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 :)

Is there a difference in looks between EF vs PL glass?

Define looks.

But yes. There is difference in look between EF and PL glass, just as there is a difference in look between PL and PL glass / EF and EF glass...
RPPs for example have a different (more neutral) look when compared to Ultra Primes - which in return have a different look from Master Primes...

IMHO with RED RAW you want the most "honest" (neutral) glass you can get and then apply the look you (your client) want in the post.
But there are many others who prefer to shoot on a lenses that have a specific look...

To each their own...

Peter
 
every lens and lens design looks at and filters light in a slightly different way. ef and pl are just mount-types. usually brand (i.e. design) is what most people refer to when comparing glass. if you're looking to buy/rent, i'd suggest asking a question that involves your budget, shooting style, and maybe some movies or pictures that represent what you're going for. these days, a lot of the 'look' in a movie is done as a part of post-production, but the lens + sensor is where it all begins. some folks are 'lensbians', meaning they really love lenses and are very picky - others don't spend too much time, if any, thinking about lens choices and really don't seem to care too much about it. if you're making quality artwork, i don't care much what your approach is.
 
Im looking at it more from how the organic the texture of skin looks on the screen. I'm loving how skin looks on the outdoor shots here
and
which are red pro primes. Whereas something like this
just looks like better resolved dslr footage imo. I was wondering if it was the difference in looks between still lenses and pl glass contributing to this?
 
The major differences in between the look of those first two videos compared to the last one have very little to do with lenses. Mostly production values and grading among other things. PL glass would do little to turn the latter video into the former ones...
 
I'm really only focusing strictly on skin texture. I definitely understand the importance of set design, grading, etc.
 
PL vs. EF doesn't matter. If you get CP.2s and use them with the PL mount, and then swap to the EF mount, assuming backfocus is properly checked, then the image will look the same and the functionality of using the lens is exactly the same.

The difference is in what lenses are available.

PL mount is more associated with cinema glass. There are many more options for high end cine-glass available in PL mount than in EF.

EF, being Canon, has a lot more still-glass options, which are usually cheaper than cine-glass because the mechanics and usability don't have to be as precise and refined. There are often more pronounced breathing (which you can't see in a still) and shorter focus throws.

The mount itself does not alter the look of the image that you get. What it does alter, if you only have one mount, is what selection of glass you can actually mount to the camera. And since the glass does matter when trying to get a certain look . . . .

But again: if you are looking at lenses that come in either EF mount or PL mount, then use whichever set you want. The image will be the same.
 
Well I guess to make my question more straight forward. Will an Ultra prime or Red Pro Zoom or Prime give me a better resolved image in terms of skin texture than say a Canon EF Prime or zoom lens?
 
Most quality EF L-series lenses resolve about 13MP and upwards depending on lens-sensor combination. A traditional 4k image at 4096x2160 is 8.8MP.

While not strictly RED or Scarlet related, I just checked yesterday that even my Canon 24-105 f4L IS resolves all of the detail out of my 1Dc when filming in 4k mode. But like I say: it's only 8.8MP, so not really a challenge. The 24-105, not the sharpest EF glass by a long shot, resolves about 15MP when used on a 22MP Canon 5Dmk3 in stills mode. For comparison, the 70-200 2.8L IS II resolves 21MP on the same camera.

Needless to say, there are lots of other things to consider when using/choosing glass, other than sharpness...
 
Devin Johnson said:
Well I guess to make my question more straight forward. Will an Ultra prime or Red Pro Zoom or Prime give me a better resolved image in terms of skin texture than say a Canon EF Prime or zoom lens?
Click to expand...

I've read a lot that the Red Pro 17-50mm is a rehoused tamron 17-50mm.
 
Devin Johnson said:
Well I guess to make my question more straight forward. Will an Ultra prime or Red Pro Zoom or Prime give me a better resolved image in terms of skin texture than say a Canon EF Prime or zoom lens?
Click to expand...

In terms of image quality, there are two general areas to consider.

The first, I'll call the "Scientific" performance of a lens. How well does it resolve, how true are the colors, how little is the chromatic aberration . . . these are things that can be scientifically measured and defined. But if you talk to some great DPs you'll quickly find out that they don't automatically use the better scientific lens.

Because the second is the overall look and feel of a lens, or the "Character". Sometimes, certain aberrations of flaring are pleasing. Maybe a lens isn't the sharpest, but the Depth of Field falloff is just beautiful. Maybe the bokeh character is buttery smooth and that more than makes up for a little less resolving power.


To answer your question more directly: In general things are more expensive because they are more sought after. Also, in general, more expensive lenses are available on PL mount than on EF. So in general, you will get both more Scientifically beautiful images and Characteristically beautifully images from PL glass than EF glass. However, think of it this way: assume you have a set of all available EF glass and all available PL glass in front of you, and a lens is picked at random from each set. According to probability, you have a better chance of getting a better image from the random PL lens than the random EF lens. But it isn't a universal thing. There are EF mounted lenses that out resolve and out-character some PL mounted lenses.
 
If you take the same lens, like a CP.2, and just change the mount the look does not change.
 
Devin Johnson said:
Well I guess to make my question more straight forward. Will an Ultra prime or Red Pro Zoom or Prime give me a better resolved image in terms of skin texture than say a Canon EF Prime or zoom lens?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by skin texture?

Any high end stills glass will easily resolve enough skin detail! Whereas some PL glass, especially older ones wide open may struggle to match them.

If you mean colour rendition, then that has much less to do with glass and much more to do with types of lighting, types of makeup, sensor technology, colour matrices, colour science, post-processing, LUTs, grading, etc, etc.
 
AndreeMarkefors said:
...The 24-105, not the sharpest EF glass by a long shot, resolves about 15MP...For comparison, the 70-200 2.8L IS II resolves 21MP....
Click to expand...

Are you getting those resolving power figures from DXOMark? A lot of lens guys are very skeptical of their tests. They test one copy, as far as I know, and there are a few examples in their database where that shows (very good, universally praised lenses that they obviously got a mediocre copy of). Imatest numbers from Roger Cicala of lens rentals are much, much more highly regarded. That's just an FYI, though: I agree with the numbers on the particular lenses you mentioned.

According to Roger, btw, many PL lenses are outresolved by stills lenses. One test in particular that I remember showed the iPanchro 50 to be outresolved by a number of stills fast 50's. Much PL glass used to prioritize minimal breathing, parfocal zooms, and arguably even flare characteristics over absolute sharpness. Now that 4K+ is upon us, I suspect that philosophy to shift.
 
I know this is an old topic but I would like to ask this same question to today's Lens options.
The reason is I've had the pleasure for many years with my Rokinons (first run Cine) against an RPP set.
Then of late Rokinons latest PL set of Xeens.
I haven't had the chance to mix and match them on a shoot but have the time to shoot and grade them.

Is this PL and EF difference still a thing?
 
The difference in resolution, (not in colour or texture), in my understanding, between photographic lenses (EF) and cinema lenses (PL) would be only noticeable in a large screen cinema projection. Obviously it's not due to the mount, but to the quality of the polished glass associated with such mounts.
 
This is a complicated question.

At this point, lots of lenses are designed for both stills and motion, EF and PL - Zeiss and Sigma for example both have released "cine" versions of their stills designs for the mid pro market.

However, once you get into the rarified air of CINE-ONLY PL glass, there are important differences that go beyond "resolution".

PL/Cine only designs from Zeiss, Cooke and Leica that cater to the elite markets (think 10K a lens and up), put *tons* of thought into things like distortion, lens coatings, flares, bokeh, etc and how it relates to the "moving image" - ie these lenses are *desinged* to look cinematic. They are *also* desinged to match one another, and be easily used by AC's in difficult conditions.

But at the low or mid market level, it will be hard to tell the difference to be sure.
 
Nick Morrison said:
This is a complicated question.

PL/Cine only designs from Zeiss, Cooke and Leica that cater to the elite markets (think 10K a lens and up), put *tons* of thought into things like distortion, lens coatings, flares, bokeh, etc and how it relates to the "moving image" - ie these lenses are *desinged* to look cinematic. They are *also* desinged to match one another, and be easily used by AC's in difficult conditions.
Click to expand...

There are no PL-only cine lens from Zeiss anymore. All their cine lenses have swappable mounts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top