# Question about Canon L Lenses vs. Canon Cinema Lenses for 5d MKIII



## smon222 (Nov 29, 2012)

The price difference is huge, but I wanted to know if im not using a 4k camera and I don't need the extra cinema features. Is the picture quality at 1920 that much better to justify the price over L lenses, such as 50mm 1.2, 35mm 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 2.0 etc.?

Your thoughts?

Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2012)

The price difference for cine lenses is not all about IQ - it's more about engineering. Most lenses (including all the EF lenses you're talking about) have focus breathing - the FoV changes slightly as you focus the lens. The cine lenses don't have focus breathing, have other design features more suited to their application (wide MF rings for focus pulling attachments, clearly marked and _accurate_ distance markings, etc.).


----------



## smon222 (Nov 29, 2012)

Thanks for the quick reply, thats exactly what I was wondering. I shoot run and gun and although they look really cool, I just didn't know if it was worth it to switch for what I do.

It would be nice to get the WoW factor though, but I think I will pass on the price.

Thanks again!


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 1, 2012)

smon222 said:


> Thanks for the quick reply, thats exactly what I was wondering. I shoot run and gun and although they look really cool, I just didn't know if it was worth it to switch for what I do.
> 
> It would be nice to get the WoW factor though, but I think I will pass on the price.
> 
> Thanks again!



If you're trying to shoot video mainly I'd recommend you check out the Zeiss ZE stuff, it's just far superior to the Canon stuff for video. I shot with the 14L/24L/35L/50L/85L/100L/135L/ for a long time and still have quite a few of them, but after using Zeiss stuff it's hard to go back. I have the 21, 50 f/2 and 100 f/2 and have been trying to bring myself to get rid of my Canon glass to complete my Zeiss lineup. The throw on the focus rings is butter smooth, they are crazy sharp edge to edge and the color rendition is just beautiful. Plus the optics in the ZE's are the same as the $4000 Zeiss CP.2's. I suspect this is the case with the Canon glass, the extra money is just paying for uniform lens size to make swapping them out easier, built in focus gear, smooth iris adjustment and super accurate focus marks. 

But I'm telling you, check out the ZE's and you'll never go back. I love my 50L but the Zeiss 50 Makro is just absolutely crushing it in terms of sharpness, especially on the edges.


----------



## syder (Dec 1, 2012)

smon222 said:


> The price difference is huge, but I wanted to know if im not using a 4k camera and I don't need the extra cinema features. Is the picture quality at 1920 that much better to justify the price over L lenses, such as 50mm 1.2, 35mm 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 2.0 etc.?



In a word... No.

They're designed mainly for production companies who'll spend serious money on C500s/C300s and will be using them for features and tv drama series. They really aren't made for run and gun budget shooters with DSLRs


----------

