ICYMI: Canon 28mm F2.8 IS USM sample gallery

The EF 24, 1.4L is no better optically than the IS primes at a narrower stop than f2.8. I use the 50mm f1.4 if the framing requires 50mm

I guess you need to hit the gym. I'd rather have 1.4 and not use it, but maybe need it then stick with 2.8. The 2.8 is kind of a waste on a Prime lens, its only acceptable on a Zoom.

2.8 is a waste on a primelens. Hmm, that 400mm f2.8 is quite expensive and good. Oh, you mean, smaller ones. I like my 40mm f2.8 pancake. F2.8 is good enough, especially for wide lenses if the size is reasonable.

I have that 40mm Pancake. Its nice. I only use it in restaurants and stuff. But for street photography at night you need 1.4/

No, I don't. Believe me. You would wonder what even an APS-C Ricoh GR with f2.8 is able to do...

@Graham - it's already outdated, don't think I'll be getting one.

These days Stevo, its more about the person behind the camera.

@Graham - yea, I gather that too. It seems that all the mediocre shooters bought 6dii and 5d4.

Alas, it's true stevo23, we can't always aspire to your greatness.

wouldn't it have been easier and less painful just to screw around with lifts in his shoes?

The Canon is the better lens. Period. I have owned and used both. For me, the Canon 28mm is an excellent lens and is worth every penny. The size, design, optics, etc. — all really nice. It draws beautifully, and the vignetting is nice. The Sony 28mm distorts like a $50 lens and is made useable only by heavy-duty digital corrections. There is no comparison. The Sony is definitely not "better built".

Well I personally find the 28mm (especially when slower than f/2.8) very boring. A 24mm is far more exciting as a wide lens, and a 35mm is far more exciting as a both wide & close up (Boy I adore that 35mm f/1.4 II).

@The other, The Sony FE28/2 might not be actually better built but it most definitely feel like a much more external solid lens, most Sony primes are more metal than Canon/Nikon which go for all plastic. Which one is better, I don't know. Just talking about the "feel" of it.

The new 35F1.4L'II is superb, but is it worth the extra $$$ over the Sigma 35F1.4|Art for non-professional use? Specially for video. Because I'm not sure :).

Worth every penny! That lens is just magic. As you might know in the video world we rent thus the difference between the Canon L and the ART is not that large at all, but the difference is quality is quite large no matter how many say it's close, so much sharper and clearer like looking through crystal clear glass, a look I have never seen in any other lens I've ever used by any manufacturer, and that kind of quality combined with the f/1.4 iris, is just a magical wide look. If I were to ever choose only one lens to use for the rest of my life it'd be this lens with an A7rII, to use as a 50mm f/2 in S35 mode for close ups and a wide 35mm f/1.4 in FF mode.

It's not this conversation anyhow, the 35mm f/2 has an incredibly helpful IS and I think any video shooter should own one in his bag. Shallow DOF and stable just by hand-holding the camera body.

IMHO, for intense video purposes, a speedboosted Sigma 18-35F1.8Art on a proper Panasonic camera (GH4/GH5) is a winner.

Something like that :)
Yes, the 18-35F1.8 almost covers an APS-H frame, with a bit of vignetting past 28mm (I think). And no problems for video. Many people like to use it on the a6500 via speedboster.

As a normal spectator with no huge video knowledge, can you see the Panasonic videos to look distinctly different (video-like) from the other cameras like the A7 and Canons/Nikons?

Just curious

It's not really about the look. It's about the workflow, tool flexibility, versatility and all the important things like battery life, fps, bitrates, flippy touch screen, IBIS, non-overheating, clean HDMI out, price, etc. Judging a tool by the out of context final product is just silly. Same as all the FF vs crop "which is which" guessing BS snapshot comparison galleries, which are meant to fool people. The looks are done in post-processing.

So you believe the video-ish IQ feel I speak of is a post-processing error rather than a camera being better than the other in that specific area?

"Betterness" is not some kind of magical camera property. Better cameras are better to work with for very specific reasons in specific circumstances and for a reasonable price. It is possible to make a $10000 camera footage and a cell phone camera footage to look similar (which I believe has been done numerous times already), but it doesn't mean that they are comparable. Every camera can potentially be better at something, on a spectrum. And every operator can potentially fail at taking advantage of those better camera features or in post-processing. Everything is measurable/quantifiable and the rest is just a superstitious nonsense.

But of course when the user is the same (you), and the method is that same, a camera can be "better" than another. By a big, big margin that's enough to make or break the resulting photo/video right?

Post processing and skill can only change so much, the camera's inherent image quality coming off the card is my most valued criteria unlike you say workflow is to you. Workflow is important, a GH4 is easier and smaller and has more features than a 1DC, but I wonder why I keep renting the 1DC and left off the GH4 much superior workflow/ergonomics/ease of use, when I think about it, only the image mattered to me,

and not even all the aspects of IQ like Res, DR, Noise, but just actual "feel" I get viewing the images is enough for me. And it's that darn specific criterion that I CANNOT define well enough to analyze scientifically like all other aspects of an image!

Post-processing and skill can change a lot actually. Let's not blame neither the camera nor the photographer for everything. Because it's both, always. However, it's your fault if you are choosing wrong tools for the job, or using right ones in a wrong way. Most people are lazy, me included. And they expect their new shiny expensive gear to work perfectly to their taste right out of the box. Which is just impossible, because different people like different things. But you can calibrate your camera to produce the right "look". I do like Canon Camera Standard profile, but I've messed around with all kinds of images from various cameras and it is possible to make them (most of them) look like Canon. So, perhaps the lack of trying could be the only problem.
Not sure why GH4 size makes any difference to you. The whole pro setup is still huge, specially with the DMW-YAGH unit. I'd say just as big as 1DC.