First Look - Schneider Xenon FF-Prime Lenses

[Clayton Burkhart]

Phil,
With all due respect, with over 25years in cine lens environment, half or more of it on the manufacturing level I have a pretty good idea what can or can't be done.
If Schneider can't get even illumination with this size primes on FF they should change the designer.
BTW I think they can and they will. The Xenars- they should cut their losses. God only knows how many millions they dumped into these with very little sales to show for...

Totally disagree.
I have seen both the Mark II's and the Mark III's on the bench and tried them in the field and thus far everything I have seen from from the Xenon's doesn't compare. (Granted wish I had seen more, but then again I am not sure you have either).
Further, if there ever were a set of lenses that fall into the sweet spot between Cooke's and Zeiss, these are it.
Their price point at a full stop faster and as mechanically sound as the mini primes from Cooke seems understandable.

However, if you want to push to get that same level of quality at two fifth's the current cost, feel free. I won't be the one to stop you.

 

[Phil Holland]

Oh, please don't misunderstand. I'm hugely in favor of investing in glass. And having that be good, sharp, fast, durable, matched, mechanically accurate glass. On paper, the Xenar III's seem "worth it." But then I see the Xenon's (again, on paper) and they seem to have the same features, if not more, and are half the cost.

In which case, I'm with Jacek on this: if you could wait a year for the whole line to be out, and are buying only one set of primes, there isn't really a reason to go with the Xenar III's. Assuming the look achieved is equivalent.

If, however, you were to tell me that the Bokeh is better, or the falloff, or the contrast, or the resolving power, or the mechanics . . . that would make sense. I don't mind paying more for better image or better features. It's just that, from what I can tell, the Xenar's and Xenon's produce an equivalently nice image, but the lighter (which is helpful) lenses also have a larger image circle (which is helpful) and they cost less (which is counter-intuitive).

The look will be different and I've literally seen them both within a very close proximity of each and shot the same tests.

At this point I've decided on getting both sets, so I'm right there with you on all the pros of the FF-Primes. I'm actually more focused on what I'm doing with the super speed and zoom decisions at the moment. Because that's a hairy playing field to deal with and zooms until pretty much this year have been aliens to me. Mostly shoot on primes.

Just a couple of functional differences off the bat to consider. The close focus on the Cine-Xenars III Primes are all, erm...., very close. The FF-Primes not as good on that front.

I can tell you right now that the bokeh on these was a massive selling point for me. I'm not one of those who will buy a set for just that, but honestly, there really isn't much competition for how beautiful the out of focus image looks on these. Nothing near this price point at all. It's lovely seeing that hold around T4-T8 too. A lot of lenses change their flavor a bit stopped down which is due to iris design and is even a deliberate design choice.

The only big question mark I had on buying these was the Summicron-C Primes. However, at twice the price and a little less than a year away, I needed something to shoot my next 30 gigs with in that time frame.

Phil,
With all due respect, with over 25years in cine lens environment, half or more of it on the manufacturing level I have a pretty good idea what can or can't be done.
If Schneider can't get even illumination with this size primes on FF they should change the designer.
BTW I think they can and they will. The Xenars- they should cut their losses. God only knows how many millions they dumped into these with very little sales to show for...

You've got me by a few years in the cine lens environment, I only started shooting in the early 2000's. I don't think you need to defend your lens experience. We all know you know your craft.

If we were talking about the Cine-Xenar I or II series lenses I'd have a lot more to say and you can tell by the fact that I don't own those. However, the series III versions solved literally all the mechanical issues that plagued the early designs and replaced them with what I think is a very high quality prime set. I really don't think they should cut their loses, where these are now is very different than where they came from. I'm betting we'll be seeing more of these shooting fairly shortly. I wasn't the only guy in town taking a look at these. I know how many sets that were purchased before I even picked these up and there are 3 other DPs who I've been sharing tests with to inform out purchasing decisions. This was the last currently available PL set in LA and I got heck from another guy for picking them up. So I can't be that crazy

The Xenon FF-Primes will be good. They are just going to be different than the Cine-Xenars for a variety of reasons. It's not really and apples and oranges comparison, but more of a different type of apples comparison. Both are apples, there's only a few types I'll use to make pie.

They are both different products and lens sets. Once shooting them side by side that becomes clearer in terms of their look and features.

 

[Phil Holland]

Further, if there ever were a set of lenses that fall into the sweet spot between Cooke's and Zeiss, these are it.

Dead on! That's actually kinda how I describe them. It's a bit of Cooke and Zeiss with a little bit of a Leica look to them.

Such a weird combination. I wasn't expecting that. They don't have the "Cooke Look", but they have their own look. That's something I find special.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Totally disagree.
I have seen both the Mark II's and the Mark III's on the bench and tried them in the field and thus far everything I have seen from from the Xenon's doesn't compare. (Granted wish I had seen more, but then again I am not sure you have either).
Further, if there ever were a set of lenses that fall into the sweet spot between Cooke's and Zeiss, these are it.
Their price point at a full stop faster and as mechanically sound as the mini primes from Cooke seems understandable.

However, if you want to push to get that same level of quality at two fifth's the current cost, feel free. I won't be the one to stop you.

I don't need to push anything- the market will
The sooner they come to their senses-the better for them...

 

[Jiri Vrozina]

Was at post NAB video show last night.
Sony are selling the set of 6 PL primes for $19,000....not bad. Nicely build. It is shame they are not FF. ... But still set of 6 at T2.0 for $19,000. Not bad at all.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

I rest my case

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Thanks Phil for your thread.

I was hoping for a good lens to buy, price wise between ...Rokinon and Superspeed MKIII...

I think the Xenon will make the deal if the price stays at 4000$.

Pat

 

[paul engstrom]

I rest my case

Hey Jacek - do you know if those Sony's have anything wider than a 20 coming anytime soon? In our neck of the woods a set without anything wider than a 20 just doesn't work.

 

[Jiri Vrozina]

Especially if they deliver 18mm and some MACRO..

Thanks Phil for your thread.

I was hoping for a good lens to buy, price wise between ...Rokinon and Superspeed MKIII...

I think the Xenon will make the deal if the price stays at 4000$.

Pat

 

[Mike Nagel]

Phil,

thank you for keeping us updated on your findings, much appreciated ! ;-)

I'm pretty much in the same position as Clayton that I will be purchasing a Cine lens set pretty soon and I was considering various options. CP.2's currently my top choice but still looking into other options...

WIP It Into Shape
I would choose these over the Zeiss CP.2....

Phil, could you share your opinion why you personally would prefer these over the CP.2's ? Interested since you touch a lot of glass and most of the T2.1 CP.2's are US$3,990 so price is the same...

Irregardless of the shortcomings (which are numerous) with the CP.2's...
Seeing all the choices out there and appreciating them, (especially the Xenar's III) I am now more fully aware of the limitations of the CP.2's.

Clayton, can you elaborate on what shortcomings there are with the CP.2's that you don't see in the Schneider's ?


Thanks !

- Mike

 

[Phil Holland]

Phil, could you share your opinion why you personally would prefer these over the CP.2's ? Interested since you touch a lot of glass and most of the T2.1 CP.2's are US$3,990 so price is the same...

It's not just a "war of price" as they will be priced so similarly, it actually has more to do with the mechanics themselves. I should have one of the early production runs on these in a couple months and we'll all get to see how far the design, coatings, and optical performance has improved over the prototypes.



In the mean time, here's some 5K R3D Snapshots to look at:
http://www.artbyphil.com/temp/reduser/phfx_XenonFF5KR3DGrabs.zip

Download them and push em around a bit. Focus was locked on her eyelids.

Here's some of the variations I chose to explore in terms of my desired sharpness/level of detail:


* click to open in new window/tab as this above image is scaled to Reduser's resolution limit.

 

[Josef Gatti]

Damn Phil, too many tricks up your sleeve to keep count. Surely that's not simple unsharp mask? Care to elaborate your sharpening methods?

 

[Mike Nagel]

thanks, Phil

it appears that even the prototypes you were testing had phenomenal mechanics that they can match the strongsuit of the CP.2's...

was trying to get your personal opinion on overall image compared to other contenders like CP.2's... you mentioned you like the bokeh... it's a little bit hard for me to compare as there are no direct comparison shots with other lenses but surely much easier for you to put in comparison since you play with so much glass...

 

[Phil Holland]

Damn Phil, too many tricks up your sleeve to keep count. Surely that's not simple unsharp mask? Care to elaborate your sharpening methods?

First I boil up a cauldron of unicorn tears mixed with a spoon of dream dust from lost children..... wait.


Nope. Just a normal unsharp mask here with a smidge of detail in Adobe Camera Raw. That detail slider is some interesting stuff.

Thing is, if you "futz" around with sharpness in a variety of applications you can create stunningly sharp results if you want that look. Some applications have interesting variations in their sharpening algorithms, some provide a bit more flexibility, some provide a few deeper controls to "reveal" more texture and detail. Just depends on what you use and how you use them.

Between scaling 5K to 4K and all of the sharpening options out there there's plenty of ways to pretty much get whatever look you're after.

 

[Josef Gatti]

First I boil up a cauldron of unicorn tears mixed with a spoon of dream dust from lost children..... wait.

Nope. Just a normal unsharp mask here with a smidge of detail in Adobe Camera Raw. That detail slider is some interesting stuff.

Haha crazy. When I get home I'll be playing with those R3Ds fo sho.

Man I sound like a broken record ... thanks again, Phil.

 

[Phil Holland]

it's a little bit hard for me to compare as there are no direct comparison shots with other lenses but surely much easier for you to put in comparison since you play with so much glass...

Ah got your point there. There's a few things I'm into on the glass mechanics. No image shift. Zero. That's super mega important to me. Everybody will discover that soon enough once they see their material on 4K screens. In the theater it's much easier to see the "little things" like that. Not much hiding on a 40 foot screen. It's a similar battle on high resolution displays. Minimized breathing also stood out as a big bonus and it's a noticeable difference between the CP.2s and CN-Es on that front.

The Xenon-FF Primes are also built like tanks from what I can tell. I won't name names, but I saw somebody drop the 35mm prototype on concrete recently and it didn't explode into a mess. It was in a small lens bag though. Maybe that helped a bit.

The key thing for me is that they are lenses that are being designed and purposed driven for cinema. They are not rehoused still lens designs and they appear to be fairly consistent in terms of look and character.

All of this extra stuff is really based on how critical you are when it comes to lenses, captured image quality, and finished image quality.

Quality control has been a big featured part of my career and that's pretty much why I've gone so far down the rabbit hole on that front.

Bare in mind that I use cine-modded still glass and high end cinema lenses. I'm realistic about what both can do, but understanding their unique strengths and weaknesses really can provide a rounded perspective on what you end up enjoying making images with, but that can also inform you when you only need to check off certain boxes for a certain lens selection for a shot.

 

[Mike Nagel]

Ah got your point there. There's a few things I'm into on the glass mechanics. No image shift. Zero. That's super mega important to me. Everybody will discover that soon enough once they see their material on 4K screens. In the theater it's much easier to see the "little things" like that. Not much hiding on a 40 foot screen. It's a similar battle on high resolution displays. Minimized breathing also stood out as a big bonus and it's a noticeable difference between the CP.2s and CN-Es on that front.

The Xenon-FF Primes are also built like tanks from what I can tell. I won't name names, but I saw somebody drop the 35mm prototype on concrete recently and it didn't explode into a mess. It was in a small lens bag though. Maybe that helped a bit.

The key thing for me is that they are lenses that are being designed and purposed driven for cinema. They are not rehoused still lens designs and they appear to be fairly consistent in terms of look and character.

All of this extra stuff is really based on how critical you are when it comes to lenses, captured image quality, and finished image quality.

Quality control has been a big featured part of my career and that's pretty much why I've gone so far down the rabbit hole on that front.

Bare in mind that I use cine-modded still glass and high end cinema lenses. I'm realistic about what both can do, but understanding their unique strengths and weaknesses really can provide a rounded perspective on what you end up enjoying making images with, but that can also inform you when you only need to check off certain boxes for a certain lens selection for a shot.

fantastic, thank you !

 

[Mehran MK Khan]

Dead on! That's actually kinda how I describe them. It's a bit of Cooke and Zeiss with a little bit of a Leica look to them.

Such a weird combination. I wasn't expecting that. They don't have the "Cooke Look", but they have their own look. That's something I find special.

Phil, firstly, thanks for all your in depth lens reviews. Love em. I rarely post here, but I'm always lurking for info.

Based on your comments, I decided to rent some Cine Xenar IIIs the other day, and boy was I amazed. One of my favorite lenses on the R1MX and almost any digital cam are the lightweight Optimo Zooms. They provide one closest look to the Panavision Primos, which are my dream prime lens set, but I've only used them twice and obviously can't buy them. The Xenar IIIs are like 90% of that look. Slightly cooler than the Optimos, just like the Primos; slightly less snappier than the Zeiss, just like Primos. Very similar to the Leica glass inside the Primo. So, thanks to you, I've found my dream lens set and that too for way less than I had expected. If you ever come to South East Asia, hit me up, I owe you a cold one. Cheers man.

 

[Phil Holland]

Phil, firstly, thanks for all your in depth lens reviews. Love em. I rarely post here, but I'm always lurking for info.

Based on your comments, I decided to rent some Cine Xenar IIIs the other day, and boy was I amazed. One of my favorite lenses on the R1MX and almost any digital cam are the lightweight Optimo Zooms. They provide one closest look to the Panavision Primos, which are my dream prime lens set, but I've only used them twice and obviously can't buy them. The Xenar IIIs are like 90% of that look. Slightly cooler than the Optimos, just like the Primos; slightly less snappier than the Zeiss, just like Primos. Very similar to the Leica glass inside the Primo. So, thanks to you, I've found my dream lens set and that too for way less than I had expected. If you ever come to South East Asia, hit me up, I owe you a cold one. Cheers man.

Cheers Mehran. You're on the same path look-wise that I was. The Cine-Xenar III do indeed have a very PV Primo/Leica-esque feel to them. The added benefit is that they don't breath at all.

The draw on the Cine-Xenars III tends to be sharp, yet smooth. I like the look. There's a few things I see that could be improved upon, but they right now are one of the my favorite sets of lenses currently being manufactured, which is really just a handful of sets. And they are up there in my book.

Still a big purchase decision, but I do love what they do.

 

[Evin Grant]

I borrowed Phil's Xenars for a short film a few weeks ago. They impressed me quite a bit, hopefully once I have a bit more time I can post some stils and give you guys a more specific impression.