EF or PL?

[BrendanLeahy]

I'm saving up for the new Schneider Xenon lenses when they come out - I've heard nothing but great things, and I'd love to move from my Canon still lenses to cinema lenses.

The question now is whether or not to grab PL or EF? I currently have an EF mount for my RED. However, as you have probably heard (in some form or another), cameras change, but lenses last a lifetime.

I want to know, from experience, what everyone else thinks! I'm not looking to rent these lenses out at all - if I'm going to put my money into something that *may* outlast my RED (I shouldn't think such things!!), I'd like to ensure that it's fairly compatible across the board.

Thoughts?

 

[Phil Holland]

It's tricky stuff really.

The allure behind EF is just the shear quantity of affordable glass out there. I love that too and I use it for just that as well. However, it's a mount that isn't designed for motion picture use. In fact, one amazing thing that Red actually did was to improve upon the EF mount in a way that Canon did not by supplying a positive lock into the mix which does secure the lens down a bit.

However, there are extremely tangible and visible gains by shooting with PL mounts. While not the most sexy thing on earth, it's rock solid. That's the key. Thick metal and a firm lock. When used with devices like follow focuses units you won't see the flex you sometimes get with certain EF lenses. That's actually why some of the EF cinema glass out there comes with support brackets or mounting points for one. It's to deal with the torque from any sort of force on the lens back at the mount. While that can be visible even on PL, it's a heck of a lot stronger and deals with that sort of stuff much better.

In terms of the future, both mounts aren't going anywhere soon. So you're safe there.

So basically you can't go wrong with either, but know that one is a bit sturdier than the other.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

It's tricky stuff really.

The allure behind EF is just the shear quantity of affordable glass out there. I love that too and I use it for just that as well. However, it's a mount that isn't designed for motion picture use. In fact, one amazing thing that Red actually did was to improve upon the EF mount in a way that Canon did not by supplying a positive lock into the mix which does secure the lens down a bit.

However, there are extremely tangible and visible gains by shooting with PL mounts. While not the most sexy thing on earth, it's rock solid. That's the key. Thick metal and a firm lock. When used with devices like follow focuses units you won't see the flex you sometimes get with certain EF lenses. That's actually why some of the EF cinema glass out there comes with support brackets or mounting points for one. It's to deal with the torque from any sort of force on the lens back at the mount. While that can be visible even on PL, it's a heck of a lot stronger and deals with that sort of stuff much better.

In terms of the future, both mounts aren't going anywhere soon. So you're safe there.

So basically you can't go wrong with either, but know that one is a bit sturdier than the other.

Phil, your answer is perfect as always. Thanks for the guidance!

 

[David W. Jones]

My next set of lenses will have swappable lens mounts.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Let me chime is here just for balance
ALL disadvantages of electronic lenses vanish with the EFF system.
The advantages ( selection, accessibility, weight, setup simplicity,image stabilization, price) remain.
Why in this day and age would anybody think about pl non electronic lenses is beyond me...:confused1:

 

[Anthony Vitale]

I feel if you are going to still use your Canon lenses then go with an EF mount. Switching from EF to PL mounts can be a challenge when you don't want to make people wait and especially when you are shooting in dusty/snowy/damp environments.

I have one PL zoom and the rest of my lenses are Canon. I try to use my PL zoom when I know I will be leaving it on my camera for the whole day.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

Let me chime is here just for balance
ALL disadvantages of electronic lenses vanish with the EFF system.
The advantages ( selection, accessibility, weight, setup simplicity,image stabilization, price) remain.
Why in this day and age would anybody think about pl non electronic lenses is beyond me...:confused1:

The weight is the same whether the lenses are PL or EF in this case. Also, I would argue that the still lenses with their AF ability isn't something that really benefits filmmakers in most situations because you want control over what you're focusing on.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Brendan you are a bit behind with the current technology.
I don't care for auto focus- there are drive by wire manual focus products superior to mechanical follow focus in many ways...
And no- the weight is not the same for still and cine lenses. Neither is the cost and features- much superior for the much lower cost still lenses...

 

[Les Dittert]

Phase based auto focus is fast and accurate. It's how a DSLR focuses for stills. Wham.... it's there . Check out how it works on some Sony FS700 demo videos on Youtube. It can track a dog running at you for example. For run and gun it would be a great thing to have. The focus on the Red is at a 1990's level of performance. Not everybody is filming on a big tripod in a traditional movie set type of scenario.
If you can't focus well with your 4K camera you can end up with 1080 or worse.

 

[Sabyasachi Patra]

In C500, Canon has provided a lock feature in the EF mount. The EF lenses are very underrated. Some of those L series lenses are very very sharp with very less aberrations.

When you are traveling and you drop your lens and immediately need one, then you can go to your nearest town and grab a few EF lenses. There is a huge flexibility if you remain with the EF mount.

 

[Leland Haushalter]

I'll take a PL mount lens with a real follow focus and an experienced focus puller over some still lens trying to guess where the subject is....

 

[Maik Müller]

Hmmm, while PL does have advantages i don't think those really make a difference if you just plan to get the Xenon primes. Getting a PL-mount just for them sounds like overkill to me. Not saying it would be a waste of money, but if you're not going to buy some really heavy PL-glass too and/or renting that stuff, i don't see many reasons why you should give up the flexibility that the EF-versions do offer. Main thing in my mind, there would be no need to swap mounts if you want to switch back to still-glass (and you will, because the Xenon set isn't going to be "complete" from the beginning).

 

[BrendanLeahy]

Brendan you are a bit behind with the current technology.
I don't care for auto focus- there are drive by wire manual focus products superior to mechanical follow focus in many ways...
And no- the weight is not the same for still and cine lenses. Neither is the cost and features- much superior for the much lower cost still lenses...

Jacek,

You may want to do a check with my first post. I spoke specifically about getting Xenon primes, and was looking at either EF or PL mount. Across the board, regardless of whether they're EF or PL, they're 3.3lbs each (as listed on Dulcos' website). So yes, in this case, the weight is the exact same regardless of the mount.

I think, to a degree, cine lenses are worth the premium price because you're getting a smooth aperture control and better focus-pulling. The only point where it makes sense to buy EF lenses over their cine counter-part would be in the case of Canon's Cinema lenses. Everyone so far has posted they're basically rehoused still lenses with nicer coating. Definitely not worth the cost.

Additionally, RED has yet to fix the issue with EF lenses being mounted - their focal point gets completely reset each time you plug in the lens and/or turn on the camera.