Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Zeiss Compact Primes or RED Pro Primes for the EPIC?

Justin marx said:
That's what I love about this place.. You ask a question and you get answers from so many different points of view that can lead you to the product that is right for you.. Good luck with your purchase.. If you go with the CP2s goto Abel cine tech, they gave me more of a discount than what BandH was going to.. They also are now a Zeiss authorized repair center (only in the USA) their website sucks make sure you call a human. Also don't get the 18mm (slow and doesn't cover FF, don't get the 25 either, also Ng and they will come out with a new one soon) 21, 28, 35,50 and 85 best starting set..
Click to expand...

Do you know if there working on a new 21mm to? Because that one being T2.9 is kind of a deal breaker, a T2.1 21mm would be a dream making the set complete :)
 
Max M. said:
Do you know if there working on a new 21mm to? Because that one being T2.9 is kind of a deal breaker, a T2.1 21mm would be a dream making the set complete :)
Click to expand...

I doubt it.. Hard to keep the weight down/quality up with any higher speed lens.. You would need more glass.. It's a spectacular lens though.. In full frame on a 5D it's gorgeous! Yes I wish it was faster though!!
 
I just wanted to chime in on the RPP's at 5k... The 18mm does vignette ever so slightly at FF and 2:1 and does not at all at 2.4:1. I was under the impression that all of them fully covered 5K but the 18mm does not. The 18mm is still one of my favorite lenses and the RPP's are still one of the best purchases I have made. I attached a low res example of the 18mm on Epic. I vote for the RPP over the CP2, but it depends what you use them for.
 

Attachments

  • image003.jpg
    image003.jpg
    78.6 KB · Views: 0
Thanks Justin
If the CP2's can hold up with the optimo 24-290 , that's a high image standard base to work from.
 
Don't get me wrong Brent, the Optimo is total different... But when cutting from a wide CP2 to a close or med with the Optimo, it works.. I'm sure on a chart there will be some differences.. tint, bokeh, etc...
 
Sean McAllister said:
I just wanted to chime in on the RPP's at 5k... The 18mm does vignette ever so slightly at FF and 2:1 and does not at all at 2.4:1. I was under the impression that all of them fully covered 5K but the 18mm does not. The 18mm is still one of my favorite lenses and the RPP's are still one of the best purchases I have made. I attached a low res example of the 18mm on Epic. I vote for the RPP over the CP2, but it depends what you use them for.
Click to expand...

No possibility it was your MB?
 
No doubt you're right, charts would reveal them to be totally different glass, I'm just thinking that if you can "get away" with intercuting them relatively seamlessly without the viewer being dragged out of the narrative, it says something about the image standard it's possible to achieve with the CP2's, doesn't it?
 
No matte box or filters. I emailed Red about it and they sent me this:

I checked with our technical support team and they confirmed that at 5K 2:1 there is slight vignetting as well as 5KFF but in 5K 2.4:1 you shouldn’t notice any vignetting at all. They said that a lot of people are still shooting 5K FF or 2:1 and in post are cropping a little bit to remove the vignetting with the 18mm.
 
Justin marx said:
Compact prime footage the day I got them if anyone is interested..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rr9K9iml6E
Click to expand...

That is some nice footage there.
Like how you got the Dirty Jobs dude asking you if you are rolling
on the beginning of your reel hehehe. Is most of your reel shot with the CP lenses ? Nice colors on the reel too
did you do any of the corrections yourself...?
 
I do want to be very clear that the 18mm is a stellar lens. It's fast, wide, sharp, and worth every penny. You also need to remember that the slight amount picked up by the larger sensor in the Epic is more than what is being cropped out in post.
 
Brent .T said:
No doubt you're right, charts would reveal them to be totally different glass, I'm just thinking that if you can "get away" with intercuting them relatively seamlessly without the viewer being dragged out of the narrative, it says something about the image standard it's possible to achieve with the CP2's, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Well depending on the medium, you could do film, hd, and a go-pro and with a good editor make it pretty impossible to tell the difference..
 
Julio Quintana said:
Were you using a mattebox? Several people in this forum have confirmed that the Duclos 11-16mm does NOT vignette at any focal length on FF 5K.
Click to expand...

Duclos modified Tokina 11-16, or the stock version in Nikon or Canon mount, DOES NOT VIGNETTE at any focal length at 5KFF on EPIC. So yeah, my first question is if he had a filter on the front of the lens or a mattebox. If he's seeing noticeable vignette on the lens on EPIC, then that lens needs to be checked or something funny is going on. Matt Duclos advertises the lens as having full coverage for EPIC 5K for a reason -- it fully covers.

Sean McAllister said:
I just wanted to chime in on the RPP's at 5k... The 18mm does vignette ever so slightly at FF and 2:1 and does not at all at 2.4:1. I was under the impression that all of them fully covered 5K but the 18mm does not. The 18mm is still one of my favorite lenses and the RPP's are still one of the best purchases I have made. I attached a low res example of the 18mm on Epic. I vote for the RPP over the CP2, but it depends what you use them for.
Click to expand...

Interesting grab from the 18mm. Mine doesn't do that, it covers! I do see the fall-off starting to darken in the very extremes of the corners, but no actual vignette. At first I was going to inquire about a mattebox on your lens... which I guess I may as well. If no mattebox or anything else was in front of it, then either that lens or the sensor in that camera are improperly aligned! Here, I shot a crappy pic of my crappy dead tree in the middle of my backyard. You can see the corners falling off and starting to darken. 18mm RPP ~T8-ish, 5KFF... As far as I'm concerned it still "covers" just fine.
 

Attachments

  • A005_C001_0803FW_001.jpg
    A005_C001_0803FW_001.jpg
    61.7 KB · Views: 0
Julio Quintana said:
Jeff, maybe I'm not seeing something, but your 18mm vignetting looks pretty similar to Sean's.
Click to expand...

Compare the top-right corners, you actually see the edge of the image circle in his frame where it drops out to black. I think the coverage of my lens and his are probably about equal, or should be equal, but it looks like something is off-center with either the lens or the sensor in the camera for his example. Most likely the sensor is shifted a little up and to camera-right.

I suppose I could concede that even in my frame with it more evenly centered, there is enough fall-off to call it a vignette. On the other hand, the lens still covers 5KFF better than my Cooke 18-100 covered S35, or RED One 4K for that matter. And yet no one ever complained about "vignetting" with that lens... Even with tons of them in service for decades on film frame sizes larger than RED 4K.... Weird. Personally, I've never considered it a vignette unless I could see the actual drop-out of the image circle into black. Visible port-hole, sure, vignette, no... I don't know, maybe I'm off my rocker here.

That's one area where the RPP's excel. They have very consistent field illumination and hardly any fall off into the corners. Just a very sharp drop-out near the edge of the coverage circle. So the port-hole effect is minimal, if almost non-existent. They look amazing on a lens projector and hold up very well vs. the Ultra and Master Primes. RPP's Ultras and Masters all seem to have similar coverage circles, but I have not seen the 18mm RPP, nor Ultra or Master, on a projector. I have seen the 16mm Ultra and 16mm Master Primes on a projector and they both have image circles over 33mm.... And look beautiful on the EPIC, BTW.

To cover 5K on EPIC, a lens needs a 31mm image circle for 5K 2:1 and 31.26mm for 5KFF. Like I said, I haven't seen the 18mm RPP on a projector for accurate measurement, but it looks like the the usable image circle diameter is probably a fuzz under 31mm, with some of the sharp fall-off going a bit beyond that 31mm mark. FWIW, never seen the Cooke S4's on a projector, but I've had the 18mm S4/i on my EPIC and it has the exact same fall-off in the corners that the 18mm RPP does. I believe the new Cooke i/Panchro 18mm covers, but I have not shot with it. I've shot with the 25mm and up and they all cover great. They're my current favorite "cheap" set of cine primes. I know they're T2.8, but cutting that stop vs. the S4 design allowed them to shave a lot of cost and weight.
 
Steve Das said:
That is some nice footage there.
Like how you got the Dirty Jobs dude asking you if you are rolling
on the beginning of your reel hehehe. Is most of your reel shot with the CP lenses ? Nice colors on the reel too
did you do any of the corrections yourself...?
Click to expand...
Hi Steve, sorry I missed this comment yesterday.. First of all thank you. My reel is a bunch of different cameras and lenses, but the YouTube video is all compact primes.
Mike Rowe is an awesome guy, I'd love to show the rest of the scene after he asked if I was rolling, but it gets a little unsafe as our director gets in our hero vehicle can almost drives it off a mountain trying to get it into the light, all with Mike Rowe narrating and me practically crying I was laughing so hard.
I did about 70% of the CC, the rest was done by real pros..
Thanks again.. I can't wait to show some footage with them when I get my EPIC
 
I've shot with the RPP's, besides the back problem I now have I thought the footage looked pretty good, but ultimately too "digi" for me to rent them again.

I haven't shot with the CP.2s, but I've seen as much test footage as is out there; am I the only one (aside from Justin) who thinks that although they are clearly not as SHARP*as the RPPs, they are much more organic, gorgeous lenses? Forget all the tests for a moment, forget sharpness, forget how much you have a man crush on Jim Jannard, and look at the footage – the CP.2s look great to me and the RPPs look razor sharp, not in a good way.

Anyone feel me?
 
Isaac Bauman said:
I've shot with the RPP's, besides the back problem I now have I thought the footage looked pretty good, but ultimately too "digi" for me to rent them again.

I haven't shot with the CP.2s, but I've seen as much test footage as is out there; am I the only one (aside from Justin) who thinks that although they are clearly not as SHARP*as the RPPs, they are much more organic, gorgeous lenses? Forget all the tests for a moment, forget sharpness, forget how much you have a man crush on Jim Jannard, and look at the footage – the CP.2s look great to me and the RPPs look razor sharp, not in a good way.

Anyone feel me?
Click to expand...

I love my lenses, but I don't feel that strongly about the difference in look.. This goes back to the way you use them.. I'm sure there is footage shot by someone using one or the other and we would have no idea which they used.. I've only used the RPPs once and had no issues with them in terms of look, but in terms of size it was not as attractive to me as the cp2s..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top