First CP.3 lens for Scarlet-W

[paulcurtis]

This is worrisome as i was looking forward to seeing these but this is just one set of CP3 and could have been damaged. So more tests the better. Also different lenses can perform on different cameras differently - so there's always the chance something else is at play.

These aren't cheap DSR lenses either, i have a zeiss contax set which i'm happy with and also Leica M lenses too (which perform better, so size isn't an indication)

Brent, i look forward to your comparison.

Thai, so what are your next thoughts on lenses?

cheers
Paul

 

[Thai Christen]

Thai, so what are your next thoughts on lenses?

cheers
Paul

If you are like me and set a budget of roughly 20K +/-, there are not many choices really.
So for the moment I just stick with my beloved Leica-Rs. For midsize budget projects where client hires me as DP or drone operator incl. my gear, Leica-Rs are fine.
And with the recent acquisition of Leica-M mount, I have access to all my superb Leica-M and Zeiss ZM lenses. These are great for portability, travelling and handheld shootings stills and motion. And when operating drone at very high altitude of 13'000 feet above sea level and more. More flight time, faster flight speed etc.

For higher end projects, most of the gear are rented by production company anyway, so no need for me to invest into expensive lenses.

However, I am very keen on how the Atlas Orion will turn out. Especially the 40mm. If they performe as expected, they might end up on my shopping list.

Cheers,
Thai

 

[Brent G Miller Jr]

So I was briefly playing with the 50mm Sigma Cine and 50mm Zeiss CP.3 as they both showed up from the rental house. Just with a quick and dirty test I could definitely tell that the Sigma at T2.1 displayed far less CA than the Zeiss CP.3 did at T2.1. Tomorrow night I'll be doing a more proper real world test with Zeiss ZF f1.4 vs Zeiss CP.3 vs Sigma Cine Prime. I'll get some stills to post later.

 

[paulcurtis]

If you are like me and set a budget of roughly 20K +/-, there are not many choices really.
So for the moment I just stick with my beloved Leica-Rs. For midsize budget projects where client hires me as DP or drone operator incl. my gear, Leica-Rs are fine.
And with the recent acquisition of Leica-M mount, I have access to all my superb Leica-M and Zeiss ZM lenses. These are great for portability, travelling and handheld shootings stills and motion. And when operating drone at very high altitude of 13'000 feet above sea level and more. More flight time, faster flight speed etc.

For higher end projects, most of the gear are rented by production company anyway, so no need for me to invest into expensive lenses.

However, I am very keen on how the Atlas Orion will turn out. Especially the 40mm. If they performe as expected, they might end up on my shopping list.

Cheers,
Thai

I like my Contax Zeiss set, it's all about size/weight/performance in my case.

I really am trying with an M mount set but aside from issues with wider lenses and the rear element hitting the OLPF there's also the ergonomic issue of pulling focus off them because they're so small. Sometimes i would handhold, so right hand has a wooden handle on the right side and left hand is supporting under the body at the front and then fingers reach for the barrel. But the M lenses, might just be a little too small for that! Also the minimum focus distance is usually quite a bit smaller too. On my A7sII i can use a helicoid adaptor to fix that but can't on the Red.

The CP3s seemed an ideal target and also because of the meta data as well. I do a lot of VFX work and that data is the future...

So these tests are invaluable. If you're going to throw £4k at a lens it had better perform. I mean that Contax Zeiss lenses can be excellent at times and focus travel is pretty good (even if it's not spaced out as well as a proper lens)

cheers
Paul

 

[paulcurtis]

So I was briefly playing with the 50mm Sigma Cine and 50mm Zeiss CP.3 as they both showed up from the rental house. Just with a quick and dirty test I could definitely tell that the Sigma at T2.1 displayed far less CA than the Zeiss CP.3 did at T2.1. Tomorrow night I'll be doing a more proper real world test with Zeiss ZF f1.4 vs Zeiss CP.3 vs Sigma Cine Prime. I'll get some stills to post later.

Looking forward to that. The 50's in my experience are always trouble so it's a great test.

thanks
Paul

 

[Cody Hurd]

We were thinking about putting these in our rental department in Seattle... No good? You are the exact type of person that I would want feedback from! Why don't you like them?

 

[Thai Christen]

there's also the ergonomic issue of pulling focus off them because they're so small. Sometimes i would handhold, so right hand has a wooden handle on the right side and left hand is supporting under the body at the front and then fingers reach for the barrel. But the M lenses, might just be a little too small for that!

cheers
Paul

Unless you have the right technique
Left hand ring finger or little finger to press rec in still mode. For motion, right hand thumb for rec.
Reminds me like my old days shooting Hasselblad V

 

[William Long]

I like my Contax Zeiss set, it's all about size/weight/performance in my case.
cheers
Paul

+1 on CONTAX! But depends on application.

 

[Oron Cohen]

I wonder how CA of contax will compare to CP3? Anyone?

 

[paulcurtis]

Unless you have the right technique
Left hand ring finger or little finger to press rec in still mode. For motion, right hand thumb for rec.
Reminds me like my old days shooting Hasselblad V

Okay, i'm experimenting later... Will try some approaches out

cheers!
Paul

 

[paulcurtis]

I wonder how CA of contax will compare to CP3? Anyone?

When i was deciding whether to go full down the contax route i did also buy a 50 ZE and a 50 Milvus and did comparisons between them and a number of Contax 50s.

I found the Contax to be warmer than the ZE and also the CA, well the purple fringing, to be better. The ZE was a bit sharper. The Milvus was better still but it was more than twice the weight and i just didn't see the improvement to justify that.

I really don't know what is it with modern lens design. I think they're just correcting to the n'th degree based on CAD tests.

My voightlander 50mm f1.5 blows all the above out of the water and is even lighter.

The CP3 i am still really interested in, not just meta data but hoping that there was a sweet spot between design and weight.

cheers
Paul

 

[Nikhil Kamkolkar]

I'd be really bummed if the CP .3 issues really are unfixable design flaws.

 

[Oron Cohen]

When i was deciding whether to go full down the contax route i did also buy a 50 ZE and a 50 Milvus and did comparisons between them and a number of Contax 50s.

I found the Contax to be warmer than the ZE and also the CA, well the purple fringing, to be better. The ZE was a bit sharper. The Milvus was better still but it was more than twice the weight and i just didn't see the improvement to justify that.

I really don't know what is it with modern lens design. I think they're just correcting to the n'th degree based on CAD tests.

My voightlander 50mm f1.5 blows all the above out of the water and is even lighter.

The CP3 i am still really interested in, not just meta data but hoping that there was a sweet spot between design and weight.

cheers
Paul

Thanks for info Paul!

From my experience with all vintage glass, they could be a bit fragile, I had Cooke SII and Contax and other old lenses go out of tune, aperture stopped working, focus rotation isn't good, all sorts of things.
also, I actually like the larger size of the Milvus, but for the life of me I don't understand why Zeiss are insisting to offer the clickless aperture feature only on the Nikon version? What's the big issue with making the Canon version also have full manual aperture?

Now I wonder how the Milvus compare to the CP.3?? is it the same glass or are they using the older ZF designs (still?!)on the CP3?

 

[Emilian Dechev]

Sadly, after I made an enquiry on the topic to CVP, their technical rep confirmed, that the CP.3 are soft under f/4 and do exhibit nasty CA. I hope Zeiss shines in with some explanation like "aаah maybe we had just several bad sets but you may gamble with your 20K usd now"

 

[paulcurtis]

Sadly, after I made an enquiry on the topic to CVP, their technical rep confirmed, that the CP.3 are soft under f/4 and do exhibit nasty CA. I hope Zeiss shines in with some explanation like "aаah maybe we had just several bad sets but you may gamble with your 20K usd now"

That's quite a statement from a major retailer.

It's true that i've not seen many reviews of the CP.3 but we all understand them to be based on milvus, and so 'wide open' depends on the lens. All 50s tend to be soft wide open with the exception of Otus and later generations which have a lot more corrections in. The Milvus 50 is a later generation but the one thing that zeiss don't really correct for is the magenta fringing and also magenta/green as things go out of focus. They trade sharpness for that and that's a choice.

The inter webs are full of side by sides.

You need something the size of an Otus to really correct, and also make it APO (which helps the loca style magenta/green fringing).

However it is also true to say that the glass isn't *that* different from ZE either, some optical designs are the same. And in turn they can be quite different from contax, and in my experience the contax tends to be softer but less aberrations.

cheers
Paul

 

[Matt Bai]

That's quite a statement from a major retailer.

It's true that i've not seen many reviews of the CP.3 but we all understand them to be based on milvus, and so 'wide open' depends on the lens. All 50s tend to be soft wide open with the exception of Otus and later generations which have a lot more corrections in. The Milvus 50 is a later generation but the one thing that zeiss don't really correct for is the magenta fringing and also magenta/green as things go out of focus. They trade sharpness for that and that's a choice.

The inter webs are full of side by sides.

You need something the size of an Otus to really correct, and also make it APO (which helps the loca style magenta/green fringing).

However it is also true to say that the glass isn't *that* different from ZE either, some optical designs are the same. And in turn they can be quite different from contax, and in my experience the contax tends to be softer but less aberrations.

cheers
Paul

I did a blind test on Epic-W and Scarlet-W, otus and milvus. There was no comparison. Purple fringe on milvus to say the least.

 

[Ben Scott]

Yep I would say my Otus 55mm, which I've now decided not to sell, is worlds apart from any other 50mm I've tried. I know it's expensive compared to the rest but it is essentially flawless. It definitely feels like it is as good as the price tag suggests.

 

[Subrata Sen]

Thanks for info Paul!

From my experience with all vintage glass, they could be a bit fragile, I had Cooke SII and Contax and other old lenses go out of tune, aperture stopped working, focus rotation isn't good, all sorts of things.
also, I actually like the larger size of the Milvus, but for the life of me I don't understand why Zeiss are insisting to offer the clickless aperture feature only on the Nikon version? What's the big issue with making the Canon version also have full manual aperture?

Now I wonder how the Milvus compare to the CP.3?? is it the same glass or are they using the older ZF designs (still?!)on the CP3?

+1
Zeiss should be having a clickless manual aperture version for their Canon lenses too.

 

[Rikki Rockett]

I have a Sigma 50mm and an 80mm. Really like them so far!

 

[Rui Guerra]

I have a Sigma 50mm and an 80mm. Really like them so far!

Cine glass, right? Sigma is now producing some interesting cine lenses. I wonder how they compare to CP2 or CP3...?