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 :)

Canon CN Primes vs the new Zeiss Superspeeds

Tom Gleeson said:
I can understand the frustration at the extraordinary prices on a Cine Primes. I recently bought a brand new 180kg 105 horsepower Truimph motorcycle for less than a cost of a single Ultraprime lens. While I do not doubt a market remains for no compromise cine glass their high cost can alienate cinematographers who are buying ever cheaper cameras and dealing with shrinking budgets. Still lenses are a compromise a step too far but for most but these "budget" cine entries should be welcome.

I wonder if the cat among the pigeons is not the Optitron? If this can deliver smooth repeatable focus pulls as promised the largest impediment to still lens use is gone although I would not expect to see an Optitron working at the top end of town anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think the cat among the pigeons are the various "mote's" which are arriving on the market. The Redrock Micro Remote automatically remaps all lenses to 270 degrees. The new offering from Lockcircle will do 240 degrees. So while the Optiton is optimized for electronic lenses (with aperture control), the others are optimized for manual still lenses. The only bugaboo is the need for more wires and power. It's not going to be long before everyone incuding the Chinese will be offering budget versions of this.
 
Phil Holland said:
Some would say what Rokinon, Canon, and Zeiss have done with their cinema primes is rather revolutionary in terms of price. Gotta hand it to Zeiss for making those CP.2s. So surprised it took and has taken more to follow.
Click to expand...

That's like being excited that Sony priced the F65 at "only" $90k. CP's are the same lenses with gears added and a longer focus throw. Maybe the 10-bladed iris is more expensive, but that's probably about it. And these new "superspeeds" that are double-dips of the same lenses just without the matte that artificially limits aperture? Come ON.
 
Tom Gleeson said:
I wonder if the cat among the pigeons is not the Optitron? If this can deliver smooth repeatable focus pulls as promised the largest impediment to still lens use is gone although I would not expect to see an Optitron working at the top end of town anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Thank you Tom-I like the analogy :)
This is my train of thought as well.... some top cats in town are considering the OptiTron now for their work.
It's not about the money for them - it's about the keeping the rig small and simple. So they can be ultra mobile with their setups. this is all the rave in town these days. And the stereo setups of course.
And this is just the very beginning.
Unfortunately the Prime Circle and similar devices are not going to cut it.
They are severely crippled by the Canon SDK and nowhere near the precision needed for pro work. Aside of their Canon only application.
Redmote Pro could be the answer but it seems that it's tied to the Meizler module these days. But what do I know...
 
Hi Ryan,

Thanks for the long and informative post. Curious to see if you have tried the OptiTron and if this helps stills overcome the mechanical limitations of still glass when it comes to focus pulling? Are there other issues with still glass that the Optitron does not correct? A while back someone posted a issue with still glass do to the mechanics of the glass. They had video and it had jitter in it. I don't recall exactly why, but something to do with the quality of the motors I think. If the Optitron can take Canon still glass and make it behave, this would be a great option for use low budget guys who also want to stay light and portable. The still L glass is one third the cost as the new Canon cinema lenses, so one lens and the cost of the Optitron equals one Canon cine lens, after that it is all savings.

Thanks

Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Accuracy and Reliability:

If I were pulling focus on a union feature film, with a 100 million dollar budget, and it was a 75mm T/2 'push-in' on Leonardo DiCaprio performing one of the most emotional performances of his career, I'd never consider risking the shot because my good photography lens has a short, inaccurately marked focus throw... or the metal/plastic lens body flexes from the torque of the preston, or this, or that, or any other reason. There is too much money being spent at that moment to save such a small amount (in relation to budget) of money. Accuracy and reliability, can make a production move faster. The focus puller will make less mistakes with accurate and well mapped lenses. Less mistakes ='s less takes for camera. Less takes means moving on. Lens changes will very likely take less time than with photography lenses, and if working primes, that can add up over a course of the day. And as I've established, every production of any budget is spending money every minute. The more that number is, the more necessary the non-optical advantages of cine lenses are.

The poster suggested elongating the focus throw does not add to price. Well if he only knew what went into this procedure for cine-lenses. Did he know that Cooke makes each lens first (by hand) and after it is built, a computer checks every lens's critical focus throughout the range and when finished, the barrel is custom engraved with the computer data, exclusively to match that particular lens for complete accuracy? Also, the focus mechanism Cooke uses is a cam-style movement, not threaded lens barrels. This allows for a better mapped focus scale, not just a longer one. Also, because they are not threaded, Cooke's focus cams do not need lubrication such as grease and provide a smoother movement. Made from machined anodized aluminum they are built to operate from -13° to 131° Fahrenheit!

And we have not even talked about optical advantages...

These cine lenses use the best optical glass, which is not cheap... and likely won't become cheaper as technology tends to do with Moore's Law. It's like diamonds, or gasoline... And to reach a certain level of quality, cine lenses often resort to the advantages of having larger elements. However, larger elements simply means every element requires a larger block of optical glass. More optical glass = more money. So that's another reason they cost more. They are using not only high quality optical glass, but much more of it... and in many instances, at tighter QC.

Optical advantages:

Photography lenses can optically be quite nice. I love ZF's, Leica M's, etc. However, Master Primes at T/1.4 will beat the pants off almost any photography T/1.4 lens when you take the entire image into consideration. CA, even field illumination, color matching, breathing, distortion, etc. Especially on the wides. The Leica Summilux C-'s are exceptionally consistent and sharp from edge to edge... almost freakishly so. They aren't the sharpest lenses, MP's and UP's are more, but their edge to center difference is hardly anything. That is rare.

I guess my point is that Cine-lenses also are expensive on behalf of the fact they are optically and mechanically streamlined for cinema use.

I'm also not quite sure what the poster meant when he said 'only' have to cover S35mm... as if this was an easy feat or laziness in design. haha. First of all, S35mm is a pretty big chip. Not as big as FF photography, but it is quite a big format and is complicated as hell compared to smaller sensors. Ever see the quality of some high quality S16mm glass? It's absolutely amazing. Those lenses are so sharp, fast, and small, because 16mm is 1/4th the surface area of S35mm!

FF photography lenses can be marvelous, and are amazing for photography, since photography requires different sets of demands than cine. However, I've seen almost every fast photography lens wide open fail cine-lens standards when covering FF, and many even failing APS-C size, in terms of even field illumination, sharpness and etc. I'm not saying they are bad lenses, I am saying photography lenses don't typically perform better at S35mm than cine-lenses do, despite how big their image circle is.

Perhaps there is a reason a typical MasterPrime T/1.4 is a 114mm front, 5-6lbs, and 8" long, where the Canon 50mm F/1.2 is 3.9" long and 1.3lbs. Surely there is a reason? It's probably because the MP at T/1.4 would kick the Canon's ass at optical and mechanical performance?


If you want to know why Cinema lenses are so expensive:

1) Their complicated mechanical designs typically work within very specific requirements photography lenses don't have to follow. For instance, all optical realignment during focusing and zooming must be done internally. No barrel extension, rotation or other movement and at the same time, negate breathing as best they can. Also, lenses must be parafocal. Focus must not shift while zooming. Cine lenses are typically attempted to be as similar in size, length, front diameter, and weight. They are almost always the same maximum aperture. All have same iris assemblies for bokeh consistency. They have focus and iris gears at the same position on the barrel. They have matched lens coatings and colorimetry. They have matched focus rotation degree throws.

2) On top of those mechanical goals, they must achieve top level optical performance! This might show the additional complications that photography lenses don't have or concern themselves with.

Note: If I were to argue the original point where it was said that there are few "constraints on size and weight" you must have meant on minimum constraints, because cine-lenses are much more uniform across a series than photography lenses.

3) The materials, such as the optical quality glass, sophisticated lens coatings, and the other mechanical parts are all of the highest quality and precision. Not to mention some cinema lenses use quite a bit of optical glass! :)
An interesting fact, the Cooke lens coatings are silicon and titanium hardened with magnesium fluoride. According to Jon Fauer's Cooke article, it is one nano-meter thick. "Your whiskers will grow longer than that in one second after the swipe of your razor."​

4) For each and every lens individually, the elements are ground and the lens is assembled under the watchful eye and talented handling of very specialized and skilled technicians from England, France, Germany and Japan. (Developed countries) Each lens is tested again and again for the highest quality control. Only the best lenses, when performing at top QC, make it out alive. Also, these workshops are much smaller in size and volume than whatever factory pushes out Canon L series in batches.

So there you have it... what do you get when you make an immensely advanced optical and mechanical product in small numbers, by hand, using the best materials in the world, by skilled and talented technicians from 1st world nations?

Really nice and damn expensive lenses.


Merry Christmas



Check this out if you are hungry for more.


I have written an article about the need of Cinema lenses and you might find it rather informative. Consider this the companion document to this response:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...inema-Lenses&p=2520617&viewfull=1#post2520617
This article was recently translated into Portuguese and is currently on the home page of Brazil's ABC, their Association of Brazilian Cinematographers.
Click to expand...
 
Brian Pascale said:
Hi Ryan,

Thanks for the long and informative post. Curious to see if you have tried the OptiTron and if this helps stills overcome the mechanical limitations of still glass when it comes to focus pulling? Are there other issues with still glass that the Optitron does not correct? A while back someone posted a issue with still glass do to the mechanics of the glass. They had video and it had jitter in it. I don't recall exactly why, but something to do with the quality of the motors I think. If the Optitron can take Canon still glass and make it behave, this would be a great option for use low budget guys who also want to stay light and portable. The still L glass is one third the cost as the new Canon cinema lenses, so one lens and the cost of the Optitron equals one Canon cine lens, after that it is all savings.

Thanks
Click to expand...

I can't comment on the OptiTron product, as I have not used it. If it works as it is advertised, it could prove to be very helpful to those who use stills glass. From my understanding of what it does, it is my strong opinion that it does not close the cine-lens/photography lens gap as much as many are hoping, yet it should prove to be a great help to those who must pull focus with stills glass. I don't use stills glass often, and when I do, I'm usually run and gun operating with my hand on the focus barrel, so I don't think I'll be in need of this product, but considering there are many owner/operator shooters out there who do lots of video work with still glass, they may find it rather helpful.

In my professional circle, we would see a product like this as a great tool for people who use SLR lenses for whatever reason... affordability, preference, etc. However, I'd never view it as a reason to not go cine-lenses. If there is money for proper lenses, I'd just as soon use them and not look back. But if you can't go cine-lens or for whatever reason don't want to, this is a great tool to make something that works ok, work better (for AC's).

So yes, it's seems to be a great option for low budget productions who can't afford cine-lenses. But it does not magically make stills glass into cine-glass. Just greatly improves the stills glass focus experience. Where can I find out more about this unit? I'd like to see it's advertised features in detail and try to provide further insight to answer your question.

I didn't want to hijack this thread, which is not about OptiTron nor is it about Cine-glass versus Stills glass. I just couldn't let a comment like that (the poster my long response was to) drift by without being addressed. Ya know?

Now if we could go back to Canon CN primes and Zeiss Superspeeds.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
I think the real reason for people to make strange comments like the one above is because they don't fully recognize that cine lenses should ONLY be used on cine-style productions. Master Primes, with their lofty price tag, don't exist to simply taunt every camera owner on Earth. They aren't made for on-the-go documentary style shooting, weddings, event videography, and are typically overkill for sit-down interviews and etc. I get a huge feeling that all many videographer shooters feel as if they need to get cine-lenses, when they hardly do cine-work or can fully find the benefit to these lenses! Then, when these lenses are out of their budget, they feel resentful against them. Cine-lenses are only the best lenses for particular cine use.
Click to expand...

Fabulous point Ryan, and very well said. I am huge stills lens apologist, but I also never use them for cine use. We do mostly sit down interviews and documentary type b-roll...where the variety and small size of modded stills lenses is actually an advantage. In two Pelican 1510 cases, we can have every focal length from 16mm to 500mm. Perfect.

Would we consider pulling focus on Leo DiCaprio on a feature, on a $100,000 shot with these? NO. That would be crazy. If you have the budget and have the need, then obviously cine-lenses are by FAR the better choice.

We are in an age now where there are exponentially more shooters, shoots, and productions. Look at all our content platforms: 100's of Cable channels, the internet, etc. There are 10's of thousands of people who call themselves "DP's" now, where 30 years ago...it was a much more selective business. Think back to the 70's. A couple of broadcast networks on TV, and movies. That's it. It was a smaller business, more select, and the tools (and budgets) were probably always better.

Now we're in an EXPLODING business. There is such a massive need for lenses, and such a diversity of projects (weddings, corporate, min-docs, web, cable, etc) that it makes sense that stills lenses fill the need for 80-90% of these smaller jobs. And so they should. There aren't enough high end optics to go around, and most of these smaller jobs can't afford them anyway.

Every job requires a certain set of tools. Your analogy of the race car is perfect. You don't need a Formula 1 Ferrari to take your kids to the Mall. And sometimes an all purpose utility vehicle is much better than a Lamborghini. We all need to target our needs, and figure out what tools best suite OUR needs.

Happy Holidays.
 
My biggest issue with units like the optitron and motes are that they require additional power, extra cables and often have poor mounting options. When I am using still lenses and want to go light, it is a pain with all this stuff. On a dslr it is even more of a problem. Sure I love the idea of a 300 degree throw, but show me the mounting option on a rig for the Optitron. Seems like it's going to be cumbersome and not very ergonomic to say the least...
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Virtually a religion. Hahaha!

Thanks for posting! Nice to be on topic.
Click to expand...

With anything it always a personal preference. The right tool for the job vs cost vs returns. Mark Toaia done some brilliant work with L Series glass. So it also matter who's using these tools.
 
Finally we have test still frames from our Canon and Zeiss Lens tests up on the ACS Website so enjoy


Go to the ACS website at http://www.cinematographer.org.au then click on "news" you will find a write up and a further link to HI Res images from the test.

The video review is still at https://vimeo.com/55985070


Tom Gleeson ACS Technical Committee
 
After taking a peek at the full size .jpgs, I'm quite impressed with the look of the new Canon primes vs the Zeiss CP.2's. Looks like the Zeiss only edge over the Canon's in wide open color rendition, but as for CA and Bokeh performance, they're way to close to call for there to be any serious judgement. Canon 85mm sharpness destroys the Zeiss at wider apertures... quite shocking actually as I thought it would totally be the other way around.

The most exciting test is how the UP's are almost indescernable to the non-pixel peeping eye between the Canon's and the CP.2's in some of the photos... that's pretty insane.

Thank you for your tests Tom!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top