Canon Cine Primes. Let's talk about it.

[Carlos Garcia]

Allright then. I know there are a few threads that sort of discuss them, but not extensively. (including an awersome test that I now cannot find), but now that these are out and in stock, i would love to hear from all your experience (if any) and knowledge! What i gather so far:

-Little CA, nice contrast, great looking L ish bokeh.

If we add to the mix the fact that they cover FF and are still super fast... i say they are a pretty damn good option at their price point! Also, it seems to me like they clearly exceed their closest competition (cp2), even though at a slight higher price.

Of course sucks the fact that theres only 3 so far, but i would think that will change...

Any opinions or feedback much appreciated!

 

[Phil Holland]

Here is what I know. I was able to test out the Canon CN-E 24mm T1.5L and 50mm T1.3L in production form (unfortunately not on my Scarlet), but I liked what I saw for the price point. I would purchase these over the CP.2s IMO. The 85mm T1.3 I used was still in prototype form and suffered image shift, which I expressed to the Canon folk months ago. I don't know if it's been addressed in the final design yet.

On the way are a 14mm T3.1L and 135mm T2.2L and that's been officially announced. I believe they will be updated the 35mm f/1.4L glass soon, which could also mean a 35mm T1.5L or maybe a T1.3L if they go faster in the future.

Personally I'd like to see them flesh the rest of this out with a newly designed 18mm. I would also like specialty glass in the form of the 100mm f/2.8 macro and perhaps one or two telephoto-super telelphoto cinema lenses as well.

Sadly, I own most of this glass in it's EF non cinema form. However, not sadly, these all work just fine on my Scarlet.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

Here is what I know. I was able to test out the Canon CN-E 24mm T1.5L and 50mm T1.3L in production form (unfortunately not on my Scarlet), but I liked what I saw for the price point. I would purchase these over the CP.2s IMO. The 85mm T1.3 I used was still in prototype form and suffered image shift, which I expressed to the Canon folk months ago. I don't know if it's been addressed in the final design yet.

On the way are a 14mm T3.1L and 135mm T2.2L and that's been officially announced. I believe they will be updated the 35mm f/1.4L glass soon, which could also mean a 35mm T1.5L or maybe a T1.3L if they go faster in the future.

Personally I'd like to see them flesh the rest of this out with a newly designed 18mm. I would also like specialty glass in the form of the 100mm f/2.8 macro and perhaps one or two telephoto-super telelphoto cinema lenses as well.

Sadly, I own most of this glass in it's EF non cinema form. However, not sadly, these all work just fine on my Scarlet.

Great, thanks for the input Phil. I am also curious as if there was any degree of noticeable softness on the 24? For my experience with cp2, the 21mm (still a bit wider) was considerably softer to a degree that I found troubling...

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

I just hope that they round out the set with the 35mm and come out with them all in a pl mount.

 

[Matt Ryan]

The thing I find most annoying with these "budget" cine prime sets is the inconsistent t stops throughout the range. I think whoever can make a full set from 18-100 with the same t stops will get the most business. I hate that the 14mm will be a t3.1 and the 135 a t2.2...That means for consistency you would need to shoot at a t3.1 to mix between lenses in a scene (Obviously if you need a wide angle on the 14mm, if not then you can expose for your slowest lens necessary). That's disappointing to me. I appreciate that they are giving us more options, but the mixed t stops throughout a set is ridiculous. CP.2's suffer in the same way...

I also would be weary buying into a set of lenses not knowing what future lenses will be added to complete the set. But thats just my opinion. I'm sure the glass itself is great...

 

[Peter Mosiman]

The thing I find most annoying with these "budget" cine prime sets is the inconsistent t stops throughout the range. I think whoever can make a full set from 18-100 with the same t stops will get the most business. I hate that the 14mm will be a t3.1 and the 135 a t2.2...That means for consistency you would need to shoot at a t3.1 to mix between lenses in a scene (Obviously if you need a wide angle on the 14mm, if not then you can expose for your slowest lens necessary). That's disappointing to me. I appreciate that they are giving us more options, but the mixed t stops throughout a set is ridiculous. CP.2's suffer in the same way...

I also would be weary buying into a set of lenses not knowing what future lenses will be added to complete the set. But thats just my opinion. I'm sure the glass itself is great...

You voice my opinions and concerns no better or clearer than I could myself.

 

[Eric Z]

Matt / Peter,
I guess Master Primes are the best choice. Beautiful set, with matching T-stops.
Cost roughly the same as those Canon Cine lenses.

 

[Matt Ryan]

Matt / Peter,
I guess Master Primes are the best choice. Beautiful set, with matching T-stops.
Cost roughly the same as those Canon Cine lenses.

There are Super Speeds, RPP's, Schneider Xenar, Optica Elites, Illuminas, and Cooke Pancros that have matching t stops throughout the set and are more affordable.... Just to name some. All of which are S35 lenses.

I think your not understanding the post. All I'm saying is we need a company to make a "budget" set with matching t- stops. I'm looking forward to see the entire line of the new CP.2 Super Speeds but have a feeling the wide end and the telephoto end will suffer with a slower t stop. Even Rokinon is offering t1.5 cine lenses for under $1,000 each (we don't have a full set available yet, but just making a point). Sure it isn't high quality glass, but it proves it can be done by the larger companies like Zeiss, Canon, and Cooke. So there are options out there. We need a new lens company to shake up the market like RED did for the Film/Camera industry.

 

[Phil Holland]

I wouldn't say it's that bleak, but it is uncharted territory when it comes to the lower tear cinema glass. I'm with Matt and I'd kill for baseline T stop to assist with standard shooting situations.

Used Red Pro Primes and Super Speeds are out there. New Illuminas or Elites are out there too that fit the bill for S35 and slightly larger coverage. I lot of people are getting more concerned with the future of larger sensor systems and want to invest in glass that covers all their bases, especially with Dragon on the horizon. We've seen a slew of new glass from Canon, Zeiss, and Rokinon with full frame sensors in mind. I strongly feel the reason we've seen a few K35 sets up for sale is due to the trend of lower cost modern full frame optics coming into the cinema market. It's just a matter of time before we see what we all consider proper cinema glass with that covers these larger formats.

For me personally I own a ton of FF35 glass and rent PL when needed. Mostly because my business plan doesn't fit for six figure glass just yet. I loathe some of their properties and love others.

Great, thanks for the input Phil. I am also curious as if there was any degree of noticeable softness on the 24? For my experience with cp2, the 21mm (still a bit wider) was considerably softer to a degree that I found troubling...

I wasn't really able to do what I would like to in terms of resolving tests and I was looking at a 1080p picture. What I saw and what I felt wasn't too different from the current 24mm f/1.4L that I'm using quite often. It seemed to have a slightly different level on contrast, but I would need to do a side by side for sure.

I've used the 21mm 2.8 Zeiss and didn't find it very soft. I wonder if it was your copy?

 

[Phil Holland]

Matt you and were typing at the same time. No fair.

 

[Matt Ryan]

Matt you and were typing at the same time. No fair.

haha lets call it a tie

 

[Carlos Garcia]

There are Super Speeds, RPP's, Schneider Xenar, Optica Elites, Illuminas, and Cooke Pancros that have matching t stops throughout the set and are more affordable.... Just to name some. All of which are S35 lenses.

I think your not understanding the post. All I'm saying is we need a company to make a "budget" set with matching t- stops. I'm looking forward to see the entire line of the new CP.2 Super Speeds but have a feeling the wide end and the telephoto end will suffer with a slower t stop. Even Rokinon is offering t1.5 cine lenses for under $1,000 each (we don't have a full set available yet, but just making a point). Sure it isn't high quality glass, but it proves it can be done by the larger companies like Zeiss, Canon, and Cooke. So there are options out there. We need a new lens company to shake up the market like RED did for the Film/Camera industry.

Hey Matt, as usual, agreed here. However, that is precisely what gets me excited about these canons: they have managed to go down to 24 at t1.5, just like Rokinon. I am pretty sure the 35mm (if it comes, which i trust it will damn it) will also be roughly t1.4. So there we would have a matching set, of course I doubt there will be a true super wide matching it... for that stuff you do have to take it one step higher int terms of pricing, (not sure anyone will be able to produce super wides at a low price range that are that fast).

Now, what I am trying to determine here, is weather these lenses are indeed superior to the CP2, especially
-they control CA better
-Nice contrast
-Sharp at widest position (the 24mm for now)

Phil, i have experienced that "softness" in more than one occasion....maybe i was unlucky a few times? I also remember the ZE still 18mm 3.5 being absolutelly crazy in terms of lack of sharpness...

 

[Peter Moretti]

The thing I find most annoying with these "budget" cine prime sets is the inconsistent t stops throughout the range. I think whoever can make a full set from 18-100 with the same t stops will get the most business. I hate that the 14mm will be a t3.1 and the 135 a t2.2...That means for consistency you would need to shoot at a t3.1 to mix between lenses in a scene (Obviously if you need a wide angle on the 14mm, if not then you can expose for your slowest lens necessary). That's disappointing to me. I appreciate that they are giving us more options, but the mixed t stops throughout a set is ridiculous. CP.2's suffer in the same way...

Matt,

I'm not sure that I follow you. 135mm and 14mm have such wildly different DoF characteristics, that I don't see why you care so much about matching the stops?

 

[Carlos Garcia]

Matt,

I'm not sure that I follow you. 135mm and 14mm have such wildly different DoF characteristics, that I don't see why you care so much about matching the stops?

Well I would think in the sense that, if you are lighting a scene in which you foresee using the 14mm, you ideally would light for that minimum f stop, thus making the whole super speed, low light characteristics of most of the set not as useful.

But hey, I will deal with that if these canons show improvement in image quality from the cp2

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Matt,

I'm not sure that I follow you. 135mm and 14mm have such wildly different DoF characteristics, that I don't see why you care so much about matching the stops?

It's not to match DoF qualities... it's for exposure reasons. If he lights to a T/2 for the T/1.5 lenses, he won't be able to use the 14mm. So he will always have to light to the slowest lens to be used in the scene.

 

[Matt Ryan]

Well I would think in the sense that, if you are lighting a scene in which you foresee using the 14mm, you ideally would light for that minimum f stop, thus making the whole super speed, low light characteristics of most of the set not as useful.

But hey, I will deal with that if these canons show improvement in image quality from the cp2

That sums it up pretty well.

Explain to me why you would want a mixed t stop set? It's impractical if you plan on covering a scene with multiple focal lengths. DOF isn't the issue, most every scene (not all) start off with a wide establishing shot. Most of the time a 24mm isn't wide enough, so now I have to expose every other lens in the scene to a 3.1 to keep the exposure consistent. Or if I have lit my scene to a t2, now I can't use the 14mm lens...

I just think if Zeiss created the Super Speeds 30 years ago, then both Canon and Zeiss could create a 14 or/16 or/18mm lens at a t1.5.

 

[Matt Ryan]

It's not to match DoF qualities... it's for exposure reasons. If he lights to a T/2 for the T/1.5 lenses, he won't be able to use the 14mm. So he will always have to light to the slowest lens to be used in the scene.

Nailed it.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Carlos, yes you're stuck at 3.1 instead of 2.2 on the wide end. But can't you still shoot the 135mm at 2.2 and alter the ISO or use some ND if need be?

 

[Matt Ryan]

Carlos, yes you're stuck at 3.1 instead of 2.2 on the wide end. But can't you still shoot the 135mm at 2.2 and alter the ISO or use some ND if need be?

If you change ISO you are affecting the dynamic range of the scene. You are also losing exposure consistency, increasing noise, moving mid grey, etc. That also proves that if that is the case, why do you need fast lenses (If your going to shoot at a t2.2 and use ND on the others)? That's why I am frustrated that they offer these really fast lenses in a set that has two slower lenses. It kind of defeats the purpose.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

Carlos, yes you're stuck at 3.1 instead of 2.2 on the wide end. But can't you still shoot the 135mm at 2.2 and alter the ISO or use some ND if need be?

Oh yeah, for sure. I guess (at least to me) the biggest pain in the ass is that now you are lighting a scene to a T3, aka you will need more light that if you were lighting to a 1.4. Obviously t3 with a native ISO of 800 is not the end of the world, but when you are shooting out in the streets, or inside a church and you have a china ball, haha, well, that's when you really would like to use the 1.4.

It has been said, and i think most of us agree a 1.4 is not even a desirable stop to begin with in a lot of situations due to its ridiculous shallowness (also lens doesn't perform as well, etc), BUT having the option of going to it in extreme cases... well, it is nice, it is the whole point why manufacturers make 1.4 lenses.

What sucks even more about it is that your wide setups are the ones that need more light to begin with (you are seeing the whole room), and is typically where lenses leave you hanging with slower f stops. So it is double trouble. In my case, unfortunately at times I am stuck in a situation where my wide shot needs extra help from ISO, which it is not ideal, but depending on the shoot is not the end of the world either.