Zeiss CP2 Lenses vs. Canon Cine Lenses

[Mike Nagel]

Hi,

has anybody had a chance of testing the Zeiss CP2 latest generation (T1.5) against the Canon Cine lenses (24mm / 50mm / 85mm | T1.5 / T1.3) ?

I was wondering if the Canon can hold up against the Zeiss when it comes to color rendering and sharpness... The Canon are advertised to support "4K" and somebody at a store said he saw it used at 4K and it added some clarity...

be interesting to see that used on a RED...

Thanks.

- M

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Yes, the Canon lenses are sharper, but have less contrast.
The aperture ring has the settings too close too each other and can be bumped very easily.
The electronic info is useful, but also subject to disconnect.
The EF only mount means Canon is not serious about getting into the primes business for cinema.
Zooms yes, primes no. No PL means they are still catering to their video cameras, not digital cinema.

The Zeiss T1.5's are not topnotch. Perhaps sharp in the center but at the very least soft in the corners.
The 35/1.4 is the best of the three. The 50/1.4 is as awful as it has always been.
Everything needs to be stopped down at least a stop, with the 50mm even more.

Both lens sets exhibit signifigant CA and breathing, by comparison with more expensive cinema lenses.
Both lens sets are absurdly large, mostly to accomodate very good witness marks.
Both lens sets are very light and this is very attractive and useful.
Both lens sets can go far beyond 4k because they are rehoused still lenses.

There is some play between the CP.2 EF mounts and Canon cameras. This may cause image shift and I find it to be unacceptable.
The Canon lenses are much more solid in their tolerances.

The Zeiss has a larger more complete set. We still don't know when Canon will bring a 35mm to the table. Maybe at NAB.

 

[Mike Nagel]

Clayton, thank you for the detailed information !

When you say the "The Zeiss T1.5's are not topnotch" is that a general comparison to other brands, or are older generations of the CP2 (e.g. T2.1) better performers ?

What cinema lenses would you recommend that are in that price range, 4-5K per lens ?

Thanks.

- M

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Hi Mike,
When I say not topnotch, I mean that the Zeiss do not maintain their sharpness across the whole visual field at wide open, they exhibit signifigant fringing, CA and are not really an advance from the CP.1's which were originally deemed so poor by Zeiss at wide open that they were blocked by Zeiss at T2.1 for the CP.2 generation. Curiously, they discovered that people wanted a little bit of softnesss sometimes for skin and also that the speed was necessary for many folks who didn't have large lighting budgets, exactly the same people who represented their clientele for these lenses. The difference being that they are now charging $700 - $1000 more to unblock them and give you exactly what they had before! (A great marketing lesson in how to create demand for an inferior product).

However, these are not Super Speeds, as in those lovely old forerunners to Master Primes. The Mark III generation of those old lenses is much sharper wide open than these, which gives you an idea of where things are really at (with the possible exception of the 35mm/1.4 version of the CP.2 which is about on par). What the new CP.2's have is more contrast due to the updated T* coatings. This may sometimes give the false impression of sharpness.
Zeiss has recognized that they needed to do something about fast glass as we approach a new generation of digital capture with bigger sensor counts. Thus a new generation is approaching with their Distagon design of the 55mm F1.4 lens which will be out soon. What remains to be seen is how long it will take to trickle up into the CP.2 line, or if indeed that will ever happen.

Look at the stickied Salt III tests above in this subforum to see how they compare to more expensive Cine glass. It might be worth pointing out again that aside from questions of breathing, at T2.8 almost all of these lens sets performed very similarly and let's be honest, how often do we really shoot fully wide open pulling focus on the talent?

To answer the last question. There are virtually no alternatives at the $4-5K range. You may find some Lomo's and B-Speeds, but most of the old super speeds and standard speeds are now more, especially if they are still in good working condition. The Rokinon's are not nearly in the same league, mechanically or optically (except for maybe the 35mm optically to some extent). The only really good alternative in terms of superior glass (by far) are the Schneidar Cine Xenar's Mark I and II (not the more expensive Mark III's). Available in interchangeable Pl and EF mount. Great glass, NO breathing, horrible mechanics and HEAVY. Of course there are also the RED Pro Primes, but other's here are in a better position to speak about them (I have never owned them). Optically and mechanically they seem quite good, may have been the result of a partnership with Sigma (not sure about that), but are viewed as too unnecessarily heavy and large. I would say the probably represent excellent value, but are PL only. So for EF alternatives there really are no obvious choices beyond the Canon Cine's and Zeiss CP.2's.

 

[Brendan Isaac]

I have a set of the cp2s - 15,25,35(ss),50(ss),85(ss) & 135 (on its way). Just finished shooting a concept trailer for a feature. For the money nothing beats them! Really love the 15mm!

 

[Brigham Edgar]

Agreed. I have a set and love them. Putting lenses on charts is one thing as is blowing up images to find where they fall apart (CA)...but in the end the images from the CP2's in actual use is actually very very nice. Not the sharpest wide open but definitely a very nice look and feel, and really work well with the high Rez from 4k and beyond. I mean this in no way a go at anyone but one usually finds most criticism from people who firstly can't even afford these particular lenses to own and also more interested in chart tests than real life.
I'm not a big fan of Canon lenses as I find them a bit 'sterile' (my interpretation) but I do love the 30-300 Cine zoom. In the end forget what anyone tells you and test for yourself for what you can afford. Opinions (like mine included) are like assholes...everyone has one Every DP I know who has actually used mine has said they really liked them...and the DP's I know that don't like them have never used mine...odd. Brendan is bang on, there is nothing like them for this price range...and that includes the razor sharp but tank like RED primes.

A good bit of actual fact re the CP2's by the way. The glass is from the ZE/ZF line but is picked from the crop when made, coated differently and in a purpose built cine housing. I imagine the Canons are similar so take the term 'rehoused stills lenses' quite loosely as its a bit misguided albeit true to a point. I only have them in PL and are as solid as I have ever seen any lens.

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Agreed. I have a set and love them. Putting lenses on charts is one thing as is blowing up images to find where they fall apart (CA)...but in the end the images from the CP2's in actual use is actually very very nice. Not the sharpest wide open but definitely a very nice look and feel, and really work well with the high Rez from 4k and beyond. I mean this in no way a go at anyone but one usually finds most criticism from people who firstly can't even afford these particular lenses to own and also more interested in chart tests than real life.
I'm not a big fan of Canon lenses as I find them a bit 'sterile' (my interpretation) but I do love the 30-300 Cine zoom. In the end forget what anyone tells you and test for yourself for what you can afford. Opinions (like mine included) are like assholes...everyone has one Every DP I know who has actually used mine has said they really liked them...and the DP's I know that don't like them have never used mine...odd. Brendan is bang on, there is nothing like them for this price range...and that includes the razor sharp but tank like RED primes.

A good bit of actual fact re the CP2's by the way. The glass is from the ZE/ZF line but is picked from the crop when made, coated differently and in a purpose built cine housing. I imagine the Canons are similar so take the term 'rehoused stills lenses' quite loosely as its a bit misguided albeit true to a point. I only have them in PL and are as solid as I have ever seen any lens.

To the best of my knowledge they are not coated any differently than the ZE/ZF's.
The results I have found in the past between them showed exactly the same image in a variety of circumstances.
If I can find them I would be glad to post them.

 

[Brigham Edgar]

I was told by Zeiss themselves when I was buying mine directly from them there is a difference in the coating, alongside each glass element being the pick of the crop. But it's all pie in the sky as I was saying...when was the last time I went and watched a test chart at the cinema or on TV? It's all about the images and they're very very nice.

 

[Shane Kelly]

they also have more iris blades than the zf's. I have both zf1's and the cp.2's. I interchange them all of the time but the cp's are better if you want to do focus pulls, obviously.

 

[Matt Ryan]

ummm, maybe you should watch our high speed lens shootout and download the files for yourself and see the projection numbers. Better than taking someone else's word...

Plus you can see the flaring, CA, sharpness, contrast, halation, breathing, color variances, and how the lenses render skin for yourself. If I were to pick between only those 2 sets, I'd go CP.2's no doubt. They are slightly better and are available in several mounts unlike the Canons which are EF only.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?94289-SALT-III-High-Speed-Lens-Shootout-quot-WFO-quot-Results&highlight=SALT+III
http://matthayslett.com/salt-iii-high-speed-lens-shootout-wfo/

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

ummm, maybe you should watch our high speed lens shootout and download the files for yourself and see the projection numbers. Better than taking someone else's word...

Plus you can see the flaring, CA, sharpness, contrast, halation, breathing, color variances, and how the lenses render skin for yourself. If I were to pick between only those 2 sets, I'd go CP.2's no doubt. They are slightly better and are available in several mounts unlike the Canons which are EF only.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?94289-SALT-III-High-Speed-Lens-Shootout-quot-WFO-quot-Results&highlight=SALT+III
http://matthayslett.com/salt-iii-high-speed-lens-shootout-wfo/

I would like to add that pretty much everything I saw in Matt's test was born out in my hand's on experience with these lenses. However, the one thing we do not know about is sample variation. I have seen guys walk into B&H and buy 5 copies of the SAME lens and return 4 of them the next day for this very reason. They knew something I needed to learn and they were right.

 

[Brigham Edgar]

ummm, maybe you should watch our high speed lens shootout and download the files for yourself and see the projection numbers. Better than taking someone else's word...

Plus you can see the flaring, CA, sharpness, contrast, halation, breathing, color variances, and how the lenses render skin for yourself. If I were to pick between only those 2 sets, I'd go CP.2's no doubt. They are slightly better and are available in several mounts unlike the Canons which are EF only.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?94289-SALT-III-High-Speed-Lens-Shootout-quot-WFO-quot-Results&highlight=SALT+III
http://matthayslett.com/salt-iii-high-speed-lens-shootout-wfo/

These are great tests and a great resource for people not knowing really which way they want to go as a starting point. The piece I liked most is that these are projection examples and tests, and performance in the field is a different matter. This is exactly my point. You really need to test a couple yourself and go with what you like and works for you if your going to own them and shoot regularly on them. Everyone's opinion including the guys doing those Salt tests and mine included are just that, opinions. No lenses are perfect and have pros and cons, it comes down to firstly what you can afford and secondly if you like what you see. Personally I needed a more 'budget' set as I was completely over the drawbacks of stills lenses that are modded...I would only recommend cine-mods as a purely budgetary reason and option, and I really like the Zeiss look and feel...it was an easy choice for me and not wanting to spend 4 times the price for the only set after these I liked the look from as much. People will differ, it's just my opinion.

 

[Mike Nagel]

I have a set of the cp2s - 15,25,35(ss),50(ss),85(ss) & 135 (on its way). Just finished shooting a concept trailer for a feature. For the money nothing beats them! Really love the 15mm!

Brendan, what's your experience with the 50(ss) ? You pretty much have the set I was leaning towards... if the 50 (ss) is a bad performer, maybe I'll leave it out...

ummm, maybe you should watch our high speed lens shootout and download the files for yourself and see the projection numbers. Better than taking someone else's word...

Plus you can see the flaring, CA, sharpness, contrast, halation, breathing, color variances, and how the lenses render skin for yourself. If I were to pick between only those 2 sets, I'd go CP.2's no doubt. They are slightly better and are available in several mounts unlike the Canons which are EF only.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...tout-quot-WFO-quot-Results&highlight=SALT+III
http://matthayslett.com/salt-iii-high-speed-lens-shootout-wfo/

I will watch this asap, thank you for the link !

I would like to add that pretty much everything I saw in Matt's test was born out in my hand's on experience with these lenses. However, the one thing we do not know about is sample variation. I have seen guys walk into B&H and buy 5 copies of the SAME lens and return 4 of them the next day for this very reason. They knew something I needed to learn and they were right.

Clayton, with the sample variation always being a possible issue (with pretty much everything you buy), is there anything you could advise on how to spot a "bad sample" of a lens ?

Let's say I buy a set of 4 CP2's, including the 50mm... How would I know which one is a bad sample ? I could compare the image quality of the individual lenses against each other, but then again, if the 50 is just in general not on par with the rest of the set, than that is not a "bad sample"... so vice versa, how would I determine what is a "bad sample" if I buy a set of different focal lengths and not 4 of the same... ?

Thanks to everybody for posting your experience and opinions ! Much appreciated !

- Mike

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Brendan, what's your experience with the 50(ss) ? You pretty much have the set I was leaning towards... if the 50 (ss) is a bad performer, maybe I'll leave it out...



I will watch this asap, thank you for the link !



Clayton, with the sample variation always being a possible issue (with pretty much everything you buy), is there anything you could advise on how to spot a "bad sample" of a lens ?

Let's say I buy a set of 4 CP2's, including the 50mm... How would I know which one is a bad sample ? I could compare the image quality of the individual lenses against each other, but then again, if the 50 is just in general not on par with the rest of the set, than that is not a "bad sample"... so vice versa, how would I determine what is a "bad sample" if I buy a set of different focal lengths and not 4 of the same... ?

Thanks to everybody for posting your experience and opinions ! Much appreciated !

- Mike

Mike,
These guys would go in and buy several versions of the SAME lens, take them back to the studio and shoot charts and tests. They would also ask if the store had several with different series numbers in order to get from different batches. Only the big stores could do this. They knew what was going on because these were regular customers.

The thing to do with CP.2's is to go with a store that has a test bench and have them throw every lens that they have for that CP.2 focal length up on the bench. Believe me there will be variations. I have seen this myself. Obviously when you get into the range of Master Primes and Leica Cine lenses you will not need to do this to the same degree because that is what you are paying for - quality control. With Zeiss CP.2's however it is a different story. YOU are in charge of quality control. Even more true when you are speaking about a lens with interchangeable mounts. As I have said on several occasions concerning CP.2's, if I want to make absolutely sure that the lenses are properly collimated, in the interest of saving time for everyone, it is often wiser that they simply pull out all of their stock on that particular lens and throw them up on the bench for you. I can thus choose the one that looks the best. In any case, when I am paying at least 20 Grand for a set of lenses you can be darn sure I am not walking out of that store with that kit until I am happy.

Personally, I would focus on the 50mm f1.4, wide open. It's a dog, but some dog's are nicer than others. I would also check for evenness across the field. Variations from the left to right side can be tremendous, even when supposedly collimated. Focus your attention on the edges. This is definitely true for CA and artifacts like veiling flare. I have frequently seen unevenness with those issues.

 

[Shane Kelly]

Mike,
These guys would go in and buy several versions of the SAME lens, take them back to the studio and shoot charts and tests. They would also ask if the store had several with different series numbers in order to get from different batches. Only the big stores could do this. They knew what was going on because these were regular customers.

The thing to do with CP.2's is to go with a store that has a test bench and have them throw every lens that they have for that CP.2 focal length up on the bench. Believe me there will be variations. I have seen this myself. Obviously when you get into the range of Master Primes and Leica Cine lenses you will not need to do this to the same degree because that is what you are paying for - quality control. With Zeiss CP.2's however it is a different story. YOU are in charge of quality control. Even more true when you are speaking about a lens with interchangeable mounts. As I have said on several occasions concerning CP.2's, if I want to make absolutely sure that the lenses are properly collimated, in the interest of saving time for everyone, it is often wiser that they simply pull out all of their stock on that particular lens and throw them up on the bench for you. I can thus choose the one that looks the best. In any case, when I am paying at least 20 Grand for a set of lenses you can be darn sure I am not walking out of that store with that kit until I am happy.

Personally, I would focus on the 50mm f1.4, wide open. It's a dog, but some dog's are nicer than others. I would also check for evenness across the field. Variations from the left to right side can be tremendous, even when supposedly collimated. Focus your attention on the edges. This is definitely true for CA and artifacts like veiling flare. I have frequently seen unevenness with those issues.

Or you could buy them from duclos lenses- they are a dealer and where I got my set. As for the 50mm, I would replace it with the 50 makro. The makro, although more expensive, is a beautiful lens and its great to have a macro lens in your kit.

 

[Mike Nagel]

Shane,

What exactly is the advantage buying from Duclos lenses ? You still wouldn't know if a lens is a bad apple... (?)


- Mike

 

[Mike Nagel]

Mike,
These guys would go in and buy several versions of the SAME lens, take them back to the studio and shoot charts and tests. They would also ask if the store had several with different series numbers in order to get from different batches. Only the big stores could do this. They knew what was going on because these were regular customers.

The thing to do with CP.2's is to go with a store that has a test bench and have them throw every lens that they have for that CP.2 focal length up on the bench. Believe me there will be variations. I have seen this myself. Obviously when you get into the range of Master Primes and Leica Cine lenses you will not need to do this to the same degree because that is what you are paying for - quality control. With Zeiss CP.2's however it is a different story. YOU are in charge of quality control. Even more true when you are speaking about a lens with interchangeable mounts. As I have said on several occasions concerning CP.2's, if I want to make absolutely sure that the lenses are properly collimated, in the interest of saving time for everyone, it is often wiser that they simply pull out all of their stock on that particular lens and throw them up on the bench for you. I can thus choose the one that looks the best. In any case, when I am paying at least 20 Grand for a set of lenses you can be darn sure I am not walking out of that store with that kit until I am happy.

Personally, I would focus on the 50mm f1.4, wide open. It's a dog, but some dog's are nicer than others. I would also check for evenness across the field. Variations from the left to right side can be tremendous, even when supposedly collimated. Focus your attention on the edges. This is definitely true for CA and artifacts like veiling flare. I have frequently seen unevenness with those issues.

Clayton, thank you for sharing this !

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Back in the day I've made few trips to ARRI and cherry picked ultra primes for customers. Same with Angenieux. I think Angie got very good with the QC now but haven't really been involved with it much lately...

 

[Nick Morrison]

Back in the day I've made few trips to ARRI and cherry picked ultra primes for customers. Same with Angenieux. I think Angie got very good with the QC now but haven't really been involved with it much lately...

Wouldn't Kubrick do the same thing? haha

 

[Shane Kelly]

Shane,

What exactly is the advantage buying from Duclos lenses ? You still wouldn't know if a lens is a bad apple... (?)


- Mike

But Matt Duclos would and he would tell you so. You could ask him to run through each lens before it gets sent to you.