms is they are designed for autofocus...so trying to manually focus with them is much more challenging than with ZF/ZE's (which are completely manual, and great to focus with).

Also, an advantage of having primes is they force you to make more distinct "choices" (visually).
 
it seams that you many invest some serious money in primes. If you have this option then I would suggest that you look at Cine zoom lens
In the range you are addressing the RED 18-85 is a great lens for the money , you can still find them around of take a step up to a Zeiss Cz 28-80 T2.9
This is a real cine lens, zoom in focus, and it will stay in focus as you pull back, Canon ,Sigma and Nikon none of the can do this.
the price is in the 20K range, about what some people spend on a set of primes. you need to figure out most is most critical for you productions and how you work

One man Running and gunning Zooms Kill , A team working off a dolly or jib primes not a big deal.
 
unfortunately the only answer is find a good supplier or rental house and try them all out. One mans "killer lens" is another mans "bit of a dog." I cannot fault my Zeiss 50mm, color rendition is far superior to the Canon f1.4 that I sold. But the purchaser who swapped on here with me wanted the autofocus and loves the f1.4 Canon.... So try and decide... But thats way off course from the original question!

If you're going past the "kit" lenses then you're on the way to owning great glass. Even then, I love my Canon 24-105mmL, which is considered a kit lens on some cameras!!

It's just an expensive and long search... I'm sure Ketch will agree with his impressive collection!

Simon
 
i agree, trying out is only way to go

some lens like the nikon 24-120 sound good but are no joy to work with

find out first
 
thanks guys... very generous skilled people sharing their experienced opinions :) what an amazing community Reduser is..

Ill certainly try the lenses before buying.. The Zeiss have me intrigued. But i do love a run and gun solution.. arghhh.. primes can be hard work in a shoot, but results matter most. (i often shoot on my own)
 
Sounds lime my set up then Jorge,
Canon L zoom for run and gun and then Zeiss primes for posed shoots.

Good luck

Simon
 
Hehe, nearly everyone is ending up with a set of primes and zooms. ;)

The Zeiss ZE/ZF are great, but not every lens of that line is a winner, the 50 1.4 is polarizing for example. I also like to have the AF-motor on my lenses, rack focus is a nice feature and if AF works it can be helpful. And ultimately i still have hope for a REDMOTE PRO. ;)

But Zeiss has some lenses that are really hot...
 
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.

Simon
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top