Canon CN Primes vs the new Zeiss Superspeeds

[Nick Morrison]

I can only imagine how much better the old Standards would be by comparison. Definitely sharper than both other sets.

Ryan de Franco and I did an informal test earlier this month comparing Contax Zeiss, Supers, and Standards...and indeed...the Standards were the sharpest.

We didn't notice that big a difference between the Supers and Contax (predecessors to ZF/ZE), but maybe we weren't looking hard enough. At 5.6 they all looked identical (to our eyes).

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Ryan de Franco and I did an informal test earlier this month comparing Contax Zeiss, Supers, and Standards...and indeed...the Standards were the sharpest.

We didn't notice that big a difference between the Supers and Contax (predecessors to ZF/ZE), but maybe we weren't looking hard enough. At 5.6 they all looked identical (to our eyes).

I have three contax's 35/50/85, all at f1.4
I love them, but they had more flair wide open. Which a lot of people love.
Gone by f2.8, mostly an issue with baffling in my opinion, not coatings or resolution.
Indeed at F5.6 (or even at a little more than f2.8) I couldn't see much of a difference either.

 

[Ryan De Franco]

Standards were the sharpest at every stop. MTF tests (vs Supers, not Contax) confirm this. Calling the CP2s "superspeeds" is an abortion, the real Superspeeds have a look that will be cherished for a long time... "Compact Speeds" would have been just as easy.

Has anyone projected / measured the old Cooke Speed Panchros? Certainly not the lens set you pick for sharpness, but I'm interested how they measure up.

All in all, "sharpness" seems very relative to me. If you shoot a film or a scene at T2, and the lens set is not that sharp at T2, it doesn't feel soft unless you intercut something at T5.6. When I shoot the Panchros or my Contax wide open, through diffusion, I'm sure a test chart would look about as bleary as a wet newspaper. Yet talent director producer colorist client everyone in the chain talks about the look without mentioning softness, they like the "texture." (I'm sure if I showed them 5.6 unfiltered with an unsharp mask, our pictures would look foggy, but that's just the way the eye works.)

The trouble with soft lenses is we're no longer shooting for film projection. I was a projectionist for some time, and watching a print sprint through the rollers you see how physical movement increases perceived resolution. You see how dancing grain and flickering sprocket holes make for a more fleeting, less implicit picture... in digital, a wide open, or slightly underexposed image doesn't always carry the magic that a film projected image would. It's a different kind of mush.

Anway, sorry to wander off, can you also test coma and distortion? Straight lines in the corners of the wide angles would do, it would be great to know if there's a gem of a wide angle in either set, like the Zeiss 21!

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Anway, sorry to wander off, can you also test coma and distortion? Straight lines in the corners of the wide angles would do, it would be great to know if there's a gem of a wide angle in either set, like the Zeiss 21!

Sorry, have abused my bench contacts, so probably won't be able to do that. But I will tell you this right now as bad as the CP.2 50mm was, the 35mm (Cp.2 T2.1) was incredible. Very sharp, even coverage, absolutely on par with much more expensive stuff out there.

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Standards were the sharpest at every stop. MTF tests (vs Supers, not Contax) confirm this. Calling the CP2s "superspeeds" is an abortion, the real Superspeeds have a look that will be cherished for a long time... "Compact Speeds" would have been just as easy.
!

Agreed, "compact speeds" would have been more appropriate. Not only that but I find it ironic, that what was removed as a defect (T1.4) on the CP.1's is now being resold at a considerably higher price for the new "Super speeds". A pure marketing coup.

I would leap at a set of standards here where I live in Paris, if it werent for the "portholing" issue you described to me in a previous thread. Such a shame.

 

[Erich Roland]

I would leap at a set of standards here where I live in Paris, if it werent for the "portholing" issue you described to me in a previous thread. Such a shame.

Its funny how people point out the potholing (darkening towards the corners) as a flaw to be avoided. When I look at commercial reels of some of the best work out there (so often) I see this same look that's been added in post production... the darkening of corners (or vignetting), sometimes very heavily. The effect can also be reversed in post the same way it can be added, it can be taken away. The Vignette darkening effect is a classic way to concentrate ones view towards the center where the subject is. This post trick works like a champ and can make a boring shot come to life and gives the Zeiss Standard Speeds a character that's particularly special in my eyes. Almost all lenses darken towards the edges the question is how much and the more you stop down the more pronounced it becomes. Test your lens, light a wall evenly and put up your lenses, look at the waveform almost always a bend down towards the edges. wides usually more so.

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Its funny how people point out the potholing (darkening towards the corners) as a flaw to be avoided. When I look at commercial reels of some of the best work out there (so often) I see this same look that's been added in post production... the darkening of corners (or vignetting), sometimes very heavily. The effect can also be reversed in post the same way it can be added, it can be taken away. The Vignette darkening effect is a classic way to concentrate ones view towards the center where the subject is. This post trick works like a champ and can make a boring shot come to life and gives the Zeiss Standard Speeds a character that's particularly special in my eyes. Almost all lenses darken towards the edges the question is how much and the more you stop down the more pronounced it becomes. Test your lens, light a wall evenly and put up your lenses, look at the waveform almost always a bend down towards the edges. wides usually more so.

I think that's true to some extent, but often my subjects are not centered in the frame, but rather occupying one side or the other. Vignetting can be a pain when the face is therefore darker than the body, particularly the hands. In any case I think it's better to have the choice and the real question is how much vignetting is going on? Less than a stop for instance? Because beyond 1.5 stops it is very difficult to recover properly in certain situations...

 

[Nick Morrison]

Sorry, have abused my bench contacts, so probably won't be able to do that. But I will tell you this right now as bad as the CP.2 50mm was, the 35mm (Cp.2 T2.1) was incredible. Very sharp, even coverage, absolutely on par with much more expensive stuff out there.

Yup that new Zeiss 35mm f2 is considered a remarkable piece of engineering. In the stills world, it's fast becoming a thing of legend. Its frequently talked about as an all crushing, all slaying piece of glass to which many others are helplessly compared.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I think that's true to some extent, but often my subjects are not centered in the frame, but rather occupying one side or the other. Vignetting can be a pain when the face is therefore darker than the body, particularly the hands. In any case I think it's better to have the choice and the real question is how much vignetting is going on? Less than a stop for instance? Because beyond 1.5 stops it is very difficult to recover properly in certain situations...

A lot of people use the Standards happily. I don't think you notice the port-holing that much, in real world applications. Only on green screens, white cycs, etc.

 

[Tom Gleeson]

Tests complete and I was able to score a set of the new Superspeeds as well. The small window of opportunity meant tests not as thorough as I would have liked but ill post links to the tests within a week but the Canon glass is looking very nice. Unsurprisingly not Masterprime quality but at the price point looking very nice.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

They are full frame lenses, they should be fine in corners for s35

That is not a good assumption to make... Many wide Full frame lenses (wide end for s35) can have a stop or half stop of exposure difference in corners from center and that is on APS-C! Modern cinema primes have 2% or less on wide lenses. Same goes with everything else. Just because the image circle covers FF, doesn't mean there aren't issues deep inside that circle. Some may be ok, others aren't. Just saying dismissing possible issues based on the fact it's a FF lens is a dangerous assumption.

 

[Jiri Vrozina]

That is not a good assumption to make... Many wide Full frame lenses (wide end for s35) can have a stop or half stop of exposure difference in corners from center and that is on APS-C! Modern cinema primes have 2% or less on wide lenses. Same goes with everything else. Just because the image circle covers FF, doesn't mean there aren't issues deep inside that circle. Some may be ok, others aren't. Just saying dismissing possible issues based on the fact it's a FF lens is a dangerous assumption.

I thought they were MODERN Cinema Lenses

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I thought they were MODERN Cinema Lenses

Yes, yes.

I was talking about generalizing that notion for the most part with DSLR lenses.

If they are for Cinema use, I would think they would attempt to minimize shading. I was not specifically discussing these lenses... just the notion of FF lenses = no issues in middle notion.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

I seriously doubt that any lenses designed for digital sensors would have any significant vignetting.
Digital sensors are notorious for shading pixels and even if you can get away with it on film cameras then on the digital it would be severely magnified .
Besides, being retrofocal by design to clear the mirror SLR lenses are all near telecentric. Not so much with cine lenses. I think older cine lenses are worse since they are not retrofocal

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I get what you are saying but hey. I wasn't referring to those lenses specifically, but just to not assume that FF lenses = no issues APS-C. DSLR lenses, even modern ones, are still susceptible to what I consider significant uneven field illumination. Just do a test. This of course goes away (reduces less than what I consider significant) typically two stops down from open. But something to consider when you regard a fast lens as being usable to a degree. Is a half stop of gradual exposure change from center to corners significant? How about a stop? How about a stop and a half? These are common amounts for uneven field exposure of (wide or fast) full frame photography lenses at APS-C crop. And yes something older cinema lenses and a few brands of modern can suffer from too, it's a universal lens thing to a degree... but I'm talking about modern photography DSLR lenses wide open. Just saying... sometimes it's no biggie, and sometimes it is. It varies by lens design, but there is no guarantee that a wide open FF lens is honky dorie at APS-C crop. Not always so.

I tested a bunch and found how shocked I was that even the best Zeiss ZE and Canon L-series lenses had subjectively significant (imo) uneven field illumination when wide open. The thing is, it's very gradual from center to outside, unlike severe vignetting and portholing... so it's sometimes hard to see the significance. It also goes away pretty fast stopped down from wide open.

Take a look at this database. Very cool resource:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx

 

[Jiri Vrozina]

Went to Sony F55/5 show yesterday.
Sony lenses are S35 not Full Frame. I would only invest in Full Frame primes in 2013. That new Zeiss CP2 15mm t2.9 really rocks.
Canon Cinema Primes really look good too as soon as they will have more lenses in their range.

 

[Tom Gleeson]

Jiri,

I will have a link to test results soon but I agree with you that S35 coverage is a limitation for any cinema lens. I plan on purchasing full frame glass to protect my financial investment and so I can take advantage of the ever increasing size of Red sensors. It is the larger sensors that are becoming a real point of difference as the other manufacturers take on the Red challenge.

I would buy a set of the Canon Primes in a heartbeat BUT for the lack of the 35mm focal length. I spoke with Canon and they communicated with Japan directly on this issue and the response was there is no 35mm lens in development. Only a 14mm and 135mm have been announced for next year. Canon is aware of the problem/issue but no "official" committement.

I cannot believe they will sell too many sets of lenses with such an odd collection of focal lengths so whether motivates them to try and fill the gaps or puts them off will remain to be seen. Fingers crossed.

 

[Jiri Vrozina]

Jiri,

I will have a link to test results soon but I agree with you that S35 coverage is a limitation for any cinema lens. I plan on purchasing full frame glass to protect my financial investment and so I can take advantage of the ever increasing size of Red sensors. It is the larger sensors that are becoming a real point of difference as the other manufacturers take on the Red challenge.

I would buy a set of the Canon Primes in a heartbeat BUT for the lack of the 35mm focal length. I spoke with Canon and they communicated with Japan directly on this issue and the response was there is no 35mm lens in development. Only a 14mm and 135mm have been announced for next year. Canon is aware of the problem/issue but no "official" committement.

I cannot believe they will sell too many sets of lenses with such an odd collection of focal lengths so whether motivates them to try and fill the gaps or puts them off will remain to be seen. Fingers crossed.

Hi Tom,
we have been really spoiled with good affordable glass.
Perhaps Zeiss ANAMORPHIC is the way to go ))))
http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lens...amorphic_lenses/master_anamorphic_lenses.html

 

[Lyle Vincent]

Standards were the sharpest at every stop. MTF tests (vs Supers, not Contax) confirm this. Calling the CP2s "superspeeds" is an abortion, the real Superspeeds have a look that will be cherished for a long time... "Compact Speeds" would have been just as easy.

Has anyone projected / measured the old Cooke Speed Panchros? Certainly not the lens set you pick for sharpness, but I'm interested how they measure up.

All in all, "sharpness" seems very relative to me. If you shoot a film or a scene at T2, and the lens set is not that sharp at T2, it doesn't feel soft unless you intercut something at T5.6. When I shoot the Panchros or my Contax wide open, through diffusion, I'm sure a test chart would look about as bleary as a wet newspaper. Yet talent director producer colorist client everyone in the chain talks about the look without mentioning softness, they like the "texture." (I'm sure if I showed them 5.6 unfiltered with an unsharp mask, our pictures would look foggy, but that's just the way the eye works.)

The trouble with soft lenses is we're no longer shooting for film projection. I was a projectionist for some time, and watching a print sprint through the rollers you see how physical movement increases perceived resolution. You see how dancing grain and flickering sprocket holes make for a more fleeting, less implicit picture... in digital, a wide open, or slightly underexposed image doesn't always carry the magic that a film projected image would. It's a different kind of mush.

Anway, sorry to wander off, can you also test coma and distortion? Straight lines in the corners of the wide angles would do, it would be great to know if there's a gem of a wide angle in either set, like the Zeiss 21!

I have tested and projected speed panchros SIII/II and I can tell you that they are sharper than you might think... wide open. Its mostly in the center and the edges fall off a bit but it adds to the look. They are NOT soft focus lenses though by any means I would say that super speeds are much softer wide open. The cookes are definitely a bit lower contrast and flare easier which may lead to less apparent sharpness. I believe there are quotes that can be found in AC articles from back in the day when some the DoPs of the time didn't like the speed panchros because they were too sharp.

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Jiri,

I will have a link to test results soon but I agree with you that S35 coverage is a limitation for any cinema lens. I plan on purchasing full frame glass to protect my financial investment and so I can take advantage of the ever increasing size of Red sensors. It is the larger sensors that are becoming a real point of difference as the other manufacturers take on the Red challenge.

I would buy a set of the Canon Primes in a heartbeat BUT for the lack of the 35mm focal length. I spoke with Canon and they communicated with Japan directly on this issue and the response was there is no 35mm lens in development. Only a 14mm and 135mm have been announced for next year. Canon is aware of the problem/issue but no "official" committement.

I cannot believe they will sell too many sets of lenses with such an odd collection of focal lengths so whether motivates them to try and fill the gaps or puts them off will remain to be seen. Fingers crossed.

Yes, this is some really strange thinking from Canon.
Their lenses are sharper wide open (I have done the tests) and they have less contrast (which is a good thing) and the only things holding me back are:
1) Incomplete set and no plans to fill it out properly
2) An interchangeable mount for EF and PL

If they had announced even a 4 lens set: 24, 35, 50, 85 there would be a ton of buyers. A five lens set and they would have made a killing. I don't get it.

Clearly future proofing means greater sensor coverage. I agree that investment in S35 lenses may be problematic over the long term.
Right now, Ultraprimes are the most commonly rented items at most rental houses. However, CP.2's are right behind, albeit with much lower rates.