Is this lens overkill for video? I can get the regular 50mm 1.4 less than $500, but I wanted some opinions first.

Don't have any experience with the 1.2, but I do own the 1.4 and it is an amazing lens!

It depends on your shooting goals and the other lenses you will use with it. If you will shoot in the lowest light situations, and will shoot with other fast L primes, go for it. If you'll be cutting with non-L glass and will typically be stopping down, get the 1.4.

It all depends on the context...

It would be the only L lens I owned. I might just get the 24mm 1.4 and the 50mm 1.4. This is my first jump into lenses and it was a bit overwhelming at first. Thanks for the help.

If you want to save money the 50mm 1.8 works quite well for video and its' only about $90. On stills it is not the equivalent of the 1.4 or 1.2 but you don need as much resolution for video. On the down side you can't manual focus while it is in autofucus mode - then agin you won't be doing this while shooting video.

If you want to save money the 50mm 1.8 works quite well for video and its' only about $90. On stills it is not the equivalent of the 1.4 or 1.2 but you don need as much resolution for video. On the down side you can't manual focus while it is in autofucus mode - then agin you won't be doing this while shooting video.

Ironically the "nifty fifty" (f1.8) you are referring to is one of the sharpest of the 50mm lenses at a large range of settings. I recommend it to all new DSLR users.

I wouldn't use it for video for these reasons:

1) The old non-usm motor buzzes loudly. You'd hear it on even a remote mic if you turned on AF.

2) The manual focus ring at the end of the lens is so tiny it is mostly unusable.

3) It is so tiny (both the lens itself and its focus ring) that no focus follower could ever work with it.

I have the 1.2, and I bought it after extensive growsing over which of the canon lenses to buy. the 1.4 IS a great lens...but it has two things about it that I don't like. First the focusing mechanism...the focusing ring is narrow and close to the body...too close for my fat hands...and it's a gritty gear-y kinda thing that feels like its broken from the very first day. The 1.2 has a generous old-school ring and old-school butter smooth drag to the manual focusing and I wouldn't have it any other way.

apparently the flare characteristics of the 1.2 are better as well. On the down side, you'll probably see more chromatic abberation up to about f2.5 with the 1.2...after that, it can't be beat...

Barry

Thanks for all of the help. Picking out lenses is obviously very new to me. I'm using the camera for weddings. Mostly for the Bridal Prep, but I'm sure I will be using it for receptions (dark) as well. I don't mind buying what I need, but I don't want to waste money on something that isn't worth it. Obviously the 50mm 1.2 is going to be great in low-light, but it probably isn't something I would be able to shoot a crowd with. At 1.2, it has to have an extremely shallow dof, right? I'm not sure where I would be able to use that, other than some close ups of the bride getting ready and for those shots, light isn't usually a big issue.
I am also considering the Canon 24mm 1.4, but I can't find it anywhere other than Ebay.

I just shot a wedding reception with a Nikon 35mm 1.4 that did a great job. Fully open the colors are amazing but the DOF is too shallow unless both subjects are in the same plane (standing side-by-side). I don't mind manual focus so an old manual Nikon or Canon are something to consider. I wouldn't recommend shooting people with a really wide lens as the perspective distortion may not be flattering to faces. There is a reason 85mm lenses are called "portrait" lenses. I won't even use a 28mm to shoot individual people and the 35mm is not good for close shots. A 50mm stopped to F2 might be just right for wedding two-shots (like dances) in low light.

I have both the 50mm F1.2L & the 24mm F1.4L Both are great lenses & of course the low light performance of both is exceptional (we are talking filming in a cellar by candlelight here:-). I did purchase used from eBay but they were still pretty expensive. If I were purchasing now I think that I might save a little & gain some flexibility by going for the 50mm F1.4 & the 24-70mm F2.8L zoom. The low light capability of the camera is so exceptional that it is quite possible to crank the gain up to really high levels without noticeable grain especially now the new firmware gives us proper control.

I want to get the 50mm f1.2 myself. I already have a Nikon 50mm f1.4 and it is a fine lens.

I have done a lot of low light shooting with it and my 17-40 f4, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f2.8.

The mkII is so good in low light that there really is no huge reason for a superfast lens, IMHO, for most shots.

Like you said when you shoot people in a dynamic scene a moderate f stop is really easier to work with. I shoot at f 5.6 a lot even in fairly low light. Now stopped down the f 1.2 and the "L" lenses mentioned below have very nice boketh even stopped down. A cheaper lens does not have circular diaphragm so the out of focus parts can be rather ugly, not smooth round shapes but harsh hexagonals.

The reason I want the 1.2 is for those really special shots when you want very shallow DOF at say 8-10 feet out with a normal lens, in the 2-4 foot range f 1.4-4 is really OK. I like to use the 70-200 for shallow DOF at 10 feet or so. I also use my 100-400 f4.5-5.6 and used at longer end even f8 has very shallow DOF.

I've owned pretty much every Canon and Nikon 50mm lens at some point and I personally I would stay away from the 50mm f1.4 As others point out it has poor manual focus and not so nice bokeh in comparison to the 50mm f1.2L. The 1.4 also has pretty bad barrel distortion in my experience but you milage may vary.

If you have the money the 1.2 is great, if not look at a Zeiss 50mm f1.4 in either ZE, ZF or Contax fit for video use and perhaps a Canon 50mm f1.8 for stills. Another great budget alternative is the Nikon fit Voigtlander 58mm f1.4. All of these have nice damped manual focus which I prefer to the Nikon manual lenses.

Dan

I have a sample clip of the 50mm f1.4 in action. Let me apologize about the extremely sloppy edit in advance, I still need to fully edit this footage. My partner and I went out for a night on the town to test the 5D in low light and this is what we came up with:

http://www.rpmproductions.info/videos/messin.mov

All of these shots were done with the 50mm 1.4 and the light that was available was nearly non existent! I was rather pleased with the performance of the lens when paired with the 5dII. The focus ring has a tendency to feel a little clunky, but it still performs as it should.

...I would stay away from the 50mm f1.4 As others point out it has poor manual focus and not so nice bokeh in comparison to the 50mm f1.2L. The 1.4 also has pretty bad barrel distortion in my experience...

I agree about the barrel distortion, which is really sad in a "normal" lens. To me a 50mm lens on a full frame camera is all about getting the camera out of the picture. It's an unexceptional angle of view that should give the viewer the feeling of being there. Barrel distortion distracts from that normal view, and is unattractive on people's faces and bodies.

I'll also add that the CA is pretty bad. Just aim the lens at a white fence and defocus a bit. You'll see what I mean.

On the other hand, I really like the EF 85mm f/1.8. For people, it's an excellent lens. And it pairs perfectly with the EF 28mm f/1.8. Some photographers dis the 28 for corner sharpness and flare, but I find it good for video and the perfect companion to the 85. It has the same speed, similar mechanics, and same generation of coatings for similar color. And, of course, they're both EOS lenses, so they can do double duty for stills and video.

I'm thinking of selling both my 50/1.4 and my 35/2.0 and just using our Nikon AI 50/1.8 for mid range video. I can always rent the 50/1.2 when the need arises...

I agree about the barrel distortion

Is there a way to correct this distortions in post??

A couple of weeks ago I saw some pictures taken with a digital Leica and a Leica lens, there was one of a bed and the bed was so fully undistorted that I couldn't believe it!!! Pretty sad thing to be touched by! ;-DD

Is there a way to correct this distortions in post??

A couple of weeks ago I saw some pictures taken with a digital Leica and a Leica lens, there was one of a bed and the bed was so fully undistorted that I couldn't believe it!!! Pretty sad thing to be touched by! ;-DD

The camera built-in correction for stills is not used for video. However I assume any good pp software can fix it.

Is there a way to correct this distortions in post??Correcting barrel distortion for photos isn't bad, but would be time consuming in post for video. The exact method depends on the NLE.

Here's an example of the 50/1.4 on a portrait aspect photo
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/attachments/canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-hd/12018d1241237093-post-your-photos-lens-processing-info-freedompark.jpg

Is this lens overkill for video? I can get the regular 50mm 1.4 less than $500, but I wanted some opinions first.

I've owned all the Canon 50mm primes. First the 50mm 1.8, then the 1.4, then I returned that for the 1.2. I love, Love, LOVE the 50 1.2. My favorite lens by far!

The 50 1.8 is great for the price but it doesn't have a standard focus ring (cannot use it with my follow focus gears). The 50 1.4 has a zoom ring but feels a bit sloppy. The 1.2 offers better IQ and incredible bokeh, not to mention the great dampening on the focus.

Here are some video stills from a recent wedding I shot with the 50 1.2L:

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/grungo01.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/grungo02.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/grungo03.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/grungo04.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/grungo05.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/grungo06.jpg

Greater than wonderful!!! ;-DD

Glen,

The stills from the video footage look great. How often do you find yourself shooting video at 1.2? It seems like getting the focus right would be difficult.
I have only had the chance to use the camera at 1 wedding so far. I was able to get the camera about two weeks ago. I don't even think I've taken pictures with all of the lenses I have so far.
My main concern is about pulling focus. I have a Varizoom 7" monitor that I plan on attaching to my rails for now. Its only 800x480, but I think it will do the trick. I was told that while you are recording, the camera outputs SD video, so anything higher wouldn't matter.
I was able to pick up a used 24mm 1.4 yesterday and from your pics, I'll probably go ahead and get the 50mm 1.2. I really appreciate all the help on this forum!

I own the 50mm 1.4 lens. In all honesty, if you're deciding whether or not to buy the 1.4, or 1.2, go with the 1.2. You might as well go all out. The 1.4 is such a great lens. Probably the best feature about the 5fmii is the ability to create a super, super shallow depth of field that filmmakers covet, and been trying to create using 35mm adapters for so long... so yeah, man... go with the 1.2 and get that shallow depth of field going. The 1.2 is gonna be my next purchase. what's an extra 600 bucks or so? it'll make itself back in no time.

I own the 50mm 1.4 lens. In all honesty, if you're deciding whether or not to buy the 1.4, or 1.2, go with the 1.2. You might as well go all out. The 1.4 is such a great lens. Probably the best feature about the 5fmii is the ability to create a super, super shallow depth of field that filmmakers covet, and been trying to create using 35mm adapters for so long... so yeah, man... go with the 1.2 and get that shallow depth of field going. The 1.2 is gonna be my next purchase. what's an extra 600 bucks or so? it'll make itself back in no time.

Can you actually see the difference? 1.2 and 1.4 are a small fraction of a stop apart.

"Here are some video stills from a recent wedding I shot with the 50 1.2L"

It's hard to believe those are video stills. HDV is useless for video stills but these look nice and they are downsampled. I know 1080p stills are not suitable for print, but who prints anymore?. I think 2 megapixel stills from 5DII video can make great digital snapshots that might even stand the test of time even though computer monitors will likely increase in resolution tremendously in the next several years.

I've owned all the Canon 50mm primes. First the 50mm 1.8, then the 1.4, then I returned that for the 1.2. I love, Love, LOVE the 50 1.2. My favorite lens by far!

The 50 1.8 is great for the price but it doesn't have a standard focus ring (cannot use it with my follow focus gears). The 50 1.4 has a zoom ring but feels a bit sloppy. The 1.2 offers better IQ and incredible bokeh, not to mention the great dampening on the focus.

Here are some video stills from a recent wedding I shot with the 50 1.2L:

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/grungo01.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/grungo02.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/grungo03.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/grungo04.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/grungo05.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/grungo06.jpg

What shutter speed were you using? There is very little motion blur, much less than you'd see with 1/50 or other normal video.

Can you actually see the difference? 1.2 and 1.4 are a small fraction of a stop apart.No they are not just a small fraction apart. F-stops are a logarithmic scale with each full stop representing a halving (increasing F number) or doubling (decreasing F number) of the light intensity from the previous stop. This is the scale in full stops - F/1, F/1.4, F/2, F/2.8, F/4, F/5.6, F/8, F/11, F/16, F/22, F/32 etc

Going from F1.4 to F1.2 is a half stop i.e. 50% more light is let through.

In all honesty, if you're deciding whether or not to buy the 1.4, or 1.2, go with the 1.2. You might as well go all out.

Well, if you're really going to go all out, why stop at f/1.2? I'm sure you could track down a canon f/.95... now that's shallow DOF!

No they are not just a small fraction apart. F-stops are a logarithmic scale with each full stop representing a halving (increasing F number) or doubling (decreasing F number) of the light intensity from the previous stop. This is the scale in full stops - F/1, F/1.4, F/2, F/2.8, F/4, F/5.6, F/8, F/11, F/16, F/22, F/32 etc

Going from F1.4 to F1.2 is a half stop i.e. 50% more light is let through.

I understand that. I was wrong when I said a small fraction. It is actually somewhat less than a half stop.

Using 50mm and f1.4 the dof for a 10 foot distance is 1 foot. Changing it to f 1.2 changes the DOF to 0.86 feet. No one will notice that.

I decided to buy the 50mm 1.2 and I was able to use it yesterday. I have to say that it is awesome in low light. The dof at 1.2 is pretty narrow though. It seems like a trade off that I'm willing to deal with though.

I love using the 5D, but my only problem right now is pulling focus (with any lens). The focus looks good on the camera, but later it isn't as sharp as I had thought. I have the Zacuto Z-finder coming in August, but I'm considering buying a small LCD to attach to the rig. I have an older Varizoom 7" (840x400), but it isn't that sharp. I was looking at a smaller Ikan monitor instead.

Don't have any experience with the 1.2, but I do own the 1.4 and it is an amazing lens!

The original lens tests on the f/1.2 showed that it had been designed specifically to use that fast aperture, and that on stopping down the slower f/1.4 and f/1.8 performed rather better, the latter even more so. If you intend to shoot wide open, go for it. If you'd like more apertures to play with and don't mind working in 50% more light, get the f/1.4.

tom.

1.2 alllll the way.It's my absolute favorite lens.I've owned the 1.4 version and it's not even close.The 1.2 is tack sharp wide open and you can pretty much shoot in the dark.....seriously:)

I decided to buy the 50mm 1.2 and I was able to use it yesterday. I have to say that it is awesome in low light. The dof at 1.2 is pretty narrow though. It seems like a trade off that I'm willing to deal with though.

I love using the 5D, but my only problem right now is pulling focus (with any lens). The focus looks good on the camera, but later it isn't as sharp as I had thought. I have the Zacuto Z-finder coming in August, but I'm considering buying a small LCD to attach to the rig. I have an older Varizoom 7" (840x400), but it isn't that sharp. I was looking at a smaller Ikan monitor instead.

Chad, is the Varizoom what you are unhappy with for focus? I'm going to wait for the Z-Finder myself. With these type of lenses its easy to get it wrong simply because you can't see the image in high enough resolution.

The Varizoom was mainly used on my Glidecam. The resolution wasn't a factor for me when I was purchasing it (over a year ago). I wanted to use it for focus, but it really isn't sharp enough.
I have preordered the new Z-Finder, but that is still over a month away. It will be great for handheld stuff, but if I'm on a tripod, I would prefer a monitor. I was considering the 5.6" Ikan monitor. It has the same resolution 840x400, but being a bit smaller, I was thinking that it might be sharper. I saw the new one that just came out (SmallHD.com - 8.9" High Definition - the DP1 (http://www.smallHD.com)), but it is a little big for my needs.

I love the look of the 50/1.2 with video, you can see a silly video I made here: Haiku Dinner Party on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/5368732)

The Varizoom was mainly used on my Glidecam. The resolution wasn't a factor for me when I was purchasing it (over a year ago). I wanted to use it for focus, but it really isn't sharp enough.
I have preordered the new Z-Finder, but that is still over a month away. It will be great for handheld stuff, but if I'm on a tripod, I would prefer a monitor. I was considering the 5.6" Ikan monitor. It has the same resolution 840x400, but being a bit smaller, I was thinking that it might be sharper. I saw the new one that just came out (SmallHD.com - 8.9" High Definition - the DP1 (http://www.smallHD.com)), but it is a little big for my needs.

Yes, smaller monitors look sharper, but you gain no information (maybe lose some). You can get the same effect by standing further back from a larger monitor. It's all about the pixels.

The Sigma 50 1.4 is the best upscale normal lens choice for Canon. Do a search.

Since the Canon 50mm f1.2 is a $1350 lens, how does the Nikkor 50mm f1.2 compare? I'm aware you lose the autofocus ability and you'd have to use an adapter, but if you're only concerned with video and not stills... any thoughts? It's half the price.

In general, now that the manual firmware is out, does it make sense any longer to build a 5dMkII lens kit around Nikon glass (given the widespread availability of used manual Nikkor lenses)?

I'm coming at this from a background in narrative (frequently guerrilla) filmmaking, so I'm more concerned with good manual focusing action, aperture rings etc. than I am with the photo flipside. Searching the forums yields a lot of Nikon recommendations that were pre-manual firmware, and the 50mm is typically my workhorse lens so I wanted to build a kit around the fastest 50mm prime I can get.

Thanks for any thoughts,

R

Ryan,

I still think Nikon lenses make sense if you are on a budget or want to use manual focus for everything. While you do gain some extra controls from a Canon AF lens the benefit is limited and I for one still prefer a 'proper' aperture ring not a rear dial. That said some of the Canon L lenses are stunning, the 50mm f1.2L is one of them, the 35mm f1.4L, 24mm f1.4L II, 135mm f2L and 200m f2L IS are amazing too.

The Nikon 50mm f1.2 is pretty soft wide open , if you like that look then thats fine, otherwise on a budget go for something like the Voitlander 58 f1.4, a used Zeiss/Contax 50mm f1.4 or a manual Nikon 50mm f1.4

Dan

Glen,

The stills from the video footage look great. How often do you find yourself shooting video at 1.2? It seems like getting the focus right would be difficult.
I have only had the chance to use the camera at 1 wedding so far. I was able to get the camera about two weeks ago. I don't even think I've taken pictures with all of the lenses I have so far.
My main concern is about pulling focus. I have a Varizoom 7" monitor that I plan on attaching to my rails for now. Its only 800x480, but I think it will do the trick. I was told that while you are recording, the camera outputs SD video, so anything higher wouldn't matter.
I was able to pick up a used 24mm 1.4 yesterday and from your pics, I'll probably go ahead and get the 50mm 1.2. I really appreciate all the help on this forum!

Sorry for the LATE reply! This entire shoot I stayed at 1.2, I rode the shutter to gain exposure in really bright areas. For the most part I try to keep it at 60 if possible though- and use a screw-on ND filter to squelch the blown highlights.

You will not be disappointed with this lens. I like it better than the legendary 85 1.2.

PS I'm glad I could help- be sure to post some of your work with the 50 1.2 when you get it!

What shutter speed were you using? There is very little motion blur, much less than you'd see with 1/50 or other normal video.

To be honest I'm not sure. I used the shutter to gain proper exposure while locking the iris at 1.2 for the entire shoot. Typically I don't like straying from 1/60th due to the increased stuttery look of high shutter speeds but slow action like a bridal prep it's not hard to get away with.

Sorry for the LATE reply! This entire shoot I stayed at 1.2, I rode the shutter to gain exposure in really bright areas. For the most part I try to keep it at 60 if possible though- and use a screw-on ND filter to squelch the blown highlights.A variable ND filter would enable you to use 1/60 with F1.2. A 77mm Fader ND is only around $100.

The test report on Canon's first 50 mm f/1.2 was impressive, but they did point out that due to vignetting it was only f/1.2 in the centre of the frame, and noticeably down in the corners (about f/2). This is nothing against Canon, just the laws of optics coming into play.

Hasselblad (amongst others) have overcome this with centre-spot vari-ND filters, and I wonder if the latest Canon L series lenses have also found a way of evening up the exposure?

tom.

"Here are some video stills from a recent wedding I shot with the 50 1.2L"

It's hard to believe those are video stills. HDV is useless for video stills but these look nice and they are downsampled. I know 1080p stills are not suitable for print, but who prints anymore?. I think 2 megapixel stills from 5DII video can make great digital snapshots that might even stand the test of time even though computer monitors will likely increase in resolution tremendously in the next several years.

While I agree the stills from the native 1080p 5DmkII footage have an edge- here are a couple of stills from Canon XH-A1 footage (@ 1440x1080 HDV). I wouldn't say they aren't suitable video still or even print.

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/daria2.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/daria3.jpg

A variable ND filter would enable you to use 1/60 with F1.2. A 77mm Fader ND is only around $100.

I'll have to look into that! Does B&H carry them? What brands make these?

I'll have to look into that! Does B&H carry them? What brands make these?There are two brands of variable ND filter on the market. The Singh-Ray that has been around for a while but is pricey at $400. Singh-Ray Filters: Vari-ND Variable Neutral Density Filter (http://www.singh-ray.com/varind.html) The new kid on the block & thus far only available from eBay retailers in China is the Fader ND at around $100 for the 77mm filter & $80 for the 72mm filter.

This is the guy that I got my Fader ND filters from. Delivery was within 7-10 days. He seems to be out of stock of the 77mm at present but I suggest sending an email to find out when he will have stock as he was very good with communication when I enquired previously. eBay Store - Light Craft Workshop: Recycle camera bag, C-PL, Loreo Lens in Cap (http://stores.shop.ebay.com/Light-Craft-Workshop__W0QQ_armrsZ1)

Philip Bloom has blogged about using these filters Philip Bloom Blog Archive Loving the Fader ND and Singh Ray Vari ND. Life savers in New Delhi! (http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/07/22/loving-the-fader-nd-and-singh-ray-vari-nd-life-savers/)

I own the 50/1.4 and it's a fine lens for run n' gun shooting. At $1300 for the 1.2 version, you can get a 50/1.4 and a used 24/1.4 (version I) for the same amount... Think about that.. With the 1.2, you only get a half a stop more light and slightly better focus mechanism..

I own the 50/1.4 and it's a fine lens for run n' gun shooting. At $1300 for the 1.2 version, you can get a 50/1.4 and a used 24/1.4 (version I) for the same amount... Think about that.. With the 1.2, you only get a half a stop more light and slightly better focus mechanism..

Most people vacillate solely over the f-stop differences between the 1.4 and 1.2. The 1.2 also has superior optics as well.

Additionally I wouldn't describe the focus mechanism "slightly" better- I've owned both and it's night and day, IMHO.

So I'm making the transition from videographer to videographer using a still camera that shoots video. I don't have much experience with still cameras, so I'm learning as I go. One question that I have is if DoF is the same across different lenses. If I have my 50mm 1.2 and 24mm 1.4 both set to 2.8, do they both have the same depth of field or is this different from lens to lens? I'm trying to figure out the best way to do some Glidecam work with this camera and I think my 24mm lens is the best option. I balance the Glidecam as best as possible, but I can see every little bit of wobble on the 50mm lens.

Thanks!

Your depth of field will also very based on the size of your lens. you should have a deeper depth of field for any 24mm lens at 2.8 then any 50mm lens at 2.8. So no, they should not be the same.

chad-

depth of field is a very complex issue that relies on a great many factors including f-stop, focal length, the relationship of camera to subject to background, imager resolution, output size and resolution...yada yada...in the case of a 24mm versus 50mm lens there are several reasons why the 24mm will exhibit "more" depth of field than the 50mm and they relate to two things...the 24mm's wider angle of view brings in more background elements into the frame making them smaller...thus while they may be technically no more "sharp" than the 50mm...they will appear less fuzzy as they are simply smaller. The second reason is that to get the same "picture" out of a 24mm as one gets from the 50mm (which is impossible...but go with me) lets just say getting the approximate same relationship of foreground elements to background elements...the foreground elements will need to be much closer to the background on the 24 than on the 50...and thus...we've altered another one of the parameters that determine depth of field.

If you want to really make your head spin....search depth of field or DoF here at dvinfo to find out more than you ever wanted to learn on the subject.

Barry

The best explanation that I've heard is that a long lens magnifies not only the image, but the out-of-focus blur. A wide lens makes objects small and also makes the blur effect small.

But if you shove your wide lens right up the nose of an object, it will be large, and the out-of-focus potential on that object will also be large.

Sure, it's more complicated that just this, but it's an intuitive way to think about it.