50 canon 1.4 vs 17-50 or 50 RED

[Maik Müller]

Yes, AF, IS, metadata, and fullframe-covering (means more future-proof) are the main reasons for a Canon (or Nikon) mount, oh and of course the lenses are way cheaper. While IS is great for handheld, AF is a bit of a mixed bag for me. Its not as good as i want it to be, but its still nice to have and does help in some situations.

BTW, Ketch... Got my 85 1.2 II and i agree, it's a great performer. I have to get used to that "different" focus-ring, but optically it's amazing.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Yes, AF, IS, metadata, and fullframe-covering (means more future-proof) are the main reasons for a Canon (or Nikon) mount, oh and of course the lenses are way cheaper. While IS is great for handheld, AF is a bit of a mixed bag for me. Its not as good as i want it to be, but its still nice to have and does help in some situations.

BTW, Ketch... Got my 85 1.2 II and i agree, it's a great performer. I have to get used to that "different" focus-ring, but optically it's amazing.

Glad you like it Maik,

I did love it and use it for some time, just can't get around in using it on Epic for most of the work I do, same with the Noctilux, fantastic piece of Lens, yet needing to move away entirely form Still glass do to the need of full integration with Cine tools and a full crew, but for one man job, well, certain jobs, they are an incredibly Cheap solution, of course never expect the same results for a 4k finish as with the Top Cine glass, as it will not happen...

 

[Mark Andersen]

Canon 50's aren't that great. The RPP an RPZ are better. The new Canon 24-70 is pretty nice. I just did a two week shoot traveling with Canon glass (the best of the Canon lenses i could find) and my 4K results are pretty good, tons of detail, hard to imagine them being much sharper with cine glass. But I would have use my PL stuff if I could have, but it's just to heavy for traveling.