Epic Lens Test - Canon vs PL Elite

[Cail Young]

One thing that needs to be evaluated in a "real world" test would be performance on a fast focus rack. Bonus points if you compare ease of use with a remote focus ;)

Really the only downside to stills glass is the mechanics.

[Josh Beadle]

I was playing with my k35 PL 50mm T1.4 and my Canon L-series 50mm T1.2 and practically no difference in optics. Mechanics, the k35 wins but optically, L-series primes are just as great as older PL glass like k35, Superspeed, etc.

Thanks Rick . . . hope your Epic is feeling better soon

[Josh Beadle]

The thing is, we make moving pictures, not stills so any lens evaluation has to take this into account. You can shoot charts and determine that canon or nikon or zeiss stills glass is as sharp as an ultra prime but in a situation where a follow focus is required, these lenses fall short.
I own a set of zeiss zf's and a set of compact primes. When it comes to a moving subject that requires a focus pull, I'll choose the cp's every time. I can't imagine tring to pull focus on a canon lens,there is so much more to cinema glass than sharpness. Take a look at the Portland lens test.Although they look nice the leica stills lenses breathe like hell which is not what you want in a narrative situation.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that as much as you try to convince yourself that canon glass can replace a proper pl cinema lens, there are still issues that cannot be overcome.

Point taken. That's why there needs to be a variety of sets for the test. For my work I don't do action / narrative follow focus but understand many others do. Wonder if a real smart facial recognition or programed auto focus feature would work for most reality / steady cam style productions. Seems like a missed opportunity to have a Canon lens on a camera without using the very fast auto focus mech. Maybe with a soft landing to/from the subject to avoid obvious focus hunting.

Before you climb all over me and say "real men never would use auto focus" . . . gotta say, the times where a close proximity narrative is in sharp focus in most features or TV is amazingly low. Call it art or call it just a real hard task to do well there is a bunch o soft images thrown up on screen. As history illustrates: most anything we do today mechanical / physically will be replaced by software and technology in the future. Focus pullers heed this and continue your professional development in other areas.

[Josh Beadle]

One thing that needs to be evaluated in a "real world" test would be performance on a fast focus rack. Bonus points if you compare ease of use with a remote focus ;)

Really the only downside to stills glass is the mechanics.

Suggestions for best follow focus rig for Canon glass?

[Josh Beadle]

My guess? People are going to be very surprised by the excellent visual performance of the Canon L-series glass. Yes, there are limitations physically, but there is a reason that so many truly great photographers rely upon Canon glass every day. The one thing that very few people really consider is that in the case of FF35 lenses (like the L-series glass) on a S35 sensor, only the sweet spot of the lens is actually used. All of the issues that might normally be seen at the edges of a FF35 negative or sensor are "cropped out" by virtue of our S35 sensor. And let's not forget the powers of computer-controlled mass manufacturing scale. Canon has these pups down to a science. . . and, for once, a science that brings economies of scale down for all of us.

Yes, it will be interesting. And since you are doing the tests, throw in a RED One and a RED One MX just for comparison.

Stephen

That might be the problem with a test like this . . . who really wants to know that a $1500, 1lb Japanese consumer lens is 90% as good as a $20K, 10lb man-unit. In most music videos does sharpness really matter? Sometimes it's what looks cooler on set and makes you feel like a rockstar DP that drives the equipment decision. For me, I own, travel, carry, set-up and maintain my own gear. I have no one to impress so small, cheap and light is the key as long as image quality does not suffer.

The best tripod, lens or contraceptive is the one you have with you when you really need it. The one that fits in your wallet is most times the best to own . . .

[Matt Uhry]

When I read the title I thought - I've got a set of PL Elites... Then I realized they meant generically "High end Elite PL Lenses" anyway....

Canon makes some great stills lenses, many people hold them as being the best for stills work. If that's what you've got available they won't prevent you from making great images. There are some clever cheats that make them not so bad for motion work. Amazing work has been and continues to be done with ridiculously sub par equipment don't let any of this stop you. Good piano, bad piano did not change stop or slow Thelonious.

That being said - if you are working on a high stakes production it generally does not make sense to mess around with improvised lens solutions. Motion picture lenses are built to shoot movies the way race cars are built to win races, specialized, precise and at a cost that civilians find to be a bit crisp, but make sense to those that need them to do what they do. Every picture you make on set needs to go through that lens....

Auto Focus ? It's gonna be a little while before it's suitable for narrative filming... Might be a great way to pull off a shot now and then, when you'll let a computer cut your hair it's probably time to let it pull focus. Someday.

I'd be glad to participate in a test in San Diego, If I'm avail. Bring some fancy glass and some cool ghetto glass too.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Josh Beadle]

When I read the title I thought - I've got a set of PL Elites... Then I realized they meant generically "High end Elite PL Lenses" anyway....

Canon makes some great stills lenses, many people hold them as being the best for stills work. If that's what you've got available they won't prevent you from making great images. There are some clever cheats that make them not so bad for motion work. Amazing work has been and continues to be done with ridiculously sub par equipment don't let any of this stop you. Good piano, bad piano did not change stop or slow Thelonious.

That being said - if you are working on a high stakes production it generally does not make sense to mess around with improvised lens solutions. Motion picture lenses are built to shoot movies the way race cars are built to win races, specialized, precise and at a cost that civilians find to be a bit crisp, but make sense to those that need them to do what they do. Every picture you make on set needs to go through that lens....

Auto Focus ? It's gonna be a little while before it's suitable for narrative filming... Might be a great way to pull off a shot now and then, when you'll let a computer cut your hair it's probably time to let it pull focus. Someday.

I'd be glad to participate in a test in San Diego, If I'm avail. Bring some fancy glass and some cool ghetto glass too.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

We would be very honored to have you attend the testing. I follow your threads closely - always learn something. Would love an updated opinion (from 2009 SALT) on high quality zooms for Epic:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...-Lens-for-Epic

[Evin Grant]

Well having organized the original Salt test I guess I should chime in. Most modern lenses are sharp enough to produce good looking images on an Epic, at least in the center, especially stopped down. Where things start to become complicated (and expensive) is when they need to be good even in the corners and wide open or close to it. However Matt is right, it's really not optical performance that truly sets apart high end cinema lenses (my leica M lenses are sharper than my Optimos) it's mechanical accuracy, repeatability and the lack of optical abberations specific to cinema (breathing, ramping and image shift). These aspects are why cinema lenses command thier premium prices.

Now this next comment is going to start a bit of a religious war but I agree with Jim, that even among still lenses the Canon L wides, zooms and even the 70-200 2.8 are not the creme de la creme (the 70-200 f4 is quite good though). They are totally servicable as is proved by many professional photographers that rely on them, but compared to Leica M/R, some Zeiss ZEs and the new Nikon G series lenses they are at the back of the pack. This is even evidenced by the number of Canon shooters who use the 14-24 Nikkor with an adapter on thier EOS bodies.

I'd be glad to help you with your test but do not put too much hope in L glass trouncing the cinema or even the other still glass that's brought to compare. In the end there will be more similarity than not but at the edges of optical performance every little thing counts.

[Josh Beadle]

JIHAD!!! Death to Canon Haters!!

Would be honored to have your assistance!

[Mark Toia]

Put it this way, CANON GLASS will win because its cheap!!!! super cheap!
A canon 85mm F1.2 @$1550 Vs a $18,500 85mm 1.3 Master prime....

Line them up side by as we have done... you cannot see the difference at all with your eye....
Wide angles yes, 24mm upwards .... nothing in it.

One is built like a tank!!!, weighs a ton! and you can pull focus with it properly.. the other is exactly the same quality image but is made light !! and built like a Mazda !

Price will always win the race in a majority opinion..... It's just human nature...