tom hughes Loc: Phila Pa

Took these with my Canon 24-70 II these were hand held. you can see the details of the house on the hill about 2 miles away. Love this lens. great walk around lens

tom hughes Loc: Phila Pa

Took these with my Canon 24-70 II these were hand held. you can see the details of the house on the hill about 2 miles away. Love this lens. great walk around lens

Take 5 Cinema Loc: Canoe BC

I do movies and our standards, by necessity have to be at the best we can afford or get, surpassing that of still optics - why? They have to be. Our sensors are only 2.1 mpx, we need every last bit of quality we can squeeze out of it. There is no room for error. My Sony cameras are 1920 x 1080 downsampled from 3100 x 1700 and shooting 8-10 bit. Good SLR's are 10-14 bit and 12-36 Mpx so there is fudge room - OR is there? Our images have to fit on a screen 30' wide - stills are enlargements or shown on a screen or put into magazines and the web. Our errors are immediately obvious when blown up, edited and messed around in post processing. It is a long story, but optics are everything and DO make a difference. Big time. So the anal quest is a monster topic and for good reason.

Hollywood pays up to $6,000 per prime and $30,000 for a zoom. TV studio and on ENG or sports zooms can go up to $50-70,000. They have lots of stuff in them such as electronic everything if needed, but Hollywood is strictly manual in everything - so there is a reference point.

With today's new crop of cameras, many 35mm still lenses can be used - which is wonderful because we don't have to shell out big bucks anymore.

Last night I was going through a site where a DP wanted to compared the Zeiss against the best Canon L series in a 1:1 match up. They were prime lenses from Zeiss and and 2 Canon zooms and 2 primes. He just wanted to know - simple as that. So he did a movie to back it up. Using split screen so you can compare both of them at the same time, the differences would be immediately apparent.

http://www.fstopacademy.com/blog/what-difference-does-a-lens-make/

He used a higher definition camera, a Black Magic Cinema Camera, 2500 x 1500 at 12 bit, which again is not even the resolving power of today's slr's. The point is that with our gear, we have to get every last ounce of quality out of our optics because we don't have a lot to play with in our footage. It has to be pristine. There can be absolutely no weak links. Just the way it is.

Well, I could not believe my eyes. The Canon was not even close in any lens except the macro - close but still not that good. The clarity, sharpness , color, richness by Zeiss was just so superior consistently. The commentary by the readers was as shell shocked as I was. Even staunch Canon glass users were hinting or giving second thoughts. It is not easy to admit that if you have a lot of Canon glass, you have to admit defeat and will naturally talk yourself out selling out by justifying your glass. This test was a wake up call.

I have always used Zeiss glass and I can tell you, the difference is genuine. If you are looking for superb optics, that is where you start your search. They are manual lenses, with manual apertures, so it is a different world out there. I use Contax / Zeiss glass which you can get from eBay. You can see my 28-85 in my mug shot at left. Use an inexpensive adapter to make it fit Canon - $20-30.

But for macro photography, there is none better in the world thant the Zeiss 60mm macro. I have heard they use this lens when making the chips for computers - not sure where, but it does not surprise me. Do the research.

For my glass, I use a 28/2.8; 50/1.4; 180/2.8; 60/2.8 macro; 28-85/3.3; 300/4. I also have the Voigtlander (Leica M series) 15/4.5 acknowledged as the finest ultra wide ever made - but it has to fit on a rangefinder camera like the Panasonic GH2. That from Ken Rockwell - speaking of which . .

For good reviews by a very smart man, Google Ken Rockwell and do a search there. This guy is a no compromise shoot from the hip, cut to the chase and dish it all out reviewer. If he finds crap, he will clearly state crap. If it is damn good, he will emphatically say: buy it. He is the consumer mans critic and reporter not swayed by public pressure and opinion from the galleries (like this one for instance). He backs his stuff up. Not in pixel peeping tests, but real world results with comparisons to other brands. If he says this is crap, he will refer to alternates that are better and why.

That is where you do your research - from expertise.

And one final comment. I was talking at length to a DP (director of photography) a few days ago in San Francisco. He does discovery channel shows, HIFI and some TV serial shows. He also teaches at one of the best film schools in America. He knows his stuff. He recently acquired a Cooke zoom lens from Britain - my guess is $35,000. Prior to that he used Zeiss.

I asked him about Canon glass on an aside question. He called the consumer and L series crap! I was stunned! I now it is going get Canon glass users hair up on end, and I have a 5DMk2, but in this case, I am merely the messenger boy passing on a comment from one of the highest rated DP's out there. Maybe for stills they are OK, but for movies, they are not even considered. Go figure!

Cheers,
Take 5

Underwaterant

Ha, ha.

How about taxidermy ??
And how are they mounted in the
"Bug-hunting lodge" ??

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

No taxidermy needed. Just dip 'em and pin 'em. :D

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

Ditto! I use mine mainly on the 5D MK II. I can throw it on the 7D but I kinda get screwed on the wide angle side (24mm becomes an apparent 38mm). I use my EF-S 10-20mm on the 7D.

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

Personally I use the Tamron 18-270 as my walk around lens and have had no complaints about it on my D7000 or D3100. You have 70-200 2.8 covered and the 100-400, the lens I would recommend to you would be the Tamron 24-70 2.8. Read some reviews on it and you'll find it stands up against Canon L glass, or Nikor and in some areas surpasses them. Right now I'm trying to decide on the 24-70 or Sigmas 150-500. I think I would get more use out of the 24-70 since I shoot indoor sports and need a fast lens to go along with my 70-200 2.8..........

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

I saving for my next trip up North. I want to photograph the elusive Great Snowy Roach.

Bill

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Be careful, my friend. The GSR, as it is known locally, is very adept at camoflage and has been known to attack those who hunt it.

magicunicorn Loc: Melbourne Australia

Wow... Thank you everyone all comments greatly appreciated there are so many to choose from thank you all.

pigpen

Judging by the lenses you list, $$ is not an issue, so any of the L glass suggested here is awesome. However, you can get very good quality glass that is not L. I own the non L 100mm f2.8 macro, and LOVE this lens. If I had the $$ I would get the L version just for th IS, but this non L is very sharp, and great for macro. As for portraits, I just bought the Canon 85mm f1.8 on sale from B&H for $350. I am a huge fan of shallow DOF. I haven't used this lens much yet, but so far I love it. I've had many people tell me they love their 50mm f/1.4, but I haven't used it.

85mm f/1.8


VERY small spider 100mm macro


100mm macro

magicunicorn Loc: Melbourne Australia

Thank you pigpen your images are fantastic by the way. Seeing them has helped. my current L lens I bought with proceeds with photo sales ...... I like both lens you mentioned. Again thank you, to you and everyone for your help.

Larrie Loc: NE Ohio

Neighbor's window?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Great shots! I bet that last one wasn't your first attempt at that type of thing.

pigpen

No sir! Many hours, many memory cards, and a few 6 packs.