Canon 24 1.4 or Carl zeiss 21 2.8 for video

Hi,

I am looking for a prime lens mainly for video but one that can work for photography as well. I am now confused between Carl Zeiss 21mm and Canon 24 mm 1.4; Can anybody having similar experience of using both the lenses for video and can give the pros and cons of both.

Thanks.

Zeiss

**if you don't need autofocus, it's manual focus only**

Zeiss has better optics, hard stops, more solid construction, smooth focus ring, longer focus throw. All of these make it a better candidate for video.

Of course, they're also different focal lengths. Something else to take into consideration as well.

I have used both. The Canon is better. It's 400% brighter, the focus ring is very smooth, and it can't possibly get any sharper. The Zeiss still photography lenses do indeed have long smooth focus rings, but really they are a bit too slow. Try focusing on an object moving rapidly towards you with a Zeiss. Not easy. WIth the Canon, easy.

As a bonus, the Canon is weathersealed. The Zeiss is not.

Where did you get 400% brighter? The 24 can go what, 2 stops wider?

But seriously, when are you going to ever shoot at f/1.4 - Nothings going to be in focus.

Saying the focus ring is "slow" is misleading. Saying the Zeiss has a longer throw than the canon is a little bit more accurate. And yes, there are trade offs. With the Canon you won't be able to make the micro adjustments in focus that you could do with a Zeiss because simply, the throw just isn't long enough. Coming back to my point that you would never shoot at f/1.4 on the Canon because the insanely shallow DoF combined with the shorter throw would make it impossible to nail focus on anything, extra impossible if you're subject moves more than a half inch.

Alternatively, yes, if for some reason something is running rapidly right at your camera, the canon will do a better job thanks to the shorter throw. Maybe for sports?

Sure I shoot wide open all the time. Nothing to be scared about, especially with a 24mm. Realistically, there isn't that much of a difference in DOF between 1.4 and 2.8. Either it's in or it's out. There isn't really an in between.

2.8 = two stops more than 1.4. Two stops = 400% more light. Kinda hard to argue with that. Math is math.

Have you actually used both for video? I have. I shot a series of national Jeep commercials with the Zeiss. And a movie with the Canon. The Canon is better.

A small video production company came and did a movie shoot at my work using it as the backdrop for their movie. They used 7Ds and all their lense were Zeiss. I asked them about using Canon L lenses and their opinion was the Zeiss lenses were sharper.

aroundlsu wrote in post #13438203
2.8 = two stops more than 1.4. Two stops = 400% more light. Kinda hard to argue with that. Math is math.

I should stop doing math after a full day of shooting.

Anyways, added benefit, if you've been lusting after CP.2 Primes. The lenses/optics in the Zeis ZF/ZE lenses are exactly the same as the CP.2's. The CP.2's just feature better housing/features. The distortion on the Zeiss lenses is also less noticeable then their Canon counterparts.

Well if we are talking CP.2 primes, that's a different story. The ability to get accurate focus marks and use a proper follow focus makes up for everything else. Of course, if you can afford a set of CP.2s then you can afford a Canon 24mm for the times you need the extra light.