Canon Cinema Primes vs. Canon L Series -- possibly NSFW

[Chris Hurd]

I suppose a little nudity (implied) helps to show the differences... this is possibly Not Safe For work, but thankfully the naughty bits have been blurred out. Quite the comparison though, between Canon Cinema Primes and Canon L Series lenses:

Canon Cinema Primes vs. Canon L Series on Vimeo

Many thanks to Jonathan Yi.

[Lee Mullen]

Haha very funny indeed and isn't she hot, wow.

As for the lens, yes the cines are leagues ahead aren't they?

[Craig Chartier]

Yes, wonderful glass.

[Bryce Comer]

I'm sorry, what was the video about again?
I agree with you Jalan, she is hot!

[Sabyasachi Patra]

There is a very thin line dividing art and nudity.

He will certainly get tons of hits from people who have nothing to do with filming and photography.

[Dave Partington]

Damn, I wish I hadn't seen this. I was trying to avoid the cinema lenses ;)

[Mark Dobson]

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

There is a very thin line dividing art and nudity.

He will certainly get tons of hits from people who have nothing to do with filming and photography.

Humour is very subjective.

Whilst I found Jonothan Yi's first video on the C300 very informative and entertaining this one felt indulgent
and uninformative.

And as to which lens came out better might well be down to an individuals sexual proclivities.

[Barry Goyette]

I agree. Frankly I can't see a lick of difference optically between the two lens systems, other than the unexplained DOF jump in the first 24 mm comparison. Point taken about the 85mm focus ring (but I already knew that). It seems that any real comparison between the cn-e and L series comes down to mechanics, not optics, so this test is pretty hollow... If mildly funny. I got a lot more out of the ACS test.

[Dave Partington]

There were a couple of shots that showed quite large differences in fine detail in the buildings.

[Paul Chiappini]

Contrast seemed better to me with the cinema prime.

[Matt Davis]

Like so many things, one may be able to ascertain a difference - but is it the difference your audience is going to see? Or feel? Taking that one stage back, will your client see/feel it? Then, let's put the invoice in front of them. Do they want to pay for that difference?

A lovely quote in Scruffy Thinking's 'That Post Show' podcast: in 50 years time, people will be watching Citizen Kane, but they won't remember Google. In other words, we can get obsessed by the technical details, the minutiae of 'the look', but will it make the difference over the long term?

Just been watching 'Nativity' - a BBC film released in cinemas and doing okay. My family enjoyed it, to me it looked like a nice little local BBC filmlet but loved its charm. It was probably a 2/3" camera with an ENG lens, through minimal grading to the screen. Nobody cared except me, throwing cushions at the screen when bleached highlights cropped up.

Honestly... nobody cares - nobody who actually ends up paying to watch this kinda stuff - until it's done badly enough to distract them from the story.

Watching this funny movie, my reaction is 'well done, carefully crafted', we can feel ashamed for checking out the flesh coloured bikini rather than the bokeh. We can feel repulsed by 'his' bottle scene, then realise what we should be looking for.

It's a little poke at the pixel peepers - thumbs up for that.

Now, as for the lenses, I don't know if I could convince my clients to pay for the difference when their audience and 'our' message' isn't connecting on how sexy the flare looks, or how smooth the bokeh blobs are in their circumference.

... I mean... Rilly. Rilly rilly. Rilly?

Sorry, Canon, this test also demonstrates how close we can get (in the non-mega-budget non-broadcast sector) to what we're trying to achieve. Meanwhile, back to pixel peeping...

[Barry Goyette]

Originally Posted by Paul Chiappini

Contrast seemed better to me with the cinema prime.

Originally Posted by Dave Partington

There were a couple of shots that showed quite large differences in fine detail in the buildings.

I see neither (of course we are looking at a compromised vimeo version). I do see an obvious exposure variation that is giving the illusion of more contrast and detail...but neither seem to be the case.

I was also struck that the new iris didn't really effect the out of focus highlights in any meaningful way. And despite the voiceover's surety...I see no difference in breathing between the lenses.

For a similar comparison (that again shows little in the way of variation) see Magnanimous media's videos from last month.

Canon CN-E Primes - Review - Magnanimous Media on Vimeo

I for one, will probably purchase these lenses sometime in the coming year, but again...mostly for the mechanics. In terms of sharpness, color and contrast, we're really looking at the same lenses.

[Jim Martin]

I see the contrast & detail differences....with the Cinema primes being better in those 2 departments....and it's the same thing I see here in our camera room when we do the same type of caparisons.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

[Markus Nord]

Originally Posted by Jim Martin

....and it's the same thing I see here in our camera room when we do the same type of caparisons.

same type of caparisons?! ;)

[Jim Martin]

No, we don't have a bedroom set up or skyscrapers outside the window or a scantly clad woman or a naked man.....but when comparing the L glass vs the Cine glass, we do see those subtle differences....characteristics that are unique to certain manufacturer's lenses.....some are more contrasty, some are "creamier"...etc. The Canon cine glass is born from scratch, not re-purposed such as the Zeiss CP2s, which is also, really good glass.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com