DSLR Video: Canon 24mm 1.4L II vs 24mm 2.8 IS

[Photo Gazelle]

Hi everyone,

I'm a first time poster and long time reader of this forum.

I would like to know your thoughts on whether I should wait to purchase the new Canon 24mm F2.8 IS lens or go ahead with the currently available 24mm F1.4 II L lens?

The main point of consideration being the video performance of these two lenses; specifically, the impact of the IS ability of the soon to be released 24mm 2.8 compared to the non-IS 24mm 1.4L.

I will be doing a mixture of indoor and outdoor recording of friends and family during everyday and special events - nothing professionally.

I am using a Canon 60D and planning to one day move to a FF camera.
My lens set consists of:
Voigtlander 40mm F2 Ultron SL II
Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II
Canon EF-S 15-85mm
Canon EF-S 55-250mm


Thank-you

 

[bp]

IMHO, IS is almost completely pointless at 24mm, at least for video. IS reduces basic camera shake, but you just don't notice it much when you're shooting that wide. At 70mm or higher, IS becomes a huge asset (at 200mm, it's invaluable). I wouldn't trade the extra stops I have available to me with my 24L 1.4 for IS, and I do shoot a lot of video. ...that said, I do also have a lot of good stabilization gear

 

[DB]

IS is overrated for video. Get the L glass, however you're rarely going to shoot video wider than f2.8 anyway, unless you're doing close-in family stuff e.g. birthdays and that kind of thing. I tried handheld a lot on my T2i then on my 7D with IS lenses, but gave up, bought a Manfrotto 561BHDV fluid head monopod and now all my videos look great. I even switch off the IS on my 70-200mm cos' it really drains the battery + makes clicking noise that even my external Zoom H4N audio recorder picks up.

Seriously though, use some support - DSLR rig, tripod or monopod, especially if you're shooting personal stuff, and forget IS which is really only important for stills where you want to drop down from 1/60th to say 1/15th of a second. When you'll be shooting video you're going to set your shutter speed to at least 1/50th anyway.

 

[Photo Gazelle]

Thanks @DB and @bp... you both state that IS is not effective at wider FL and the research I've done seems to say the same. My question then is, why do most people in reviews/forums seem to praise these soon to be released Canon 24mm and 28mm 2.8 IS lenses as for the 'dslr video' crowd? Am I missing something?
Otherwise, the better photographic qualities of the 24L seem to make the two IS lenses a non-factor.

With regards to stabilization gear, I will be working handheld the majority of the time with no more than a monopod when more stabilization is required. Anything larger (i.e. tripod or rig?) will be impractical as i'm trying to be as mobile and less obtrusive as possible. While i'm primarily concerned with picking the more appropriate lens in this post - any recommendations for improving the quality of my videos while keeping my kit as streamlined as possible would be appreciated.

Thanks

 

[bp]

Why? I could only hazard a guess - which would be that they're trying to entice more amateurs at the low end of video, on a couple of fronts. Adding continuous autofocus to the new Rebel is a brilliant move because for Uncle Bob's, that's one of the primary reasons they don't see DSLR's as a viable camcorder. Pro shooters, for the most part, couldn't care less about continuous AF because it's usually herky-jerky and you lose control over what you're focusing on. Someone walks across frame in front of your subject, and everything goes to hell.

Similarly, while most pros and semi-pros have already invested in good stabilization gear, the low-end crowd usually shoots exclusively handheld, and camera shake is another frequent gripe. Any added IS can only help. Most newbies don't realize that IS really won't help that much when you're shooting that wide, but the fact that it has it can only help sell more lenses.

As far as recommendations go, you mentioned perhaps using a monopod. I can't think of anything that would be a better bang-for-your-buck purchase than the Manfrotto 561bhdv-1 fluid head monopod. Fantastic for adding some serious stabilization while staying mobile and without adding too much bulk. Its real strength is the tiny feet and rotation drag at the bottom. You'll find that a standard photo monopod won't really help all that much, but the 561 is amazing.

 

[Random Orbits]

Thanks @DB and @bp... you both state that IS is not effective at wider FL and the research I've done seems to say the same. My question then is, why do most people in reviews/forums seem to praise these soon to be released Canon 24mm and 28mm 2.8 IS lenses as for the 'dslr video' crowd? Am I missing something?
Otherwise, the better photographic qualities of the 24L seem to make the two IS lenses a non-factor.

With regards to stabilization gear, I will be working handheld the majority of the time with no more than a monopod when more stabilization is required. Anything larger (i.e. tripod or rig?) will be impractical as i'm trying to be as mobile and less obtrusive as possible. While i'm primarily concerned with picking the more appropriate lens in this post - any recommendations for improving the quality of my videos while keeping my kit as streamlined as possible would be appreciated.

Thanks

The 24mm replaces the previous non-L 24mm offering but has similar MTF curves. The new 28mm has better MTF curves than the lens it replaces. Adding IS may help in certain situations. These lenses are priced around 800, but I'm assuming that the price will drop after it's been on the market for a while. These lenses are replacements for the old 24 and 28mm prime offerings. Those that demand larger apertures and better IQ will buy the 24L and 16-35L.

 

[Photo Gazelle]

@bp
I think your implication (correct me if i'm wrong) that IS in the new 24/28mm primes will be received by most newbies on the whole as an effective feature is bang on. My consideration of the IS 24mm vs the 24L is effectively a testament to that. Thanks to the several comments to the contrary in this thread, I'm now seriously leaning towards the 24L ... if anyone has anything to add in support of the new 24mm f2.8 IS please do share!

With regards to a monopod - I actually own the Giottos MML 3290B (with Manfrotto 234RC head) and am very happy with it. The Manfrotto 561bhdv-1 fluid head monopod you recommend looks like the perfect tool for my video work - I'd love to have both (i.e. Giottos for photographic work and lighter travel and the Manfrotto for video) and am considering doing so. However, I'd like to keep things simplified by using a consistent quick release system across both monopods - is there a quick release head for video that will work with the Manfrotto 234RC plate I already own? Or would it be better to find a different head for the Giottos monopod that accepts the 561bhdv-1's plate?

 

[Photo Gazelle]

@Random Orbits
From a purely photographic standpoint - I'm all over the 24L.
The only reason I've brought the newer 24mm into discussion is because of the improved MTF curves and IS. The MTF data instills a confidence in me that, outside of wide open ability, the newer 24mm will hold it's own to the 24L photographically. The IS functionality causes me to pause when considering these two lenses with respect to video.
Thanks to previous comments in this thread, IS seems less of a benefit thus making the faster 24L a front runner with respect to my needs.

Again, if anyone has any other points of consideration/support for the newer 24mm 2.8 IS - please share!

Thanks again all

 

[Ranga]

Bower/Samyang/Rokinon/Vivitar all sell the same model of 24mm f/1.4 manual focus lens for under $700. Would be idea for video. You should check it out.

 

[catz]

At least 24-105 mm 4L IS has significant impact for video stability at 24 mm, I recommend IS even for wide lens if intentions is to shoot ever handheld.

Without IS handheld is unusable without rig, with IS I have shot many useful clips. IS does not help for major shake, but it removes "micro-shake" completely. This "micro-shake" is visible on all clips even if they are very wide and to some like me it is almost as annoying and unprofessional looking than the horrible moire or even more so. Without IS I would not use without a rig or a high quality tripod. Especially because 24 mm on crop sensor camera is not that wide actually. My tripod is Manfrotto CXPRO3 with MVH502AH fluid head and is smooth enough in panning for shooting with a lens without IS (been using 50 mm 1.4 Sigma with it) and is also as a carbon tripod is light enough to be reasonable to carry around (the fluid head weights the same as the whole tripod without the head). For moving the camera (without IS), you can of course use steadicam (e.g. Glidecam HD-2000), all the micro and macro shake is gone. The Glidecam HD-2000 is also reasonable to carry around without vest and arm. Muscles in the hand ache after using it for a day but for a more athletic person it should be no big deal. Of course you can't pull focus on manual focus lens while moving around with glidecam because that imbalances your setup unless you have electronic focus puller that can be remotely controlled by somebody else than the glidecam operator herself.

The 1.4 is nice when the lens is on tripod. I would choose the 1.4 over the IS for video. 1.4 short focus is awesome.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Ignore the IS version. Canon have obviously employed dick turpin in their marketing dept.
I would also say, ignore the f1.4. Near to impossible to use with video at anything wider than f2.8, unless you have a huge LCD fitted for critical focusing. So that points towards the 24mm f2.8.

But...

It's a no-mans land focal length. A bit wide for standard, but not wide enough to be a wide angle. Its a bit like the wide angle on early compacts or camcorders generally--- just not wide enough.

I would either go much wider (I love the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 ) or go for a more standard lens, like a canon 28mm f2.8 or Canon 35mm f2.0.

If you don't mind going off brand then Samyang make some excellent wide angle fast lenses, at modest prices, check out their 24mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4. Great reviews, no AF, but if you are taking video seriously then you don't need AF. Lovely wide focus ring and version with stepless aperture rings (so nice fluid iris movements)

My next lens is probably going to be the Samyang 35mm f1.4.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

There's a clip here - Full Moon Rising - "High" - Official Music Video - Daniel Tyler Pohnke - that was shot with a couple of 5Dmk2 cameras and the following lenses:

* 50mm f/1.4 wide open, e.g. the shallow depth of field shots in the beginning of the clip. I think it gives several good and bad examples of using shallow depth of field in video.

* Sigma 12-24mm mkI, e.g. the opening shot with the trees spinning, the dance sequence at ~60secs, and the office shots right after that.

* TS-E 24mm f/3.5 mkII, e.g. at 2:30

They've also used an EF 35mm f/2 & an HD hero.

 

[Axilrod]

I think on an APS-C sensor the IS could actually be pretty helpful with video, since 24mm is almost 40mm FF equivalent and the 28mm is 45mm. It definitely won't hurt the image, whether or not it's worth the money is a different story.

You want an amazing lens in that range that's optimized for video? Check out the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, that's the sickest wide angle lens I've ever used. I've heard wonderful things about the 25mm f/2 also. After shooting for the past few years with L primes all it took was one shoot with Zeiss lenses and now I don't ever think I'll be able to go back to shooting with Canon glass. For stills the L stuff is great, but if you're doing video primarily you just can't beat the Zeiss stuff.

The 24LII is still an amazing lens and stellar performer, but on an APS-C sensor I think you'd be better off with the 35L.

 

[c3hammer]

I totally disagree that IS is overrated for video and even at 24mm on a crop cam. I use a 24L f/1.4 II on a T3i and find it manditory to have on sticks or a stabilizer for truly useful footage. A 38mm equivalent is extremely difficult to hand hold effectively. That Blair Witch / Hunger Games style just doesn't work for nearly anything, IMHO.

I realized that for my outdoor type work the super fast 24L was a better choice, particularly as I have a stabilizer setup already. If I didn't, I'd probably have waited for the 24 IS.

IS, stabilizers, monopods and tripods are the basic tools to set your video apart from the standard shakey stuff that no friends or family can bear to watch if you're not forcing them to

I also find the 24mm focal length to be nearly the perfect all-arounder for asp-c cams. Just wide enough to be effective on a stabilizer and right on for the low end of the standard range before distortion takes over.

Cheers,
Pete
http://www.youtube.com/user/c3hammer
http://vimeo.com/user3461281

 

[Bosman]

Why would anyone spend $1800 on shooting video of friends. Bad idea. If you make money then get the L. The is lens is made for video. Be Smart.
On the other hand if you have buckets of cash buy it.

 

[preppyak]

I would either go much wider (I love the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 ) or go for a more standard lens, like a canon 28mm f2.8 or Canon 35mm f2.0.

He already has the Voigtlander 40mm f/2, so getting the 35 f/2 won't do him any good.

On the other end, for shooting casual stuff of friends and family, the Tokina is way too wide. It's a great lens if you know how to use it. But, of the lenses I own, it'd be the last one I would pick to shoot people, because of the distortion. Even at 16mm you'll find it annoying.

Personally I wouldn't spend that much on the 24mm f/1.4 just to shoot friends, but, if I had the money it'd be a nice lens to own. I think the IS primes are way overpriced, and you'd get more bang for your buck going another way. I'd either get one of the older non-IS primes and a decent stabilizer, or look for one of the IS enabled zooms (Canon 17-55, Sigma 17-50, Tamron 24-70, etc). You'd also gain a constant aperture, which is important for video work, and you'll gain a stop or two from the 15-85 you currently own.

 

[paul13walnut5]

@preppyak

Quote from: paul13walnut5 on May 19, 2012, 09:35:17 AM

I would either go much wider (I love the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 ) or go for a more standard lens, like a canon 28mm f2.8 or Canon 35mm f2.0.

He already has the Voigtlander 40mm f/2, so getting the 35 f/2 won't do him any good.

On the other end, for shooting casual stuff of friends and family, the Tokina is way too wide. It's a great lens if you know how to use it. But, of the lenses I own, it'd be the last one I would pick to shoot people, because of the distortion. Even at 16mm you'll find it annoying.

I missed the 40mm f2 in there, or as you rightly point out, I wouldn't have suggested Canons 35mm f2.0.
This is a choice I'm facing, the 35mm f2, the Samyang 35mm f1.4, or the Voigtlander f2, or wait to see the rumoured canon pancake...

Anyway, I stand by my inclusion of the 11-16. Not for portraiture particularly (although the rules for video are very different, you wouldn't have a classic portraiture perspective in video unless for dramatic purposes or in an interview scenario, but useful for group shots etc) but to plug a gap in the OP's range, rather than duplicate with a focal length thats already covered.

Unless you are very serious about video and practised at on the fly shallow Dof adjustments then you don't want ultra bright lenses and MF.

I don't get folk buying these mediocre mid aperture zooms as their core lenses then buying lots of fast primes.

Start with fast aperture zooms (I have f2.8 from 11-200mm) and pick specific fast aperture lenses for certain purposes, i.e. a 30-40mm makes a good 'standard' lens on a 60D, a 50mm makes a good interview lens on a 60D.

A prime 24mm just would not be on my list for video on APS-C.

 

[bp]

A prime 24mm just would not be on my list for video on APS-C.

I don't quite get this. You mentioned earlier about it being a no-man's land, not wide enough, not tight enough... For still photography, I would actually tend to agree. When I'm shooting stills, I like things to be more extreme (50mm bores the crap outta me) - but for video, I couldn't disagree more.

35mm for film/cinema is like the 50mm for a still photographer. The perfect "standard" length, and one that a LOT of DP's will tell you is by far their most frequently used FL. 24mm on an APS-C is 38.4mm, or basically as close as you can get to 35mm. If I were completely starting over, with an APS-C body, aiming for building a video gear bag, 24mm would be my first choice.

 

[paul13walnut5]

I don't speak to a lot of DP's, I choose what suits what I'm doing. If it works for them, then great. A 'normal' lens for aps-c (as opposed to s35) is equiv to approx 45mm, so 28mm lens, but even thats a bit wrong because the diagonal is assumed on 3:2, not 16:9 or the cinematic aspects - if one was being exceptionally pedantic.

24mm just isn't one I'd seek out. But then I'm not the OP and it's only an opinion.