[toni-a]

I suggest adding video performance to the lens tests, now almost every DSLR can do video, so this feature is now essential.

My Canon EFs 18-55 STM does much better tracking autofocus than Canon 17-55f2.8 in videos and that's the reason I kept it.

Bought Canon 15-85 however didn't like its video performance and that's why I sent it back.

when zooming or focusing lenses can do disasters to video, will we see such analysis in future reviews ?

[Rover]

In the more recent reviews, the live view AF is addressed briefly. Isn't the video AF supposed to be pretty much the same thing?

[JJ_SO]

LiveView AF is AF-S or AF-F(ully) on Nikon - and it's definitely NOT the same.  While AF-S ususally is the best way to get a super sharp still picture, AF-F is a box of surprises, rattling AF motors at very surprising moments - but it can do a great job (within limits) once one found out how to lock focus on a subject. I didn't know in the beginning, I need to push a button to lock it.

 

But to answer the suggestion: No, I don't care a single bit about "video performance". Why?

• there's a reason for cine-lenses. Focus and zoom should not run away...
  
• each decent prime lens is good for video - it's the camera that gets troubles with AF
  
• there are also decent video cameras, costing a fraction of DSLR + lens and up to focus well
  
• to me, the whole DSLR video stuff is just marketing - saying, with a decent DSLR and some great primes you're cheaper off than with professional video stuff. Might be true, but a rig and lighting has to be bought as well, decent sound devices too - it still might be cheaper to film an advert with EOS1 or D810 or D5, but that's only valid for filmmakers - and they know which lenses to choose. To normal mortals each smartphone has better ergonomics.
  

[obican]

I might be the only one but please: I want nothing to hear about anything video.