Thread: Zeiss 21-100vs...?

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by Scot Yount View Post
    The Canon is a great lens...but...it ramps. If that is not a problem for you then no problem. The Fuji 20-120 is a shade slower than the Fuji 19-90 (which does not ramp btw) and the 19-90 has a larger image circle than the 20-120. I have seen version 2 19-90s going for the mid teens. Take the FIZ servo off and it lightens the load quite a bit. I have not used the Loawa but it looks interesting.

    EDIT: I would love to own a Fuji 85-300...man...even though it does ramp!
    True. The 17-120 does ramp and the 19-90 does not. But... the Canon also does not ramp from 17-91. So you can get a little philosophical and say you have a 17-90 T2.95 lens with a bonus 91-120 T2.95-T3.9 lens built into the 17-90.

    BTW: Just saw the other day that Fuji just dropped the price on the “non-servo” version of the 20-120($9,999) and are offering some pretty good 0% financing deals on almost all of their other glass, including the “servo’d” 20-120.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Squaw Valley, California
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Oron Cohen View Post
    You write you rented the Zeiss 21-100, so how did it worked for you? Where you okay with the long 300 degrees focus throw? Where you okay with the wide end being only 21mm? I think it's a fantastic lens for the money, but as others said here, the Canon is probably the best all around lens in it's class.
    The benefit of the Zeiss is it's size and price, it's feels smaller and more compact from the Canon. I will completely rule out the big massive zoom, like the RED 18-85 or the angie, those are monsters, you can't use them them by yourself really.

    Btw, I'll also consider a used Cabrio 19-90 if you consider the Canon, such a great lens!
    I really liked the lens. Of course I would have liked wider and longer but compared to my 24-105 I appreciated the extra width. I did ok with the focus throw. I wasnít needing to start my shot at infinity and get to 6Ē. Infinity to 5 feet is pretty manageable on the zeiss.

    I have used the 19-90 but it was on a shoot in AK and I ended up running a 50-300 Nikon that had been converted to PL for most of the trip. It was a great lens but being stuck with only PL options was very limiting. Also, at the time there werenít many alternatives to a full mattebox so the entire setup was pretty clunky.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Squaw Valley, California
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike McEntire View Post
    HP FTW. Shooting ski you need more on the tele end fo sho. Those other zooms are pretty limiting for shooting on a mountain. Get a 1.4 expander for the HP and have a 35-350 in your backpack that covers 6K FF. Misfit clamp on mattebox so telescoping is no problem. 11-16 in PL used and you are good to go. Get a microforce and get buttery zooms as well. It is heavy though... Or stick with L glass and practice more focus pulls with them... L glass is pretty easy on the back! Tripod needs to be pretty beefy for the HP as well so take that into account.

    Default Today, 01:25 AM
    Thanks Mike! Appreciate you weighing in. I used to shoot snowboarding for the other Mike. Now Iím mostly working for Warren Miller and itís quite a bit different. Way more backlit pow turns (and more racking) than bigger lines and jumps. I think Iíd really like to try the Angie, especially for bigger AK stuff. When Iím running the Zeiss Iíll cheat down to 4K or even 3k if I need a little punch (Warren miller is still mastering in 2k) and normally carrying my 70-200f4 (though itís impossible to zoom) or keeping my ef converted Nikon 50-300 (if it didnít focus backwards Iíd probably use it a hell of a lot more) in the heli for the longer BbQ shots. I think the Zeiss was an attempt at bridging the gap between the L glass ad the bigger PL stuff. It lets me stay in the L ecosystem with one Cine bread and butter lens but letting me carry the lighter wide and long stuff when I need it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Word Jeffrey! I hear that. I actually use a PL to EF adaptor on my HP now so I can use all the L and Art Glass as well with no mount changes.
    Hard to beat the L glass in the mountains.
    Cheers
    Mike
    Mike McEntire
    Mack Dawg Productions
    Oceanside, CA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member Mark K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,129
    I used the Canon 17-120mm for the first time on a pilot for a doco series last week, and I have to say, I was instantly smitten.

    I spent a lot of time at both 17mm and 120mm throughout the shoot, which has me suspecting that I'd feel the pinch on the wide-end a bit with both the Fuji 20-120 and the Zeiss 21-100mm (although around 20-21mm is usually wide-enough for a lot of things I shoot), for verite work in tight interior spaces, it makes a big difference.

    The macro mode is very useful too.

    The Canon really does offer up a level of versatility that I've never seen in a lightweight S35mm format. B4 news cameras could do this stuff all day, and it was easy with S16mm zooms. But on S35mm, I don't really see there being anything else that can quite touch it.

    Obviously the convenience comes at a price premium. But that ability to shoot all day, wide shots and ECUs, all on the one lens. The speed that allows... it's a BIG deal.

    I don't think I'll be hopping on verite jobs without it moving forwards.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts