What's your take on Zeiss Compact Primes?

[Dan Kanes]

Contrary to Internet Opinion I don't think these are "based" on the Contax Primes at all.

Maybe the optical formula is similar - the coatings are completely different.

I believe the Contax smoke these for image quality, but these have very good mechanics.

[Mark Toia]

Silly as this may sound.. if you have a crap budget to play with.. Go the canons. 16 to 35 2.8, 24. 1.4, 35 1.4, 501.2, 85 1.2, 70 200 2.8...
You get 6k+ coverage with bright F stops and everything from 16mm to 200mm.

I'm a PL Lens man... but you cannot beat Math and good old fashion logic.

[Mark K.]

CP.2s are what they are. The entry level of proper cinema glass.

Does that make them bad? Not at all. It makes them the cheapest way to get proper cine-functionality.

Are you going to choose them over Ultra Primes or S4s? Of course not. But you can basically buy a full set of CPs for the cost of a single UP/S4. The highest performance comes at a price.

What you get with the CP.2s is excellent mechanical operation, a lightweight form factor, lovely Zeiss glass and the versatility to be able to mount them on just about any camera you can think of.

Are they perfect? No, that requires more money - a LOT more money.

They're still leagues ahead of any still lens in existence - for the simple fact that they're made for film work, they offer precise, repeatable manual control (which is more than can be said for still lenses and some other 'affordable' cine glass).

At the end of the day, I'd take a Red One and CP.2s over an Epic and Canon stills glass, each and every time - until the end of time.

[Shane Kelly]

CP.2s are what they are. The entry level of proper cinema glass.

Does that make them bad? Not at all. It makes them the cheapest way to get proper cine-functionality.

Are you going to choose them over Ultra Primes or S4s? Of course not. But you can basically buy a full set of CPs for the cost of a single UP/S4. The highest performance comes at a price.

What you get with the CP.2s is excellent mechanical operation, a lightweight form factor, lovely Zeiss glass and the versatility to be able to mount them on just about any camera you can think of.

Are they perfect? No, that requires more money - a LOT more money.

They're still leagues ahead of any still lens in existence - for the simple fact that they're made for film work, they offer precise, repeatable manual control (which is more than can be said for still lenses and some other 'affordable' cine glass).

At the end of the day, I'd take a Red One and CP.2s over an Epic and Canon stills glass, each and every time - until the end of time.

Mark, very well said.

[Antoine Fabi]

Silly as this may sound.. if you have a crap budget to play with.. Go the canons. 16 to 35 2.8, 24. 1.4, 35 1.4, 501.2, 85 1.2, 70 200 2.8...
You get 6k+ coverage with bright F stops and everything from 16mm to 200mm.

I'm a PL Lens man... but you cannot beat Math and good old fashion logic.

I agree Mark,

The Zeiss ZFs and ZEs are also a good low budget alternative, small and extremely lightweight.

...but i think i prefer the color rendition of the Canons.

Do you like the electronic lenses controls with the Epic ?

Antoine