Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

CP.2 Glass on Epic with Ruby for the wide end... Thoughts?

D

dave_garcia

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
130
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi,

I'm looking at purchasing a set of CP.2s with our Epic X. We are a small rental house in Albuquerque and get a lot of calls for them for 5D shoots so it seems like a good buy.

My question is this: I'm not thrilled with the limited t-stop on the wider range lenses and was wondering if forgoing the 17 and 24 for a Ruby 14-24 would make sense. I know the Ruby is rehoused nikon glass and I'm just wondering if it will match the sharpness and quality of the CP.2s. Will this be a legit set for rental, or do I really need to pick up the full range of CP.2s?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
 
We want to keep full frame capability for 5D shooters.

On paper the Ruby looks like a good move, but I'm also wondering about the quality and how it will match. I'd like to avoid having one less that is way less contrasty or sharp.
 
This doesn't seem like a terribly hot topic, but I found a comparison on KenRockwell.com that was helpful if anyone is having the same question.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/slr/21mm-comparison.htm

The frame grabs basically show that the nikon is softer then the zeiss and has a different contrast etc.. Of course it would.

NOt necesarily a deal breaker, but a bunch of the footage I've checked out on the ruby seems to have a characteristic Nikon blooming abberation around the highlights. Still great lenses, but I think the Ruby might stick out in a set of CP.2s.

Especially since I've already got a Nikon 14mm prime that I love @ 2.8, I think we'll stick with the full cp.2 set for consistency.
 
I have a set of CP.2's and am very happy with them but the 18mm is slow.
 
Dave, Rockwell practically raves in his review of the Nikon 14-24mm http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm.htm
that's it's sharper than any still lens out there at 2.8, corner to corner, but that seems to conflict with the comparison review linked to above. In the comparison review, there's no contest at 2.8 - the Zeiss and Leica primes are much better. The two reviews seem really contradictory to me. Or maybe this is just a measure of just how good the Zeiss and Leica primes are?
 
Rob Culpepper said:
Dave, Rockwell practically raves in his review of the Nikon 14-24mm http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm.htm
that's it's sharper than any still lens out there at 2.8, corner to corner, but that seems to conflict with the comparison review linked to above. In the comparison review, there's no contest at 2.8 - the Zeiss and Leica primes are much better. The two reviews seem really contradictory to me. Or maybe this is just a measure of just how good the Zeiss and Leica primes are?
Click to expand...

The Rockwell comparison review is very flawed -- especially when it comes to the Nikkor lens.

It is really not a review of the lenses at all. It is a review of camera systems. He tests the Canon and Zeiss lenses on the 21 Megapixel D5; he tests the Leica lens on the 18 MP Leica M9 that has no OLPF, and he tests the Nikkor on the 12 MP D3 (rather than the 28 MP D3X). For some reason, he chose to uprez everything to compare them. He says "LEICA M9's superior American-made sensor lets it outperform Nikon and Canon's imported sensors" ignoring, or not realizing that the Leica has no OLPF, and therefore gains increased sharpness at the cost of some aliasing -- what Graeme Nattress calls "False Sharpness". (I'm not dissing Leica, that is a valid camera design, but it it is not an indication of "superior sensor" but rather of different camera design priorities.) This is a truly awful review by someone who seems to have an axe to grind with Nikon. I'd look elsewhere for an objective comparison of the 14-24.

What makes this so odd is that, as Rob mentions, he gushes all over the 14-24 in his own review of that lens.
 
That is strange. I did notice that the review I posted was comparing the 21mm Zeiss. Maybe there is no comparison @ 14mm due to the fact that there aren't that many 14s out there.

No doubt that this and the Ruby by extrapolation are great lenses, but as I mentioned, I already have a Nikon 14mm prime in my kit ( love it.)

Why can't Zeiss get the wides faster? Well I guess they do, it's called an ultra prime...
 
David, this is very interesting. My experience though is that Rockwell is a huge Nikon fan.

So, I revisit the original question... How does a Ruby fit with CP.2s?
 
dave_garcia said:
David, this is very interesting. My experience though is that Rockwell is a huge Nikon fan.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but he seems to be pissed at them for not making a cheap, 20MP camera for him and he's let that color this review to the point of making it misleading.

dave_garcia said:
So, I revisit the original question... How does a Ruby fit with CP.2s?
Click to expand...

I can only speculate here, because I have not used the CP.2s. But I have used some of the ZF still senses they are based on. In general, I find the look of Nikon glass to be "creamier" than Zeiss in the way they render out-of-focus areas. The unfocussed areas of a Zeiss image seem contrastier to me. The Nikon 14-24 is very sharp, and on an S-35 or 5K sensor, it will seem even sharper, because you'll be using the center of the circle. (as you will be with the CP.2s) but I think the difference in contrast -- especially in the defocussed areas will be there.
 
Don't get me started on KR. I will offer this. He always shoots JPEGS - not RAW. And the photos on his website speak for themselves.

Anyway, for some objective reviews that include the 14-24 G and the full line of Zeiss ZF's, all tested on a D3x : http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff
 
Dave , just comin' in from another angle and I havn't used any of these lenses but what about getting all CP2's down to the 21mm T2.9 and then the Illumina 18mm T1.3 . I think the Illuminas individually come in at around $8300. This opens up the opportunity of shooting wide at night, a huge rental bonus. The CP2 18 mm T 3.6 while not worthless is just too much of a limitation. check with Fred for exact pricing. Just a thought ....
 
dave_garcia said:
I'm not thrilled with the limited t-stop on the wider range lenses and was wondering if forgoing the 17 and 24 for a Ruby 14-24 would make sense.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's an odd reason to consider the Ruby. The 18 (not 17) is 3.5, but the 21 & 25 (not 24) are both 2.8 same as the 14-24.

dave_garcia said:
I know the Ruby is rehoused nikon glass and I'm just wondering if it will match the sharpness and quality of the CP.2s.
Click to expand...

The CP.2s are rehoused stills lenses too.

Comparing sharpness/quality, the 14-24 is about equal with (maybe a tad better than) the 18 & 25, far better than the sucky 28, and inferior to the 21. The 21 isn't that much sharper, by the way, but has less distortion.

As for matching, I doubt the CP.2s will match the 14-24 any less than they match each other. Which is to say they won't.

That said, remember that at the wide end the 14-24 has so much distortion on full frame that it's practically a specialty lens (as in, really awesome effect if that's what you're going for).

Unless you really think you'll need wider, I'd go with the CP.2 21. This is coming from a guy who counts the 14-24 (original Nikon) among his very favorite lenses.

Steve Wake said:
Don't get me started on KR...
Click to expand...

You speak truth, sir.
 
Steve Wake said:
Don't get me started on KR. I will offer this. He always shoots JPEGS - not RAW. And the photos on his website speak for themselves.

Anyway, for some objective reviews that include the 14-24 G and the full line of Zeiss ZF's, all tested on a D3x : http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff
Click to expand...

It is strange how this fellow became "The Expert".
 
I have seen images shot with the 14-24, Nikon version not Ruby, and the Master Prime 14, both at 14 obviously, and the Nikon had the same resolution on the edges as the MP and surpassed it on the center of the image. Projected from a Sony 4K projector on a 50' screen. I don't know how Rockwell did those tests (and yes, how and why did he become an expert?) but this Nikon lens is the real deal, for the money, it is the best wide angle zoom out there. For my money at least, but I would seriously doubt the Zeiss CP.2 to be any sharper than the Nikon. Seriously doubt that.
 
Lee Saxon said:
I'd say that's an odd reason to consider the Ruby. The 18 (not 17) is 3.5, but the 21 & 25 (not 24) are both 2.8 same as the 14-24.

That said, remember that at the wide end the 14-24 has so much distortion on full frame that it's practically a specialty lens (as in, really awesome effect if that's what you're going for)..
Click to expand...

Yikes to the above. Way off bud. I've seen the Ruby PL lens on a test chart. Edge to edge it is sharp and with consistent resolution. There's no distortion like the above claims. It is not as sharp as an Ultra prime or a Cooke S4 in the centre of the chart. However, there's a huge price/value difference.
 
From what I've read, heard, and seen, the Nikon 14-24 is a killer lens and considered standard now with the 17-35 being a second option, so you couldn't go wrong there. Certainly the Ruby would be a great investment in terms of focal length options alone. An 18mm RED prime would be a good choice for speed but, if you needed full frame, you could also try a Sigma 20mm 1.8 as an inexpensive wide option, don't know if anyone's tried to rehouse that one yet. A rehoused Tokina 11-16 would be nice as well but limits to 16mm on full frame. I wish there were faster 1.(x) full frame options but the Sigma is about the only thing past the 24mm 1.4 options.
 
Lee Saxon said:
The CP.2s are rehoused stills lenses too.
.
Click to expand...

They may use the same but selected glass, but does not mean they were 'rehoused'. i.e. sold as something else & re-manufactured which is what 'rehoused' is.
 
Have you looked into Duclos ZF2 cine modified lenses? You could get an 11-16, 18,21,25,28,35,50,85,100 for less than $20,000. Sure, the 18mm is still slow, but you'd have a 35, 50, and 85 that were f1.4 too! If you like the look of the CP2s you will most likely like these lenses :) You could buy an Optitek Nikon mount for the Epic. Also, O'connor's new Dual Mini Follow Focus http://www.ocon.com/products/camera-accessories/o-focusdm.html is a perfect match. You would still have full frame coverage, and one kick ass lens set for a reasonable price.

Good luck with your quest for lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top