SALT III- High Speed Lens Shootout "WFO" Results

[Lee Saxon]

I ordered a zeiss cp.2 super speed 50 mm and waited a month to be told by B and H video that they still had no idea when the lens would be available. Then I read this shoot out. Wow. My lens scored terrible

Yeah, Zeiss really did a disservice to their customers doing yet another, even more expensive, rehousing of this already-overpriced-as-ZF lens. In its original guise as a Zeiss-branded Cosina, the 50/1.4 is known to have issues (still a good lens, but overrated) : http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1163096.

People put too much faith in the power of rehousing and "hand selected glass" (yeah right).

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Yeah, Zeiss really did a disservice to their customers doing yet another, even more expensive, rehousing of this already-overpriced-as-ZF lens. In its original guise as a Zeiss-branded Cosina, the 50/1.4 is known to have issues (still a good lens, but overrated) : http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1163096.

People put too much faith in the power of rehousing and "hand selected glass" (yeah right).

Yeah, this one has always been a real dog. I just cannot understand how come they never revisited it. It's the only one I can seriously say is sub-par. And look at what they did to the alternative: the 50 Macro f2. A great lens, and they put this ridiculously oversized housing around it, to the point where it actually get's in the way of the macro close function itself. Why? So that they could fit all the witness marks on one 360 degree rotation. Really silly and unnecessary.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Yeah, Zeiss really did a disservice to their customers doing yet another, even more expensive, rehousing of this already-overpriced-as-ZF lens. In its original guise as a Zeiss-branded Cosina, the 50/1.4 is known to have issues (still a good lens, but overrated) : http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1163096.

People put too much faith in the power of rehousing and "hand selected glass" (yeah right).

Yeah but what's funny is the Contax 50 1.4 (upon which the ZE is supposed to be "based") was never shellacked as much as the ZF/ZE. I've never compared the two side by side but there's enough anecdotal evidence to suggest this design got WORSE not BETTER over time.

And then there's the rather unusual situation where the shelved Contax 50 1.7 is even SHARPER wide open than both of these lenses.

Hard to figure out what Zeiss is doing with these 50's. The 50 used to be a strength for them. Then again the ZE/ZE 50 f2 is supposed to be AMAZING, so maybe that's where they've put their 50 "mojo".

 

[Dennis Guskov]

another one of those:
http://filmicdigital.com/review-luma-tech-illumina-s35-lens-set/

 

[Lee Saxon]

Yeah but what's funny is the Contax 50 1.4 (upon which the ZE is supposed to be "based") was never shellacked as much as the ZF/ZE. I've never compared the two side by side but there's enough anecdotal evidence to suggest this design got WORSE not BETTER over time.

And then there's the rather unusual situation where the shelved Contax 50 1.7 is even SHARPER wide open than both of these lenses.

Maybe it didn't get worse, maybe expectations got higher. Cosina's Voigtlander SL and Contax Zeiss lines were built in the same factory with the same materials and QC as the ZF/ZE (and I bet that, like Sony's "Zeiss" lenses for the A-system, they weren't even designed, just "approved," by Zeiss). They even look alike! And they were, what, half the price?

And the 50 1.7 isn't an isolated thing. Cosina's Voigtlander SL 125/2.5 APO design was half the price, sharper, and more free of chromatic aberration than their ZF/ZE 100/2 MP (which, again, I suspect was also a Cosina design merely "approved" by Zeiss). It's a real shame that limited supply has made that lens an almost-as-price-inflated-as-Leica-R collector's item.

I bet Zeiss makes more money selling their brand name to Cosina for the ZF/ZE line, and Sony for everything from high end Alpha lenses to the little molded plastic toy lenses on point-and-shoots, than they do making lenses anymore. I have zero respect for them.

 

[Medavoym]

Hi!

Thanks for the test - it was an amazing opportunity to get to know all these sets a little bit closer. Your hard work is greatly appreciated!

First, it is truly amazing how close all these sets are at T2.8!
I mean, literally, you are hard pressed to tell any significant difference (there are very subtle differences - the key word being subtle) between them when they are stopped 1-2 stops.
And lenses are rarely shot wide open - when circumstances demand it, of course we do shoot wide open - but normally, lenses are shot stopped down... 1,2, 3 stops and very often even more. So the results of this test are enlightening - you can use ALL of these sets on a feature film with GREAT results. You simply cannot go wrong with any of these lenses.
This begs the question of why someone should pay $100,000+ for the expensive glass (I'm talking about individual owners, not rental houses etc). Of course, there are some optical and mechanical advantages to the modern glass, but if your budget can't handle those prices, the older glass is PERFECT for any feature film project - no doubt about it. For me at least, that's the first lesson I take from this great test.

As far as the overall impression - call me old fashioned, but I prefer the look of the Zeiss Superspeeds and the Canon K35 lenses. The Master Primes and the Leicas seem to be everyone's favorites, but to me, they scream VIDEO. They are way too sharp, to be honest. It's a personal, subjective thing, of course, but when I look at the footage shot with those lenses, I simply don't buy it as a "cinematic" image. They are clinically sharp - the "dreamy" quality which has always characterized film footage (and film experience) is gone with these lenses. Of course, one could always use diffusion... but then what's the point?

Judging from what I see in the test, I think the Zeiss Superspeeds and the Canon K-35 lenses are the most cinematic sets. They are not "perfect" optically, but they are the closest to what I call a "filmic" rendering of the subject. I do think the Master Primes and the Leicas would be absolutely great on 35mm film (which softens the image in a natural way)... but on digital sensors, I would always go for the Zeiss or the Canon K35s.

I expected the Optica Elite to perform similarly, but I was disappointed. They lack the "filmic" rendering of the other older sets.

This goes to show that everything is subjective, of course. I do think that precise measurements tell absolutely nothing. It's always what your EYE tells you in real-life filming situations...

Thanks again for the test, GREAT WORK!

 

[Phil Holland]

You simply cannot go wrong with any of these lenses.
This begs the question of why someone should pay $100,000+ for the expensive glass

There's certainly that opinion here, which is why I stressed value so much in my write up. It's really about what you what and what you can afford. The highest quality cinema glass is exponentially more costly than the lowest quality. That's the name of the game though. It takes a lot of hard work to make the best glass out there.

I'm both a realist and an optimist. You can shoot a motion picture with any one of these sets discussed. Depending on your needs and how critical you are over image quality is going to be where your opinion lands on these lenses.

This test in particular I feel reveals a great deal of info for those who shoot at wide open-T2.8 apertures. I know I'm shooting between WO-T5 a whole bunch. T8-T16 for some other types of work, which is why I was curious where diffraction would start to come into play on a few of these lenses.

If your intention is cinema or large screen display there's certainly areas where you can go "more wrong than right" with a few of these sets. Mechanics, breathing, aberrations, distortion, and especially image shift are all things that can effect your image adversely. Much of that can be corrected or fixed in post. In my opinion for production work you can see the very realistic cost savings of the higher end glass. For the independent filmmaker or somebody trying to move up from say still glass this should be extremely exciting to see how well the lower priced sets performed compared to those more expensive sets.

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Maybe it didn't get worse, maybe expectations got higher. Cosina's Voigtlander SL and Contax Zeiss lines were built in the same factory with the same materials and QC as the ZF/ZE (and I bet that, like Sony's "Zeiss" lenses for the A-system, they weren't even designed, just "approved," by Zeiss). They even look alike! And they were, what, half the price?

And the 50 1.7 isn't an isolated thing. Cosina's Voigtlander SL 125/2.5 APO design was half the price, sharper, and more free of chromatic aberration than their ZF/ZE 100/2 MP (which, again, I suspect was also a Cosina design merely "approved" by Zeiss). It's a real shame that limited supply has made that lens an almost-as-price-inflated-as-Leica-R collector's item.

I bet Zeiss makes more money selling their brand name to Cosina for the ZF/ZE line, and Sony for everything from high end Alpha lenses to the little molded plastic toy lenses on point-and-shoots, than they do making lenses anymore. I have zero respect for them.

Actually, the 50mm did get worse. My Contax Zeiss 50/1.4 is sharper wide open than the ZF/ZE version.
I do agree however, that Zeiss makes money on it's name. In fact it is a bit like Nike. It is more of a design house today than a factory. A large portion of their work is farmed out. The serious dealers here in Paris, can even tell you who actually made their lenses (Cosina is only one of Zeiss's suppliers) depending on whichever line you are speaking about.

 

[Les Dittert]

Interesting tests guys, thanks!

But why no resolution charts closer to the frame corners ? Is that taboo to do to these types of lenses ?

 

[Phil Holland]

But why no resolution charts closer to the frame corners ? Is that taboo to do to these types of lenses ?

When the lenses were projected at Duclos Lenses notes were made regarding center, field, and corner sharpness. Most had a significant drop in resolving power at their absolute edges (which is expected). The line pairs in Super 35mm field tell you some of the story on the white sheets on the front page.

The nice thing here, at least from the perspective I had on the projection tests, was observing which lenses seemed to "jump out" at you in regards to resolving power, light falloff, flatness of field, and contrast. With each lens it's something you can make a quick read on before the numbers come in. Lot's of wows and shockers happened in that dark room.

 

[Tom Gleeson]

I have seen a lens test between a Zeiss ZE and Contax 50mm f1.4 and they looked identical. In this price range you can expect a fair range in quality of construction which always "limit" tests or comparisons of lenses based on single examples. The Zeiss ZF 50mm f1.4 is not the most modern or best lens in the range but it is no dog. Stopped down it performs very well. At f5.6 a friend put it up against his Master Prime using Imatest and it equalled its performance. Obvuisly the ZF performance drops off as you open up but still gives good performance untill you go past f2 and by f1.4 it is showing real weakness. I understand Zeiss have a new 55mm f1.4 in the works?

 

[Nick Morrison]

I have seen a lens test between a Zeiss ZE and Contax 50mm f1.4 and they looked identical. In this price range you can expect a fair range in quality of construction which always "limit" tests or comparisons of lenses based on single examples. The Zeiss ZF 50mm f1.4 is not the most modern or best lens in the range but it is no dog. Stopped down it performs very well. At f5.6 a friend put it up against his Master Prime using Imatest and it equalled its performance. Obvuisly the ZF performance drops off as you open up but still gives good performance untill you go past f2 and by f1.4 it is showing real weakness. I understand Zeiss have a new 55mm f1.4 in the works?

Yeah that's kinda why I grabbed a Contax 50 1.7 just in case I needed that extra stop WO. Cuz I agree. BTW f2 and 2.8 the 1.4 is great.

 

[Jiri Vrozina]

New Zeiss 55mm f1.4 is just around corner....VERY SHARP.

 

[Matt Ryan]

Interesting tests guys, thanks!

But why no resolution charts closer to the frame corners ? Is that taboo to do to these types of lenses ?

Like Phil said, thats what the projection test was for. We didn't want to do the standard resolution chart shots, that gets really old. That's not what we wanted for this test. So we gave you both a practical shot, a beauty shot, and results from the projector tests.

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

I have seen a lens test between a Zeiss ZE and Contax 50mm f1.4 and they looked identical. In this price range you can expect a fair range in quality of construction which always "limit" tests or comparisons of lenses based on single examples. The Zeiss ZF 50mm f1.4 is not the most modern or best lens in the range but it is no dog. Stopped down it performs very well. At f5.6 a friend put it up against his Master Prime using Imatest and it equalled its performance. Obvuisly the ZF performance drops off as you open up but still gives good performance untill you go past f2 and by f1.4 it is showing real weakness. I understand Zeiss have a new 55mm f1.4 in the works?

Almost all lenses are optimized for F5.6, this is known as a standard bell curve. The only exception are the Leica's which are designed for best performance between f1.4-2.8. Obviously sample variation does come into play with less expensive sets, and quality control is part of what you pay for as an important invisible element in the pricing of cinema lenses. Even so, my experience when throwing the C/Y 50/1.4 up against the ZE/ZF version is that the latter consistently performed more poorly at WO. There is also signifigantly more CA on the newer lens as well. Something changed and I don't think it was for the better. However, just so you know the best lens I have ever seen for lack of CA and great sharpness WO in the 50mm range cost me exactly $45. It was the lowly plastic fantastic Canon 50 f1.8 v1 (metal). In a blind stills test 9 people out of 10 chose it for their preferred lens on the charts. So go figure. I must have gotten an extremely good sample. Not sure I would ever try to shoot a movie on it though.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

My first 2 Posts were 100% Polite..

Surely not to come in Jarred's defense as He sure needs none, but I was in fact surprise that no one form RED had yet to respond and put you in your place for your third comment, which was completely out of place!

You can't expect responses from the RED team at your own time, you should ask a question, or two, and then patiently wait to see whom and when they can answered if some one does in fact fill that it is a question they wish to answer.


But it is also offensive to the rest of us when you say things like "unless if you are "Raving Fan-Boy" , your tech questions are Ignored".

 

[Nick Morrison]

Almost all lenses are optimized for F5.6, this is known as a standard bell curve. The only exception are the Leica's which are designed for best performance between f1.4-2.8.

Hey Clayton is this in reference to the Leica R's? I never knew this about Leica....is this a general approach of theirs or just for the Rs?

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Hey Clayton is this in reference to the Leica R's? I never knew this about Leica....is this a general approach of theirs or just for the Rs?

Hi Nick, no I am referring to the Cinema series (C lenses). The Leica R's are pretty much in the same boat as the rest of the stills glass.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Hi Nick, no I am referring to the Cinema series (C lenses). The Leica R's are pretty much in the same boat as the rest of the stills glass.

Ok phew I thought I was losing my mind for a second. OK. Order restored. The universe works. We are not upside down.

Thanks!

 

[Lee Saxon]

Interesting tests guys, thanks!

But why no resolution charts closer to the frame corners ? Is that taboo to do to these types of lenses ?

Yes, and look at the Cine lenses section of this (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout) to see why.

The premium people pay for longer focus throw and correct distance marks with optical performance the same (at best) as 1/10th the price stills lenses...boy I don't know. I've gotten shouted down pretty bad for saying that on this forum, but there are the numbers in black and white.