Canon Cine Primes kit or CP.2 ?

[Nick Morrison]

Thanks Nick,

I forgot about Leica R's. I hear they are great and that they do not breath much, have a longer focus throw etc. Maybe I could get a very nice set of Leica's and get them Cine modded by Duclos? I guess that could be my 4th option and a LOT cheaper.

I don't know if I'd call Leica R's CHEAP. A good friend of mine has a FULL set, from 16mm to 135mm, all MINT, and after getting them Duclosed and Leitaxed the set ran him way over $10k. I actually believe the cost was closer to $15k.

But I've shot with them twice now, and they look GREAT.

I have a full CONTAX SET (with the older 80's Zeiss T* coating), and I am very happy with those too. Cheaper than ZE/ZF's, easier mechanics (focus the right way, AND have manual aperture ring), and have a very organic look much in common with the Super Speeds and Standards Zeiss was making at that time.

THAT set you can build probably for 8 to 10k.

So you have LOTS of options.

Good luck!

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Jacek, you drinking again?

HAHA good one.
Actually, I'm working-and- when I'm working good things happen....:wink5:

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Well that's all about to change very soon. The electronic autofocus lenses will leap PL lenses. And run circles around them. They make any AC look good. You'll never look back. How appropriate for this forum.....

Jason - care to elaborate? :smiley:

 

[Vincent Thomas]

Could you develop that please?

Well that's all about to change very soon. The electronic autofocus lenses will leap PL lenses. And run circles around them. They make any AC look good. You'll never look back. How appropriate for this forum.....

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Elaboration-seems like a good fit

Elaboration-seems like a good fit

I thought you'd never ask:thumbsup:
It has actually been discussed to (almost) the last detail but I'll elaborate:
full utilization of the technology built into the lenses as it applies to film production. infinite (well almost) focus control, iris control, (lens) data feedback and capture, IS for lenses so equipped. All with just one cable (or wireless- your choice) without motors, transmitter, receiver boxes, huge batteries to drive it all, spaghetti of cables or tens of thousands of$$$ investment. Or engineering degree just to plug everything in and calibrate. What's not to like?
Oh, my name is Jacek, see below :wink5:

 

[Terry VerHaar]

...
Oh, my name is Jacek, see below :wink5:

Apologies... I knew better.

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

You have other options...

What's your budget?

If you want to be *really* cheap, consider Rokinon primes. Not bad quality, dirt cheap, cine versions coming out - or send them to Duclos.

If you have a little more budget, consider the oldest Superspeeds, or Canon K35s, or a used set of RPPs or maybe Mk1 Schneider Cine Xenars. Or maybe even go Russian - Elites or Illuminas.

Lot of options sub $30k. But if you're serious about cine primes, you have to bite the bullet and get that PL mount... I'm in the same boat, choosing a set of primes. If rentability is a factor, Superspeeds are the way to go; everyone knows them, everyone loves them for the right job. They'll be steady earners.

Mike

 

[John Galeano]

I want to build a Cine lens kit without totally breaking the bank. Based on my research it looks like it's between the Canon Cine lenses or Zeiss CP.2s. Everything else is out of reach (cookes Angenieux, etc.) I am looking for reliable focus rings, minimal breathing and fast lenses (aren't we all..).

I will use them at 4K (1.6 crop)

My options are:

1. Get the Canon Cine 24mm, 50mm and 85mm and use my 16-35 2.8 L II for wider (PRO = faster lenses | CON = Nothing wider than 24mm in Cine, have to use still zoom for wider)
2. Get CP.2s 15mm, 21mm, 28mm and 50mm (PRO = All Cine quality lenses, cheaper than Canon (except for the 15mm) | CON = Slower lenses)
3. Get a PL Mount and older / vintage primes or Zoom on ebay (PRO= Can be cheaper??, More character.. CON = Less reliable, servicing fees and extreme research needed)

What would you recommend?

Or you can wait for these.. I know i'm gonna try to get these bad boys...

http://vimeo.com/41379435

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?is=REG&Q=&A=details&O=productlist&sku=857796

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/857813-REG/Zeiss_1956_595_Compact_Prime_CP_2_50mm_T1_5.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/857814-REG/Zeiss_1957_507_Compact_Prime_CP_2_85mm_T1_5.html

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

The trade-off on full frame designs is always speed. The larger the image circle, the more light it requires. This is why medium format lenses (massive image circle) average at around F4, while 16mm zooms can go from 10-100 at 1.8 (their smaller image circle helps them be that much faster).

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your post, but this is not true. The reason why medium format lenses don't get any faster than f/2.0 is not because they cannot. Rather, it's because of size and cost limitations. And personally - I shoot Sony NEX and Nikon FX cameras - let me tell you, I don't want anything wider than f/2.8, especially if you're talking about focal lengths over, say, 100mm.

 

[Glen Powell]

3. Get a PL Mount and older / vintage primes or Zoom on ebay (PRO= Can be cheaper??, More character.. CON = Less reliable, servicing fees and extreme research needed)

Not sure how 'older' PL primes are less reliable? Perhaps I should call the rental houses and tell them to stop sending these unreliable lenses out on jobs. AND GASP!!! You might need to do some research! Learning something about your craft along the way… /endsarcasm/

I guess I have the luxury of living in a film town with lots of lens rental options - and I came up through the ranks when no-one owned Pro-level (35mm) cine gear; it was all rented on a job by job basis. Fast forward to today and everyone wants to own their own gear (myself included) - there are so many options and everyone has an opinion about what's best. I really do believe that a set of real manual PL primes or zoom is the away to go; rent a couple of sets and test them out.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your post, but this is not true. The reason why medium format lenses don't get any faster than f/2.0 is not because they cannot. Rather, it's because of size and cost limitations. And personally - I shoot Sony NEX and Nikon FX cameras - let me tell you, I don't want anything wider than f/2.8, especially if you're talking about focal lengths over, say, 100mm.

I'm not sure you're right. I've always assumed that image circle did have an affect on illumination. Of course anything is possible, but by and large they seem to be related. Otherwise how else to explain the incredible speed of 16mm lenses, and the relative slowness of Medium Format and Anamoprhic glass? Clearly, there seems to be a correlation between image circle and exposure.

Otherwise, how else to explain also why there's NO FULL FRAME wide that is an F2 or faster? (I mean at 18mm or wider). I'm sure it's possible, but at a price mortals can afford?

Obviously an experienced lens tech needs to weigh in here, but I've always assumed there was a mathematical relationship between image circle and exposure, just as there is for image circle and depth of field.

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

HAHA good one.
Actually, I'm working-and- when I'm working good things happen....:wink5:

Jacek makes GREAT things happen!!!

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Clearly, there seems to be a correlation between image circle and exposure.

Yes. But only because:

I'm sure it's possible, but at a price mortals can afford?

So we agree, pretty much. Of course only a physicist or optical engineer can give an authoritative comment.

just as there is for image circle and depth of field.

What do you mean here? I'm about to disagree with you again!!

 

[paul ross jones]

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your post, but this is not true. The reason why medium format lenses don't get any faster than f/2.0 is not because they cannot. Rather, it's because of size and cost limitations. And personally - I shoot Sony NEX and Nikon FX cameras - let me tell you, I don't want anything wider than f/2.8, especially if you're talking about focal lengths over, say, 100mm.

yeah, its mainly just cost limiting the f-stop of a medium format lens-

check out this f1.3 250mm 6x6 hasselblad lens-

http://www.ebay.com/itm/230649811001?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

i would love to see what the images look like with this.


paul

 

[Mitch Gross]

Which molecule would you like in focus?

 

[Nick Morrison]

"just as there is for image circle and depth of field."
What do you mean here? I'm about to disagree with you again!!

There is a correlation between image circle and depth of field. The smaller the image circle the deeper the depth of field. And the larger the image circle, the shallower the depth of field. What I'm about to say is really rough math, but it is said that S35 film looks approximately two stops MORE SHALLOW than 16mm. And in turn, full frame (ie "5D") looks two stops MORE SHALLOW than S35. That's why the 5D is known for being so "shallow". That's also why the RED MX sensor, which is slightly larger than S35, can give you a bit more shallow look than traditional film.

Medium Format, being twice the size of full frame 5D, is very likely two stops shallower still.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Which molecule would you like in focus?

Yeah pretty much.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

There is a correlation between image circle and depth of field. The smaller the image circle the deeper the depth of field. And the larger the image circle, the shallower the depth of field. What I'm about to say is really rough math, but it is said that S35 film looks approximately two stops MORE SHALLOW than 16mm. And in turn, full frame (ie "5D") looks two stops MORE SHALLOW than S35. That's why the 5D is known for being so "shallow". That's also why the RED MX sensor, which is slightly larger than S35, can give you a bit more shallow look than traditional film.

Medium Format, being twice the size of full frame 5D, is very likely two stops shallower still.

I don't want to sound like a troll but you're incorrect again. The reason why DOF in 16mm is deeper than in 35mm is not because of image circle, but because of the relationship of focal length to FOV.

To get a 40° FOV on a 4-perf 35mm frame requires, say, a 25mm lens (very roughly). To get a 40° FOV on a 16mm camera would require, say, a 12mm lens. Assuming equivalent settings (distance and aperture), the 12mm lens would have more DOF by virtue of being shorter than the 25mm, not by having a smaller image circle.

I'm happy to be corrected by an engineer, but I'd be very surprised if I were mistaken. Not that there's anything wrong with being wrong.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I don't want to sound like a troll but you're incorrect again. The reason why DOF in 16mm is deeper than in 35mm is not because of image circle, but because of the relationship of focal length to FOV.

To get a 40° FOV on a 4-perf 35mm frame requires, say, a 25mm lens (very roughly). To get a 40° FOV on a 16mm camera would require, say, a 12mm lens. Assuming equivalent settings (distance and aperture), the 12mm lens would have more DOF by virtue of being shorter than the 25mm, not by having a smaller image circle.

I'm happy to be corrected by an engineer, but I'd be very surprised if I were mistaken. Not that there's anything wrong with being wrong.

I'm willing to be stand corrected, and everything you say makes sense.

But...please explain then why a 25mm 2.8 will look MUCH MORE SHALLOW on a 5D than a 7D? I've been told by every DP I've worked with on these cameras that it's because the sensor on the 5D is LARGER (ie...can read a larger image circle). In this particular scenario, the 5D not only sees a larger FOV, but it also noticeably more shallow? Why?

 

[Alan Peterson]

There really shouldn't be any difference in the depth of field. The situation you're describing is comparable to cropping an image in post except with respect to resolution. Changing the area from the sensor that you're grabbing the image from doesn't change the depth of field.

Likely what the other DPs are referring to is that to get the same angle of view on the 5D, you're using longer lenses and consequently have a shallower DoF.