First Look - Schneider Xenon FF-Prime Lenses

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Been shooting with mine more this weekend. Really like these lenses. The CA is there, but not an issue if you don't push the image too hard. FWIW, it's much easier to run into CA showing up in the form of purple and yellow fringing on the Dragon as it's capable of capturing much higher contrast without blowing exposure.

The Xenons make some really pretty images overall. I'm still hoping to hear something from Schneider, but I already like the three lenses in the set more than the CP.2's and most any other lenses in this price range. The one real exception to that being the RPP's. They still remain a phenomenal set of lenses for the money, even with their heft and bulk and quirky focus scales.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Glad you think so too Jeff, as for the RPP's for me they were a no go only because of the 18mm not working on the Motion Mount and the 25mm & 35mm been so huge, one of the reasons I could not use the Master Primes for some of this projects, which forbid me in the use of such large heavy lenses, then the fact of them been of different sizes weight, made them more difficult to choose as we would have had to remount and rebalance at each change, even if we could have made do with the extra weight and size, which of course we couldn't, other then that as I said many times the RPP's were and still remain an incredible deal for the money.

But glad we went with the Schneider... For now...

 

[Alex Boothby]

Hey Jeff. Any chance of posting a r3D snapshot of a Xenon images compared to a RPP (for example)? The only high resolution still image I've been able to find was your snow test, which was hard to judge without a frame of reference. Glad to hear you're enjoying the lenses.

 

[Ryan Chapman]

Ditto. I'm waiting for a Xenon FF vs CP.2 comparison too, surprised there isn't one up yet.

 

[Nathaniel Opgenorth]

Ditto. I'm waiting for a Xenon FF vs CP.2 comparison too, surprised there isn't one up yet.

This would be excellent to have some .R3Ds of CP.2's and Xenon FF's side by side with a nice color chart, a variety of colorful things in frame, distortion chart and some lighting that shows how the highlights compare. Would be cool to see at 6K on a Dragon but 5K would still be great. This is the great thing about this forum, so many people are with access to various stuff.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

Just a heads-up - Magnanimous Media out of Chicago just posted this as the first in a series.

 

[Bob Gundu]

Here's the link to the Magnanimous video.
https://vimeo.com/84089401

All the lenses hold their own unique quality. Some hold their colour and CA better while others have resolution.

 

[Alex Boothby]

Thanks for sharing Brendan and Bob. Very useful comparison. Overall, the CA on the Xenon 50mm looks on par or slightly better that the CP.2 and CN-E and considerably better than the Canon-L. A promising test for Schneider.

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

Thanks for sharing Brendan and Bob. Very useful comparison. Overall, the CA on the Xenon 50mm looks on par or slightly better that the CP.2 and CN-E and considerably better than the Canon-L. A promising test for Schneider.

It depends...I think that almost all cp.2 except 50 non macro WO and maybe the 85 WO are better than this...

 

[Rome Will]

Thanks for posting Brendan and the link is much appreciated Bob!

Jeff, so would you say people shooting on Scarlets or MX Epics might be "exempt" from the CA you saw shooting Dragon?

 

[Nick Morrison]

From the Magnanimous test, it would appear the Xenon 50mm is the softest of the bunch at 2.8, and also softest at f2, though the margins appear to shrink by then (ie all of them start to get soft). At f4 I thought it looked the best however.

For WO shooting, the Xenon certainly doesn't seem "razor" sharp, though it may end up looking very pleasing nonetheless. Here are some stills from the Mangnanimous test at 2.8 and 2 if it helps.


Canon L 50 @ 2.8

Canon CNE 50 @ 2.8

Zeiss 50 @ 2.8

Xenon 50 @ 2.8

Canon L 50 @ f2

Canon CNE 50 @ f2

Zeiss 50 @ f2

Xenon 50 @ f2

Canon CNE 50 @ 1.3

Zeiss 50 @ 1.5

I've shown samples of the Zeiss and CNE wide open as well, because they appear comparable to the Xenon wide open.

Similarly, it appears the Xenon's sharpness at 2.8 is comparable to the others at f2.

 

[Phil Holland]

So my curious question for all of the folks tracking this thread, based on this recent comparison how do you feel about all three? Image quality, mechanics, base lens speed?

This is more for my personal interest and curiosity.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Well, I don't see it that way...

So, either my Retina screen is playing tricks or it surely looks to me that the Xenon are actually the sharpest wide open, when compared to all others...

 

[Matt Ryan]

So my curious question for all of the folks tracking this thread, based on this recent comparison how do you feel about all three? Image quality, mechanics, base lens speed?

This is more for my personal interest and curiosity.

The F55 doesn't have the best resolution hehehe

The Xenons do look better to me and exhibit a bit less CA. Are we all watching the same thing? I think for the money they look great. If you need slightly faster lenses I'd probably go CN-E Primes.

To comment on the sharpness, I'm wondering if the Schneiders just have lower contrast overall which leads to the perceived lack of sharpness.

 

[Phil Holland]

The F55 doesn't have the best resolution hehehe

The Xenons do look better to me and exhibit a bit less CA. Are we all watching the same thing? I think for the money they look great. If you need slightly faster lenses I'd probably go CN-E Primes.

I tend to agree. All of the lenses exhibit CA and this sort of reveals the different ways each brand looks. Focus pulls reveal more. Not exactly a fair rub here on the Zeiss as that 50mm isn't the strongest in that CP.2 line-up. However, that particular inconsistency is one of my criticisms with that set anyways. Plus they have a far better lens in the Otus 55mm these days. They just need to make a set of those.

Similar complaints on the Canon CN-E Primes, some of which get solved soon-ish, but still same crazy.

Again, this isn't me bashing any of these manufacturers. I own and use glass from all of them. It's more or less my personal criticism and desire for a consistent look. The bigger reality is the CP.2 and CN-E lenses were designed years apart and slammed into cine-housings with new coatings. They aren't totally a matched set, but the coatings help a ton. Are they good for the price? Hell yes they are. Same goes for the Xenons in terms of value.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Well, I don't see it that way...

So, either my Retina screen is playing tricks or it surely looks to me that the Xenon are actually the sharpest wide open when compared to all others...

Ketch I actually agree with you, but the Xenon 50mm is a stop slower wide open (T2 vs T1.3/1.4), and yet don't seem that much sharper than the other glass is at 1.3/1.4. It appears to have a "Super Speed" look wide open at T2, as opposed to a Standard Prime's definition at T2.

When all the glass is compared evenly at F2, the Xenon appears the softest to me, although also has well controlled CA.

At 2.8 is where I definitely felt the Xenon looked noticeably softer than the rest, for whatever reason. Maybe it's just this particular 50mm that Magnanimous is testing? Who knows.

At F4, I thought the Xenon was easily the best, for whatever it's worth: great contrast, no CA, and very sharp.

At 2.8 the 50mm Xenon clearly jumps down in both contrast and resolution. Maybe this is a creative choice? To provide a lowcon pleasing imagery at 2.8 and 2? Ala Super Speeds? Because the CA is certainly well controlled wide open, so there is some good engineering going on there nonetheless.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Additionally, there is of course NO comparison in build quality of both the mechanics and design of the lenses, the Schneider so far out smoke the still lens converted Canon and CP2 is not even funny!!

Just put the 3 next to each other, pick them up one by one, look inside of them and take a close look at the Iris design and aperture sizes, then move them about in bot the iris and focus rings, then after that tell me which one would you choose...

Aside from that, I silly look at the images one produces vs. the others and questions answered...

Glad I purchase the Schneider Xenon's...

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Ketch I actually agree with you, but the Xenon 50mm is a stop slower wide open (T2 vs T1.3/1.4), and yet don't seem that much sharper than the other glass is at 1.3/1.4. It appears to have a "Super Speed" look wide open at T2, as opposed to a Standard Prime's definition at T2.

When all the glass is compared evenly at F2, the Xenon appears the softest to me, although also has well controlled CA.

At 2.8 is where I definitely felt the Xenon looked noticeably softer than the rest, for whatever reason. Maybe it's just this particular 50mm that Magnanimous is testing? Who knows.

At F4, I thought the Xenon was easily the best, for whatever it's worth: great contrast, no CA, and very sharp.

At 2.8 the 50mm Xenon clearly jumps down in both contrast and resolution. Maybe this is a creative choice? To provide a lowcon pleasing imagery at 2.8 and 2? Ala Super Speeds? Because the CA is certainly well controlled wide open, so there is some good engineering going on there nonetheless.

Indeed Nick, good observations, and yes of course they are differences amongst been WO at T1.3 to T2 to T2.1, T2.8 is a good telling of the quality of a lens, while T4/T5.6 is were almost any lens needs to show its true colors, and at this is were I see the Schneider truly shine vs. all others.

I hope that quality samples is well controlled yet with lenses at this price range some variation could always be expected, also not every camera will resolve the lenses in the same way, and that is also a fact, as each sensor based on it's design, size and resolution capabilities amongst other things will resolve differently with each lens design accordingly to also the amount of elements within each particular lens, as well as their interior design.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

In resolution xenon is not the winner - all have their CA - would be nice to see breathing and bokeh compared

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Jeff, so would you say people shooting on Scarlets or MX Epics might be "exempt" from the CA you saw shooting Dragon?

Not exempt, but Dragon has the ability to capture higher DR, which means more contrast, and the CA seems to be more prominent in high contrast situations.

So my curious question for all of the folks tracking this thread, based on this recent comparison how do you feel about all three? Image quality, mechanics, base lens speed?

This is more for my personal interest and curiosity.

I like the size of the Xenons. Of course, they're not quite as compact or light as many SLR lenses or some older Zeiss speeds or whatever, but they're a good size and weight.

The mechanics are superb, especially considering the price.

Base lens speed… It's OK, I'm happy with it. I think they could have been made faster, but given the size and weight and other factors, I think it's a nice match. Faster apertures would have probably lead to larger and heavier lenses similar to the RPPs, Masters.

Image quality is rather pleasing overall. I like the almost satin texture they seem to have in the bokeh and when capturing gritty detail. The flare beautifully, although I realize not everyone will agree with me. The CA is the elephant in the room and from what I'm finding, it doesn't seem to be any worse than on the CP.2's. I think some of my initial fears were a bit over the top. Aside from about 20 minutes of bench testing of the Xenons, followed by a day of crappy snowstorm weather, I took them out in harsh conditions and put them on a Dragon, first time I had shot Dragon in the wild. As I play more with the lenses on my EPIC-M MX, it's not as scary as I had thought. Don't get me wrong, the CA is indeed still there. It is more prominent than what I see from my Optimo zooms or RPP's. But doesn't seem so bad in more reasonable lighting conditions with proper filtration.

The Xenons seem to breathe a bit less than RPP's and the bokeh is very pleasing. I'll see if I can put together some comparative shots, since Fredrik mentions it.