Canon Cine Primes kit or CP.2 ?

[Robino_J]

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?

 

[Nick Morrison]

Standard Primes?

 

[Zack Birlew]

I would prefer speed if I were buying cinema lenses, however, in this case the Zeiss CP.2 solution is hard to turn down. It all boils down to what your shooting style is really. If you're going to be handheld or have a lot of lights, then shallow DOF won't make a lot of sense unless it's a style choice. If you're going to be locked down and using more source or natural lighting, then you would want fast lenses to maximize results. If it's all about saving some money, still lenses are the only other solution and it's not a bad one either thanks to electronic mounts and other innovations.

 

[Brian Merlen]

Are your needs based on your current Red or are you upgrading to Dragon? If Dragon is what you seek, your answers will be different... Also if your spending that kind of money now, perhaps you want to think somewhat about your future needs as well...

 

[Robino_J]

Are your needs based on your current Red or are you upgrading to Dragon? If Dragon is what you seek, your answers will be different... Also if your spending that kind of money now, perhaps you want to think somewhat about your future needs as well...

Yes I am upgrading my Scarlet to Dragon when it's available. Are Canon Cine lenses and CP.2's not good for future?

 

[Brian Merlen]

Nothing is in stone but I hear the CP 2's cover (check the Dragon thread in Recon for commentary)...Not sure on the Canon glass..

 

[Robino_J]

Standard Primes?

Those are VERY nice lenses but they will break the bank.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Nothing is in stone but I hear the CP 2's cover (check the Dragon thread in Recon for commentary)...Not sure on the Canon glass..

Aren't the Canon cine-primes using the L designs? If so, then they should cover full frame...which is even wider coverage than Dragon. CP2s are absolutely FULL FRAME lens designs, and ABSOLUTELY cover Dragon (and even bigger sensors like the 5D).

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).

Its math. If you go the Canon or CP2 route with a larger image circle, don't expect speed, especially in the wides. The Canon lenses right now are fast, but I'd be shocked if any wide they offer could be faster than a 2.8. Even the new Zeiss 15 is a 2.8. If it wasn't full frame, and only covered S35, I'm sure they could have shaved off a stop (think if the Standard Prime 16mm T2).

 

[Mitch Gross]

Both Canon Cine Primes and Zeiss Compact Primes cover Full Frame 35 (36x24). The one exception is the 18mm CP.2, which will slightly clip. But this is vastly larger than the forthcoming 6K image area.

 

[Dan Kanes]

I would take any 3 of these before I'd get 6 of the CP.2's, or the 3 Canon Primes:

http://www.abelcine.com/store/Cooke-PANCHRO-Six-Lens-Set/

But that's me - I'm a Kook.

 

[Dr. Sassi]

I think your question points in a direction that I have as well. My thoughts so far:

My idea is that the Canon CN glass will most likely match the color of the L glass which you like to use as well, at least probably more than the Zeiss will do.

With the Zeiss on the other hand, you get the option to change the mount later on.

The CN glass provides the lens data, which I think is certainly a plus, especially if one shoots as well for VFX movies.

Canon might continue to expand that series, but I doubt that it will be a fast development (based on the age of some L glass).

A fair comparison is maybe CN vs CP.2 "Super Speed", price wise. I haven't found any useable comparison so far.

My first lens in 1987 was a Zeiss T* and a fantastic one, but currently I shoot a lot of L glass since 5 years and I'm quite happy with it.

I'm certain that in the next two month we will see a lot of information (all kinds of quality) about these lenses. I wait and safe. ;o)


Just my two cents.

 

[Robino_J]

I would take any 3 of these before I'd get 6 of the CP.2's, or the 3 Canon Primes:

http://www.abelcine.com/store/Cooke-PANCHRO-Six-Lens-Set/

But that's me - I'm a Kook.

I wish I could do that but it would be a little over $25k for 3 lenses + $2000 for PL Mount.. Like I said at the beginning of the thread I'm trying to "build a Cine lens kit without totally breaking the bank."

Thank you for your input though.

 

[Robino_J]

I'm certain that in the next two month we will see a lot of information (all kinds of quality) about these lenses. I wait and safe. ;o)

There's currently no in depth information, tests or review on the Canon Cine lenses. (as far as I know..) I like my Canon L lenses but they are a pain to work with for narrative work that's why I am looking at stepping up from still glass mechanics. I might just get the 24mm to test if they color match the 16-35 L II zoom and to test the build / image quality.

 

[Dr. Sassi]

I certainly know what you mean by "... but they are a pain to work with for narrative". Still glass works fine as long as it is "still" during the shot ;o) -- not the idea of how to work creatively with lenses. (Edit:In other words -- a big limitation/edit) I'm curious about your decision and experience!

 

[Dan Kanes]

You will have a MUCH better experience with Manual focus stills glass with a canon mount than with any Canon brand autofocus lens. zoom or prime.

 

[Steven Wasserman]

I'd have to agree with Dan's sentiment. In my experience, if you have some older manual lenses in Canon EF (or that can be adapted) you'll have way better control than most of the autofocus lenses. Even with those you still have the issues of pulling focus. I have the CP.2s and honestly, for their price point they are great and really not that slow unless you are planning on using only existing lighting. I just recently shot some comparisons with my Canon L Series lenses and really found the most striking con against them is being able to pull focus accurately. I love my still glass and the Canon glass, but would prefer to keep them to music video or editorial work. When it comes to narrative work personally if you're going with still glass no matter how good your follow-focus adapters or 1st AC is you're gonna see way more buzzed shots. Just my two cents.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I'd have to agree with Dan's sentiment. In my experience, if you have some older manual lenses in Canon EF (or that can be adapted) you'll have way better control than most of the autofocus lenses. Even with those you still have the issues of pulling focus. I have the CP.2s and honestly, for their price point they are great and really not that slow unless you are planning on using only existing lighting. I just recently shot some comparisons with my Canon L Series lenses and really found the most striking con against them is being able to pull focus accurately. I love my still glass and the Canon glass, but would prefer to keep them to music video or editorial work. When it comes to narrative work personally if you're going with still glass no matter how good your follow-focus adapters or 1st AC is you're gonna see way more buzzed shots. Just my two cents.

+1

When I started to first finance and produce my pilots, we used DSLR's and Canon Autofocus lenses. When I got the footage back (I work primarily in post) I wanted to cry. The autofocus lenses just were INCAPABLE of doing good rack focuses of any kind. These early shoots were multi-cam w/out monitors (we were flying by the seat of our pants)....so it wasn't something I noticed on set at the time.

But in the months later, I just marveled, time and time again, and how inelegant the autofucus lenses were.

Once we started investing in high quality MANUAL FOCUS still lenses, the difference was NIGHT & DAY. Suddenly, things looked way, way better.

Of course, the CP2's take this to a whole other level, but I can tell you from experience, owning both Contax Primes and now one Standard Prime, the focus throw on the Contax's are BETTER (the Standard Prime is tiny!).

Which is to say....a set of great MANUAL STILLS GLASS like Leica R's, Zeiss ZE's, Contax Zeiss, Nikkor's, could well be an afforable mid-ground you may want to consider.

We do mostly doc-style work, with lots of interviews and b-roll, and the SMALL FOOTPRINT, GREAT LOOK, and SOLID CINEMA MECHANICS of both Leica R's and Contax Zeiss's have really turned heads.

On a bigger shoot with lots of camera movement where accurate focus markings and AC work is required...obviously we'd need to rent true PL glass (CP2, Cooke's, Supers, whatever)....but for the smaller jobs...the STILL sets were using are doing great.

My 2 cents

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

You will have a MUCH better experience with Manual focus stills glass with a canon mount than with any Canon brand autofocus lens. zoom or prime.

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.....

 

[Robino_J]

+1

When I started to first finance and produce my pilots, we used DSLR's and Canon Autofocus lenses. When I got the footage back (I work primarily in post) I wanted to cry. The autofocus lenses just were INCAPABLE of doing good rack focuses of any kind. These early shoots were multi-cam w/out monitors (we were flying by the seat of our pants)....so it wasn't something I noticed on set at the time.

But in the months later, I just marveled, time and time again, and how inelegant the autofucus lenses were.

Once we started investing in high quality MANUAL FOCUS still lenses, the difference was NIGHT & DAY. Suddenly, things looked way, way better.

Of course, the CP2's take this to a whole other level, but I can tell you from experience, owning both Contax Primes and now one Standard Prime, the focus throw on the Contax's are BETTER (the Standard Prime is tiny!).

Which is to say....a set of great MANUAL STILLS GLASS like Leica R's, Zeiss ZE's, Contax Zeiss, Nikkor's, could well be an afforable mid-ground you may want to consider.

We do mostly doc-style work, with lots of interviews and b-roll, and the SMALL FOOTPRINT, GREAT LOOK, and SOLID CINEMA MECHANICS of both Leica R's and Contax Zeiss's have really turned heads.

On a bigger shoot with lots of camera movement where accurate focus markings and AC work is required...obviously we'd need to rent true PL glass (CP2, Cooke's, Supers, whatever)....but for the smaller jobs...the STILL sets were using are doing great.

My 2 cents

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.

 

[Shane Kelly]

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, you drinking again?