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 :)

Canon L Lenses - Zoom or Prime?

My opinion;

The L series primes are not worth the money they are charging. I think that they are very nice lenses, but I prefer the Zeiss ZE/ZF glass to the Canon L glass and the L glass is in most cases more expensive.

As far as the zooms go, the 16-35 is a really lovely lens, but since I own the Tokina 11-16 I rarely have occasion to request a 16-35 in a rental package...

The 24-70 is a nice lens but some 24-70's have a malfuntion where the iris engages between takes and jumps around on you when the lens gets very, very hot. This has happened to me on a 7D and on a 5D when I was shooting in places like Haiti, Nevada, Louisiana, Hawaii, etc. Now, I'm going to imagine that the Scarlet pumps out a hell of a lot more heat than the 7D or 5D, so it may cause this malfunction to occur all on it's own. This doesn't always happen to me, but it's happened enough times that I've stopped putting the 24-70 in rental packages.

The 70-200 is too soft at 200 for my taste, but is a great lens between 70-180. This is also a manufacturing issue, (lenses/bodies being front focused) so it's something that for the right price Duclos could probably fix for you.

The 24-105, though it's a 4 and the front element telescopes out making working with a clamp on matte box/fader ND and a lens hood a necessity is sharp all the way through it's zoom range, has never malfunctioned on me, and is a bit more contrasty than the other L glass which I personally enjoy. I'll be snagging this lens for sure to compliment my 11-16 and my Zeiss primes.

Hope that helps.
 
Paul Ellington said:
That 85 is amazing keep that, the 70-200 USM II is an amazing lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks Paul. I think for me it will be either or, if that's the path I take.

ProfNoxin said:
My opinion;
The L series primes are not worth the money they are charging. I think that they are very nice lenses, but I prefer the Zeiss ZE/ZF glass to the Canon L glass and the L glass is in most cases more expensive.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thoughts on this? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/818396-REG/Zeiss_410951_0000_032_ZE_SLR_Lens_Case.html

This seems like a fairly flexible kit, although a little more than I'd hoped to spend on my first set of glass. I've read a few articles that favor the Canon primes for focus, but Zeiss for colour.
 
I'll be adding the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L (lost mine to a pretty face a year ago) to my kit. I already have the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and use those a ton when I feel the desire to zoom rather than prime.

There's a million reasons for lens selection and I don't think there's any right or wrong answers here. I think the Canon zooms are pretty damn good for the cash, as well as the primes. Overall I just prefer primes. Zooms come into play where time, weather, and portability are considerations for me.

I use a ton of alternative lenses as well, some of which could be argued to be far worse than any modern lens. I use many of those lenses for their characteristics and flavor. Leica R series lenses are a great example of really high quality older glass that has a character to it, especially when it comes to rendering color and shooting people.
 
Maybe I was a bit harsh on the lens, since I actually use it as the "go-to" lens on a photo shoot last week. :)

It is definitely more about the person behind the camera than it is about the lens. I even seen some pretty amazing stuff with an iPhone...and I'll bet Mr. Jannard could shot amazing things with a camera phone.

I would never fire someone for using the 24-70 lens, that is a bit extreme. However, I would kindly ask them to try out a 50mm, or an 85mm before going to the 24-70mm when filming. My dislike for the lens comes from bad experiences with shooters in the past with the 24-70mm, but when those same people use a prime, they change their efforts of shooting. It's quite interesting to see the style changes during a shoot simply because of a lens change. So I have my reasons.

The merits of someone's creative problem solving skills will always outweigh the lens they use.

Peter Strietmann said:
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.
Click to expand...


I love my Tokina 11-16mm. One of the best bang for your buck lenses.

Phil's right, zooms are great when considering time, weather, and portability.

Phil Holland said:
I'll be adding the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L (lost mine to a pretty face a year ago) to my kit. I already have the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and use those a ton when I feel the desire to zoom rather than prime.

There's a million reasons for lens selection and I don't think there's any right or wrong answers here. I think the Canon zooms are pretty damn good for the cash, as well as the primes. Overall I just prefer primes. Zooms come into play where time, weather, and portability are considerations for me.

I use a ton of alternative lenses as well, some of which could be argued to be far worse than any modern lens. I use many of those lenses for their characteristics and flavor. Leica R series lenses are a great example of really high quality older glass that has a character to it, especially when it comes to rendering color and shooting people.
Click to expand...
 
The 85 Prime is probably the best lens in the set, if you ask me. But stop it down to 1.2 and you've got literally mm of DOF. Not good for run and gun. For that I'd use the 17-40mm (which is a really tough lens that has withstood some severe misuse in its long life), or the 16-35 if you need to go down to f2.8. The 70-200mm also, de riguer.
 
Normally I'd say go with the zoom but man, that 85, is it version II? If not, sell it and keep the 70-200, in my most humble opinion it's far from soft at 200, so, USM II more flexible, still pretty fast. I concur with other people here, the tokina is a great buy for the money though I would get the Duclos version, however hoping Red comes out with new glass soon + holding out for stage 4 so might be awhile for new glass.
 
My personal collection of lenses is currently -
Tokina 11-16
Zeiss ZF 28mm 2.8
Zeiss ZF 50mm 1.4
Zeiss ZF 85mm 1.4
Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro

I'll soon by buying the Canon 24-105.

If you're going down the road of Zeiss ZF/ZE primes I would get either the 21 or the 28. You'll probably end up using one or the other. Because I have and like the 11-16 I jumped over the 21 for the 28. I'd like to buy the 35mm 1.4, but that will have to wait for a later date.

Again, my problem with the 70-200 a larger than average number come out of the box front focused/back focused and on the 70-200 you'll end up seeing softness at 200. This is easily correctable by a lens repair tech. I think the quality of the glass itself is great. If you're getting that lens I'd also suggest grabbing one of these: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/665488-REG/Zacuto_Z_1_4_LS2_5_1_4_20_Lens_Support.html
 
Hello! Anyone have any thoughts on the Carl Zeiss ZE SLR Lens Case Set For Canon EF Mount kit for 6K? link
Are these "Mini Primes"? How do they compare to: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/774095-REG/Zeiss_1769_713_EF_7_LENS_CUSTOM_SET.html

I too am having a hard time choosing between zooms and primes for our Scarlet, but we have 3 Sony Z1U's with 12X optical zeiss zooms and so could justify fixed / prime lenses I think for Scarlet a bit more than if we didn't have the Z1's.

Otherwise I'm inclined to go Canon 24-70 2.8L, and a 70-200 2.8L, a Tokina 17, and a macro lens of some sort.

This is tough as it does bring into question what mount to get...Canon or PL. I'd previously made up my mind to Canon and upgrade to PL mount and lenses along with another 20K in Red accessories in the future LOL.

Thoughts? Thank you!
 
That is the question right? ;) The Zeiss "mini primes" (are they really?) are 6K for the bunch. The "genuine" mini-primes are 24K for the set (can't afford this at once...possibly over time) and the canon zoom alternatives I listed would probably run around 6K as well - compatible to the EF "fake" Zeiss mini-primes.

So to answer the question, I can see spending around 6-8K on lenses straight away and certainly more in the future...still feeling confused about what mount and system to buy into. Our applications are broad...shooting long form events, operas, but also short form corporate work, music videos, independent films and obviously want as gorgeous an image and as future proof path as possible.

I hear the upcoming Canon cini-primes are estimated to run 6.8K - 28K ea which makes the EF mount seem like it could have some real longevity as well as the convenience of AF and IS yet all my friends in Hollywood keep saying PL PL PL.

Thanks SO much for any insight and clarity on the issue and on the viability and real world value of the "cheap" zeiss "primes"
 
I would say the same ... PL ... And Red gives amazing value. They are heavy but so worth what they can do. Get the 18-85 BT zoom, hell I would but I can't right now. Definitely PL. And if its one at a time, get a zoom from Red their glass is great. I have had zero complaints.
 
It's a zoom not a primes, but to get a set of good primes like the red pro primes 19K new ... Versis the BT 18-85... Amazing value particularly if on a budget. Pretty fast. But make sure you get lens support.
 
Thank you Paul...much appreciated...I hadn't considered RED zooms...are they really that much better than the L series Canon zooms? And thus worth losing AD and IS for? As originally stated, I originally thought I'd go EF mount with an L zoom and fill in with mini primes as I was able, but I do not want to keep replacing lenses in the years to come.

What do you think of another posters comment in another thread that the future of lenses are in smaller and electronically controlled glass? Any truth to this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top