Canon L series lens worth it?

I'm trying to start budgeting for some new lenses. I'm wondering what you all think in terms of video production if the Canon L series lenses are worth purchasing? Specifically I'm thinking the 70-200mm f2.8 because I like to do a lot of nature shots.I will likely buy used on Amazon. I know photographers think the L series is the best thing since sliced bread but what do you all think for video? Is it worth the price tag or do you have other recommendations?

Actually I just did a test this past weekend because I wanted to see what the difference is.
For video I used my Canon L, Ziess ZE and regular Canon lenses.
Looking at screen grabs at 100% I couldn't see any difference.
Now, I wouldn't buy cheap lens either as the coatings won't be there and you would get other problems but as far as sharpness all my lens look the same.
I did this test on my C300 not my DSLR's but I'm sure it will be the same.

For photography, L lens are the best to use hands down but in video mode, on a DSLR you are only using about 2 megapixel of that 17 or 21 megapixel sensor.

Great, thanks Jake for sharing your experience! What are your favorite lenses then that you currently use?

Yes, with video you can get away with a lot. The L series really shine in photography. I have the 80-200 with an additional 2x converter. Here are samples from exactly that lens config:



As far as other L-series comparable... I like the Sigma lenses a lot. They shoot clean and in most cases are about half the price.

On my C300 this lens is on it most of the time, mostly for the 2.8 constant but also the stabilization when I want to do some shots handheld.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html

I also use a Canon 24-105 F4 L lens, I don't like using it mostly because of the F4
Other than that I use some Canon Primes 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 100 2.8
And Zeiss primes 50 and 85mm

But 90% of the time is that 17-55

Jake

I can see the difference using the Canon L 100-400 on my FS700. Compared to the Sony kit lens (18-200) , it's got better contrast. Sharper and holds high contrast better without chromatic aberration. Total pain in the butt focusing and zooming though, and no stabilization. In the wide range, when I use my wife's 24-70 L I can't really tell though. The little cheap Canon nifty 50 on the Metabones speedbooster is pretty awesome.

As Jake said the aperture is important for video more than sharpness, I have the Canon 70-200 f2.8 ll and it is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used, I also have the Canon 24-70 f2.8 ll and that is equally as good, but think of this it depends on the body your using, the wider the aperture in low light the lower the ISO you can get away with which will give you a cleaner clip from noise. I use the 5D MKii and do quite a bit of low light, I use the Canon 50mm f1.4 a lot for these situations. Everything I said about sharpness is for still photography.

I also have the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera and have a Lumix 14-42 f3.5-5.6 old version and for video it gives great results where on a still camera it's a crappy lens.

Buy the widest aperture you can afford for video.