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 :)

LENS TEST: Zeiss Super Speed (MK3) VS Zeiss ZF SLR's (Shot on RED)

MaxAMillion said:
I just ordered the ZF 35 f/2. The crop factor brings it up to a 50 mill. Great standard lens; light, fast and sharp.

I wish there was ZF ultra wide.
Click to expand...

There is now: the ZF 18/3.5. I just received an evaluation unit a few days ago. Some initial impressions are posted in my August 22 blog and I'll have more coming, as well as a full writeup in my Zeiss ZF Lenses review (covering all 8 ZF lenses). To be clear: I am not a RED user or cinematographer (yet!).

Image sharpness and contrast is very high, and for the RED camera, shooting wide open at f/3.5 should yield outstanding results, based on what I'm seeing so far.

Vignetting is strong (2+ stops on full frame) and could be an issue even on the RED; f/5.6 still shows some vignetting on full-frame, f/8 is needed for even results. I think part of the issue is the sensor, so results could vary by camera (I tested on the Nikon D3).

Alas, flare (ghosting) is disappointing compared to the Nikon 14-24--just don't let direct sunlight strike the optics. However, veiling flare is essentially non-existent with the typical Zeiss contrast.

Color rendition seems consistent with the other 7 ZF lenses, which seem to be perfectly matched, much more consistent than the Canon and Nikon lenses I use. To be fair though, Nikon and Canon have both changed their coatings over the years, so one can't expect the same results for lenses made 20 years apart.

Another interesting "change" with the 18mm is that its focusing seems to be the nicest of all the ZF lenses (I have the full set). I don't know if Zeiss changed the lubrication or it's just the copy I have, but the 18mm is really smooth and nice focusing. In practice perhaps it won't matter as the other ZF lenses are also excellent, but it does seem to be a bit smoother, with a bit less resistance than the rest of the ZF line.
 
Ryan E. Walters said:
Me Too! Unfortunately the widest they currently go is 25mm .... I would love to be able to get a 14mm.
Click to expand...

The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is absolutely outstanding--I have yet to see any lens outperform it, and that includes Canon's 14m f/2.8L II, the Zeiss 18/3.5, the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II, the Nikon 17-35 and others.

But being a "G" lens, I don't know if it can even be used on the RED. Perhaps an adapter is or will be available for the Nikon "G" lenses.

See my Aug 16 Lenses I Like blog entry for a bit more on the 14-24.
 
Emanuel said:
Fully agreed, Evin. Actually, why not the Tokina 11-16mm as well? Have you read the last from Rockwell's findings?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

Better than the Nikkor 12-24mm -- and he's a nikonist... :huh: Really impressive. I'm wondering about the compatibility with the Birger's mounts. I second the motion.
Click to expand...

I had to go through four (4) samples of the Nikon 12-24 to get one that I considered acceptable. Nikon wouldn't even fix mine; they just kept sending me refurbs! Given that, perhaps the Tokina is indeed a better choice! But it also means that the Rockwell comparison might have been with a dud. The results don't look consistent with what I've seen from the 12-24 (I've now sold mine, shooting full-frame only).

Sample variation is also a huge issue. When I tested the ZF lenses for my review, I used 2 copies of each lens, and I found (minor) variation in a few cases. Yet with Nikon and Canon it's far worse. I've had brand-new Nikon lenses that were visibly blurry in the viewfinder (the 17-35 for example). In most cases the factory can rectify the issue.

So when choosing a lens, if you want the best, realize that the best bet is to obtain 2 or 3 copies, and compare them (even with brand new lenses). Lens optical design and lens assembly tolerances are two different things! Chances are that you'll find at least one bad copy. See my article Brand-new Blur. Making conclusions on a single sample is downright silly unless the lens exhibits consistent symmetrical performance on carefully chosen subjects to reveal problems. That is what *I* do when testing a lens.
 
Headed there now... Thank You Ryan!

I just read diglloyd wonderful posts as well, Thank you. When I am ready to buy this set it is fairly obvious I need to go somewhere were they will allow me to test, test, test for the full set. Would this be BH Photovideo or elsewhere... Any advice would be great.

Thanks for any help or advice everyone, I am settling down to watch "Mutant Chronicles" from the lens of the the man---Geoff Boyle... it's been a great day.

Cheers,

Andrew Benz
 
Andrew Benz said:
Headed there now... Thank You Ryan!
I just read diglloyd wonderful posts as well, Thank you. When I am ready to buy this set it is fairly obvious I need to go somewhere were they will allow me to test, test, test for the full set. Would this be BH Photovideo or elsewhere... Any advice would be great.
Click to expand...

Well, I certainly would appreciate anyone buying ZF lenses to use the links on my page at diglloyd.com. It's not a big commission, but it sure helps support my efforts, and it costs the buyer zero.

Although I've seen some minor sample variation, the ZF lenses have been far more consistent than the N or C brands, and the variation I've seen has required very careful testing on a resolution chart to distinguish, and full-frame (36X24). I detail the differences in my review.

By comparison, the N or C brands can be really bad out of the box (see Brand-new Blur).

In short, I think you can have very high confidence in the ZF lenses.

Now with used lenses, all bets are off. It doesn't take much to turn precision optics into "fair" from "excellent", so any used lens should be carefully tested. This is best done not as an absolute test, but as a focus-matched comparison with an equivalent reference lens (eg a 50mm against a 50mm).

A few more notes that might be useful—

First, the ZF lenses have remarkably pleasing color rendition (in addition to superb color matching). Only the very latest Nikon nano-coated lenses are like this. This is subjective of course, but I see it over and over. I have 3 Leica APO lenses in addition to a large number of Canon and Nikon optics, older and modern. The ZF line is my favorite for color.

Second, the ZF lenses have the uncanny ability to hold fine highlight detail when other lenses might blow it. Blown is blown, but "at the edge", the ZF coatings deliver.

Third, the ZF lenses aren't "perfect". I consider them "artist" lenses because they offer rendering qualities that are frequently abandoned in favor of a flat field. Some of the ZF line like the 28/2 offer quite strong field curvature (not so much of an issue on RED).
 
Excellent! Thank you so much for performing the tests and for taking the time and having the diligence for putting it all together. This is just the test I wanted to see... I am in luck and I thank you for your hard work.

I am sure it was asked and I'll make sure and comb through the thread looking for it... but were the FOV the same or was there any difference on the SLR's FOV? I got worried when I saw the framing of your friend working on the laptop but later noticed differences between different aperture frame grabs of the same lens leading me to believe you were doing this hand held... you later confirmed this on your impressions. I believe they will be but better to ask than to be sorry.

Also have you used the 18mm 28mm and the 100mm ZFs?
 
USlatin said:
Excellent! Thank you so much for performing the tests and for taking the time and having the diligence for putting it all together. This is just the test I wanted to see... I am in luck and I thank you for your hard work.
Click to expand...

I'm glad it helped you out. :) It was a fun test to do.

USlatin said:
I am sure it was asked and I'll make sure and comb through the thread looking for it... but were the FOV the same or was there any difference on the SLR's FOV? I got worried when I saw the framing of your friend working on the laptop but later noticed differences between different aperture frame grabs of the same lens leading me to believe you were doing this hand held... you later confirmed this on your impressions. I believe they will be but better to ask than to be sorry.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this was not one of the tests that I completed. As far as the framing and FOV goes on the laptop shot do not read anything into that. That test was just to see a real life sample of the lens performance. As this was done in a working office, and not an empty studio, the tripod and indislider had to be moved to allow people to enter and return to the office. So things got moved, and it was not, nor should it be used to evaluate FOV. But that is something I'd like to do on my next set of testing.

USlatin said:
Also have you used the 18mm 28mm and the 100mm ZFs?
Click to expand...

I have yet to use those lenses. Digilloyd has an extensive review of them on his site, and they seem like good lenses, I would love to add them to my collection sometime soon. However, I have heard that the front element of the 100mm lens does move when you focus it, so that may be an issue. But I do not have any hands on experience with that lens.
 
I just got a hold of that very nice fellow that works at RP Lens (talked for 30min!) and he did mention that the 100mm moves quite a bit. He mentioned a very wide lens gear which made it sound like he has a way of dealing with it though... but he was trying to talk me out of it a it. He was also a it worried about how big of a jump it would be if I got the 50mm and the 100mm next up. He has a point... that could be troublesome in certain rooms and other situations. However he then mentioned that the with of the frame for a macro shot would be about 3/4th of a n index finger and that made me go bananas. :)

He did also mention that he can get the 18mm and the 28mm.

I also asked him quite extensively about the focus throws but he wasn't in the studio so he said he'd get back to me about that. I sent him an e-mail later and he said he'd reply to that with a quote for the 18, 28, 50, 100. I'll make sure and ask him if he can hopefully give me the angles of focus travel which would be something to consider adding to the review Ryan (unless I missed it).

Finally, he mentioned a few other lenses that would be much faster than the 18mm. He seemed to really like this zoom which was something like 11-25mm or something like that... but I forgot the details as I really like the idea of having a color matched set. I do my color correction.

OK... I have a headache, not so much from the learning but from lack of sleep... but the learning too I bet. :)
 
USlatin said:
I just got a hold of that very nice fellow that works at RP Lens (talked for 30min!) and he did mention that the 100mm moves quite a bit. He mentioned a very wide lens gear which made it sound like he has a way of dealing with it though... but he was trying to talk me out of it a it. He was also a it worried about how big of a jump it would be if I got the 50mm and the 100mm next up. He has a point... that could be troublesome in certain rooms and other situations. However he then mentioned that the with of the frame for a macro shot would be about 3/4th of a n index finger and that made me go bananas. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah I would get the 85 first, if you have to choose inbetween the 100 or the 85. Going from 50 to 100mm is quite a jump. The 50mm also comes in a macro, so you can get that one and be fine.

USlatin said:
I also asked him quite extensively about the focus throws but he wasn't in the studio so he said he'd get back to me about that. I sent him an e-mail later and he said he'd reply to that with a quote for the 18, 28, 50, 100. I'll make sure and ask him if he can hopefully give me the angles of focus travel which would be something to consider adding to the review Ryan (unless I missed it).
Click to expand...

I didn't post the focus throws for the 18/28/100 since I didn't have them, but I did make mention that the throws on the SLR's are a lot shorter then their PL counterpart. (You can read my comments in the Results and conclusions section.) All of the PL lenses had a throw of 300 degrees or more. The SLR glass is as follows (Roughly): 35mm- 115 degrees / 50mm- 225 degrees / 85mm- 270 degrees.


USlatin said:
Finally, he mentioned a few other lenses that would be much faster than the 18mm. He seemed to really like this zoom which was something like 11-25mm or something like that... but I forgot the details as I really like the idea of having a color matched set. I do my color correction.

OK... I have a headache, not so much from the learning but from lack of sleep... but the learning too I bet. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was disappointed by how slow the 18mm is - especially with the Nikon 17 - 35mm ZOOM lens being faster then it - go figure... However, something to keep in mind with SLR zooms is that they are not made for zooming while recording- the focus tends to drift as you zoom the lens. So you are better off to use it as a variable prime lens.
 
USlatin said:
OK... I have a headache, not so much from the learning but from lack of sleep... but the learning too I bet. :)
Click to expand...

USLatin,

You are everywhere arent ya ?? :) you were obsessed with the Hpx200a, the Hpx170, the sgpro blade, the Scarlet and now the Red One ?? That is great bro, I am as obsessed about technology and camera myself but its time to commit to one and concentrate on that.

Often I have to sit back and really rethink my situation. If you want to be a director, you dont even need a camera. You get a camera crew, sound crew ...etc. In fact, earlier on this week a dear filmmaker friend of mine also pointed out a good DP that doesn't even own a camera. Director directs, DP plays with lighting to make sure the set looks great.

Now, everyone in the micro Indie land has been going on merrily, being content with their Zeiss slr or nikon slr lenses, until RED throws in the 18-85mm t2.9 monkey wrench. Before the RED 18-85mm, you either pay ridiculous amount of $$$$ for 30 yr old lens or spend $ 50k for modern PL lenses.

Now, for a set of 28mm , 50mm , 85mm and 100mm Zeiss SLR , you only have to add $5000 more and get a 18-85mm t 2.9 true cine PL lens. Within, 2-3 jobs and you will get that $5000 back in a heartbeat. You would also wont have to lose bids on jobs that requires "real cine lens"(yes the problem is how many ppl in the industry that knows the Zeiss Nikon SLR is almost as good as Zeiss Cine lenses? they judge you based on what you have on that camera).

Lastly, PL lens is also more flexible and can be used or rented out to different pro cameras. Enough headache yet ?? what about ? the RED 18mm - 85mm being limited on the range ?? What about the Zeiss being speedier at f1.4 and f2 vs the RED 18-85mm ?? :devil: :devil:
 
yea I was talking on an other thread about the speed of the ZF's vs. the Red zoom where we talked about the difference in speed and weight vs. the versatility pro-feel and action of the zoom... I also mentioned that the zoom might very well outperform the ZF glass at 2.9f

I don't have an unnecessary obsession, I am learning the things I need to learn cause at the end of the day I am also the line producer for my feature, until we get on set where the director hat pushes all other responsibilities aside and over to a UPM. Talking in forums I can learn many aspects of the current cameras we can afford for the projects for which I am ultimately responsible for. I know that people tend to get worried when they someone learning a lot of different things, but at the end of the day I am better suited to make the decisions that I am still forced to be making. Also, understanding everyone's job I can think several steps ahead as I direct, getting more out of the day. I want to be better able to weigh my options than all other Directors. I want to understand everyone's job so that I know what I can ask from them and what would piss them off or make their jobs harder... and how that would impact the shots we would get on the time we'll spend on the next setups. Remember that a story telling is 90% done before you get on set, in the writing casting and rehearsal. Do I wish I had a bigger budget to hire a line producer? Sure, I want a pro crew of 50. But I am not there yet, neither have I found someone I trust that much... yet.
I will continue to learn more every day till I don't know anyone that knows more than me. If that ever happens I'll shoot myself in the head and REALLY go crazy.Well, I'll go crazy first, then shoot myself. :)

EDIT:
We are likely to shoot this feature in the winter with a 170 + SGblade...
...I can't commit to any given camera, only projects. :watsup:

Back on topic: Ryan, what's the exact model of that zoom? the numbers ring a bell... I am sure he was speaking of the same one.
 
USlatin said:
Back on topic: Ryan, what's the exact model of that zoom? the numbers ring a bell... I am sure he was speaking of the same one.
Click to expand...

That Nikon Zoom is this one: Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S

However, the Nikon Zoom performs nowhere near like what a PL lens does. If you do go with a Nikon zoom, only use it as a variable prime.
 
Ohhh... one of those new zooms! Would be sweet for when you got a DSLR! Ouch at the price but you get so much more lengths and speed!

Don't worry man, I completely know not to consider it a zoom... besides if I were to do any zooming it would only be a minuscule imperceptible push-pull like on the library scene in Atonement (on Keira Knightley) and I would be able to do that on the camera since it would be so very small. I am thinking about doing one maaaaaaaaaaybe two on this horror movie. And I plan to shoot an option without it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top