A Zeiss ZF and Nikon lens set option

[Yecid Jr.]

I just got the second email about my red one being ready (I think a lot of us are on the same boat on this one) and I can't wait to see my beautiful Red One #4928.

So, here is the list of lenses I'm planning on purchasing for the camera. Maybe someone could comment on it or give me some ideas. I'll definitely finalize this purchase right away, since we'll be shooting a feature in december. The first "Red One" feature in my country, Bolivia (in South America...for those who aren't so good with their geography). So quick responses will be greatly appreciated.

***I guess it's the first full feature that will be shot on RED here, since Steven Soderbergh was here some time ago for three days shooting 'Guerrilla' with the prototypes we so much wanted to even see from afar...haha"***

Oh, and thanks to all the guys (Ryan E. Walters especially) for all the great test and insight they provided in terms of the Nikon Mount options. I tried to read all of the threads exhaustively (practically impossible...although I spent many hours trying) and here's my two cents as to what might be a good comprehensive set.

Zeiss ZF 85 f/1.4
Zeiss ZF 50 f/1.4
Zeiss ZF 35 f/1.4
Zeiss ZF 28 f/1.4 (or Zeiss ZF 25 f/1.4)
Nikon 180 f/2.8
Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 (although I don't know if it mounts onto RED and if it has an aperture ring or not...both of those might swing it out of the picture)


Any suggestions and any tips to clear my doubts are greatly appreciated. Also, is anything even longer than the 180 worth it? I understand it depends on what I'm shooting, but I mean as a basic set...

Thanks

Yecid Jr.

 

[Lee Dashiell]

I think that you're on the right track. I bought the 18, 25, 35, 50, 85 and a pristine Nikkor 135.

My only complaint being that the 18 is a 3.5, I wish it were closer to a 2.0

Thay are all very nice pieces of glass. You're certain to be pleased.

 

[Antoine Fabi]

Hi Yecid,

I thought Zeiss max apertures were:

Zeiss ZF 85 f/1.4
Zeiss ZF 50 f/1.4
Zeiss ZF 35 f/2
Zeiss ZF 28 f2

Are you sure ?

Antoine

 

[Douglas Underdahl]

Yes, Antoine, your max apertures were what I understood also, which is why I bought the Nikon 35mm 1.4 instead. Just need that extra stop once in a while.

 

[Yecid Jr.]

I bought the 18, 25, 35, 50, 85 and a pristine Nikkor 135.

My only complaint being that the 18 is a 3.5, I wish it were closer to a 2.0

Thay are all very nice pieces of glass. You're certain to be pleased.

Thank you, Lee, you make me feel more secure about some of my choices...and that's what I need right now :biggrin:

And now that you have the 25, do you feel you'd go with it again, or would you go with the 28?

I thought Zeiss max apertures were:

Zeiss ZF 85 f/1.4
Zeiss ZF 50 f/1.4
Zeiss ZF 35 f/2
Zeiss ZF 28 f2

Are you sure ?

Antoine

You're TOTALLY right. I don't understand how I made that mistake in such a short list..haha. :blink: (The cons of copy and paste)

Yes, Antoine, your max apertures were what I understood also, which is why I bought the Nikon 35mm 1.4 instead. Just need that extra stop once in a while.

I love shooting as open as possible...I know lenses tend to look best in the middle of their range, but I like the shallower depth of field (which helped in me in regular video and HDV before the RED came along). But I wanted to know how is the color matching between the Nikons and the Zeiss's in your experience.

Wow...I love this multi-quoting thing...haha. Yeah...have red millions of forums, but I'm not much of a poster. I guess that's about to change. And I'll have to get used to not writing so long on each post...hmmm :blush:

 

[John Wee]

Ultimate SLR lens package for Red One.

Nikon 17-35 f2.8
Zeiss ZF 28 f2
Zeiss ZF 35 f2
Zeiss ZF 50 Macro f2 (much much sharper than ZF 50mm f1.4 & wider focus throw)
Zeiss ZF 85 f1.4
Zeiss ZF 100 Makro f2 (made from same glass as Zeiss cine lens)
Nikon 80-200 f2.8 (used to shoot Bourne supremacy along with Nikon 28-70 f2.8 (discontinued)).


Just to throw you off, after you spent on all of the above, you probably can buy the RED pro cine zoom 18-85 t2.9 PL lens. Decisions, decisions.

 

[Yecid Jr.]

Ultimate SLR lens package for Red One.

Nikon 17-35 f2.8
Zeiss ZF 28 f2
Zeiss ZF 35 f2
Zeiss ZF 50 Macro f2 (much much sharper than ZF 50mm f1.4 & wider focus throw)
Zeiss ZF 85 f1.4
Zeiss ZF 100 Makro f2 (made from same glass as Zeiss cine lens)
Nikon 80-200 f2.8 (used to shoot Bourne supremacy along with Nikon 28-70 f2.8 (discontinued)).


Just to throw you off, after you spent on all of the above, you probably can buy the RED pro cine zoom 18-85 t2.9 PL lens. Decisions, decisions.

hahahahha...that 18-85....someone mentioned it in one of the threads...that "wrench in the gears"...after you think you've got it all figured out...BACK TO SQUARE ONE... (and thanks for the Macro options you mention...will look into those)

Now do you think that the Zeiss ZF 10 Makro f2 might be too small an increment from the 85, and a redundancy if you're going with the Nikon 80-200? (Of course there's the f 2.8 to f 2.0 difference..hmmm):glare:

 

[Lee Dashiell]

Any way you look at this, it's a good deal. Compare any if these lenses to the true Cine lenses and you'll see that they all deliver great value and performance. That's hard to argue with.

 

[John Wee]

Of course, the SLR lenses are a SUPERB DEAL to be used with the RED.

Quote from American Cinematography magazine on Bourne Supermacy production "The production carried Cooke S4 primes lenses and an Arri LWZ 15.5-45mm zoom, but the crew “mostly used lightweight zooms that I had specially made from two Nikon digital still-photography lenses, a 28-70mm and an 80-200mm,” says Wood. “Arri in Munich converted them to lightweight cinema-style zooms, and they work quite well. The Nikon glass is brilliant.” Dierken notes, Arri made the housings in six weeks, and the lenses turned out to be very sharp and the contrast was quite good ........ The lenses worked so well that we ended up shooting 70 percent of the movie with them .....".

Different horses for different courses, if your target market is the high end narrative/national tv commercial shoots, then you probably need to invest in nothing but PRO PL lenses, if you are the *average* indie shooter or owner of your own production companies doing independent projects, SLR lenses are more than just fine. Plus, you can rent PL lenses when there is a need.

 

[Ryan E. Walters]

Just something to keep in mind if you are using available light, or do not have a lot of light power- you'll need the speed a 1.4 lens can get you if you are shooting inside. Many rooms are lit to about 10 - 20 foot candles which will get you a T/1.4 @ 320 ISO. So you may need that extra stop. I'm considering getting the Nikon 35mm 1.4 for just that reason. Even though I already have the Zeiss 35mm T2.

 

[Rick Darge]

How much of a difference is there between the Zeiss 50 f/2 and the f/1.4 ? I notice that my 1.4 wide open does create a subtle promist effect on my out of focus highlights.

 

[Ryan E. Walters]

How much of a difference is there between the Zeiss 50 f/2 and the f/1.4 ? I notice that my 1.4 wide open does create a subtle promist effect on my out of focus highlights.

To the astute viewer their are noticeable differences. I think the best resource on comparing these lenses can be found in DigiLloyd's review of the complete Zeiss ZF series of lenses: http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/ReviewInfo.html

The 50mm T2 is a macro lens, so you can focus MUCH closer with that lens. If you need that ability then get that lens. I opted for the extra stop of light with the T1.4, and I have been happy with the choice. But in the end it is going to really depend on your needs.

 

[Yecid Jr.]

Different horses for different courses, if your target market is the high end narrative/national tv commercial shoots, then you probably need to invest in nothing but PRO PL lenses, if you are the *average* indie shooter or owner of your own production companies doing independent projects, SLR lenses are more than just fine. Plus, you can rent PL lenses when there is a need.

Totally right. I can rent them whenever. There are a few sets of them for rent around here (Bolivia) although the market is very small.

Many rooms are lit to about 10 - 20 foot candles which will get you a T/1.4 @ 320 ISO. So you may need that extra stop. I'm considering getting the Nikon 35mm 1.4 for just that reason. Even though I already have the Zeiss 35mm T2.

Great to be having some of your input Ryan...read your whole test and the entire thread. Thanks again.

Now my questions to you and everyone else are:

1. Would it be better to just go with the Nikon 35 f/1.4 from the get go? Or do you find that the Zeiss is worth having also? Maybe the Nikon is faster, but the Zeiss has some other advantages? (Maybe it's just my mind playing lens choice games on me? haha)

2. I was looking at the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 on B&H which seem to be a much better choice than the 180 f/2.8...seeing as how they have the same speed and the zooms got the whole range. Are there any downfalls on those zooms? Which one would you pick?

3. I called the best AC here (yes, the industry is so small we have one that is considered the best, and we all agree...haha), great guy, and the only one that has worked with red a whole bunch already. He said that the Nikon Mount that RED sells gave him some problems when changing lenses (that he even had to take the mount off everytime he wanted to switch lenses at one point). I might have misunderstood him, but is there any truth in this? I figured it would be just like popping PL lenses in and out of the PL mount...a matter of seconds. Any insight?

 

[John Wee]

Ryan,

I heard of really really bad review of the Nikon 35mm f1.4 lens. Do you have any personal experience on this ?

 

[Ryan E. Walters]

Ryan,

I heard of really really bad review of the Nikon 35mm f1.4 lens. Do you have any personal experience on this ?

I do not have personal experience with this lens yet. I am planing on renting it and seeing how I like it. (There is a photo store here that rents SLR lenses for very cheap prices - $10 - $30 / lens.) The other lens I'm looking at is the Nikon 28mm f1.4. Supposedly it is better then the 35mm.

Ken Rockwell did a write up on both the 28mm and the 35mm lenses:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35f14ais.htm

 

[Ryan E. Walters]

Something else I'm wondering about with the 35mm is if it will have the same issues on the Red as it does on a full frame DSLR, as the Red sensor is smaller...

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Even with my F2.0 primes I'm sometimes wishing I had more stop when I'm in available light situations. But, the tradeoff is that when you open up like that you are now dealing with tougher focus if you are pulling your own and some lenses don't look as nice opened up all the way. Now in situations where you can control the light, have a focus puller, and have the time to choose the right lens for the shot - not much of a problem. If you go with fast SLR lenses, go with good ones if you can.

As to the question of whether to go with the 18-85 Red zoom. As nice as that lens might be, you have to keep in mind that a cine zoom is no joke. They are big, require proper support and you can almost forget about running around with the camera. It's the type of lens that almost requires a camera team. I had a cooke zoom which was beautiful and in great condition, but it was not right for me. I enjoy being lightweight. And for those times when I need a nice cine zoom I have decided to go the rental route.

Has anyone shot with the Sigma 35mm 1.4?

 

[Ryan E. Walters]

Even with my F2.0 primes I'm sometimes wishing I had more stop when I'm in available light situations. But, the tradeoff is that when you open up like that you are now dealing with tougher focus if you are pulling your own and some lenses don't look as nice opened up all the way. Now in situations where you can control the light, have a focus puller, and have the time to choose the right lens for the shot - not much of a problem. If you go with fast SLR lenses, go with good ones if you can.

As to the question of whether to go with the 18-85 Red zoom. As nice as that lens might be, you have to keep in mind that a cine zoom is no joke. They are big, require proper support and you can almost forget about running around with the camera. It's the type of lens that almost requires a camera team. I had a cooke zoom which was beautiful and in great condition, but it was not right for me. I enjoy being lightweight. And for those times when I need a nice cine zoom I have decided to go the rental route.

Has anyone shot with the Sigma 35mm 1.4?

Great points. For me, the Zeiss ZF's are the preferred lens of choice. Getting the Nikon's would be more of a speciality lens that I would need when doing Doc's and I need that extra stop. When I've go control over things and have lighting I prefer to work at a T4 or T5.6. Around this range the lenses perform their best, as well as make it easier on focus.

 

[Ryan E. Walters]

1. Would it be better to just go with the Nikon 35 f/1.4 from the get go? Or do you find that the Zeiss is worth having also? Maybe the Nikon is faster, but the Zeiss has some other advantages? (Maybe it's just my mind playing lens choice games on me? haha)

I prefer the Zeiss over the Nikon lenses that i have used both for their performance and for their mechanics. The Zeiss is a lot smoother in rotation both for the Focus and for the iris. If you leave you lenses with the "click" in the iris, on the Nikon's you can only select full stops where as with the Zeiss you can select half stops.

There also seems to be a greater difference from lens to lens with the nikon's in terms of performance, where as the Zeiss has a much higher tolerance level so the differences are not that great. (I've rented Nikon lenses of the same focal length and seen better performance between the two of the "same" lenses. If you can rent a lens before buying it, I would go that route as you'll know what you are getting.

2. I was looking at the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 on B&H which seem to be a much better choice than the 180 f/2.8...seeing as how they have the same speed and the zooms got the whole range. Are there any downfalls on those zooms? Which one would you pick?

I do not have any hands on experience with either of those lenses so I cannot comment directly on them. You might want to check out Ken Rockwell's site to see if he has reviewed them. www.kenrockwell.com .

A zoom will allow you to work "faster" as you do not have to swap lenses to change focal legnth. Just keep in mind that they do not hold focus through the zoom, so you'll have to use it as a variable prime.

3. I called the best AC here (yes, the industry is so small we have one that is considered the best, and we all agree...haha), great guy, and the only one that has worked with red a whole bunch already. He said that the Nikon Mount that RED sells gave him some problems when changing lenses (that he even had to take the mount off everytime he wanted to switch lenses at one point). I might have misunderstood him, but is there any truth in this? I figured it would be just like popping PL lenses in and out of the PL mount...a matter of seconds. Any insight?

I do not know what that is about, sounds like something was not attached right, or maybe the release broke? The nikon mount is the same as other nikon mounts that I have used. To release the lens you just press back the release lever. (Hopefully this is not a problem that will come up later for me- I can't imagine having to take the mount on and off for every lens change- that would be awful!