First Look - Schneider Xenon FF-Prime Lenses

[NOSA OBAYIUWANA]

Also I would really really appreciate it if anyone could point me in the direction of some footage shot with the Xenons but on the Alexa.

Thanks everyone

 

[NOSA OBAYIUWANA]

bump

 

[Christoffer Glans]

How is the CA at T2.1 compared to a Xeen at T2.1? (wide open, the Xeens have a lot of CA, so important that it's compared at T2.1).

 

[JayEmm]

I thought I would share... Xenon-FF 35mm. On Sony F55. WFO.

Direct link: http://img.pixady.com/2015/09/853518_xenonff35t21newspaper.00000.jpg

 

[Ian Planchon]

94 pages is a bit much to go through, but i wanted to see if chromatic aberration has been discussed much. In very backlit scenes, we have experienced an extremely nasty purple cast on the image. I have seen it in the 25mm and the 35mm. is this pretty common on these lenses?

 

[JayEmm]

I am in the process of testing these lenses but chromatic aberration is definitely an issue. Out of focus areas suffer, having either a distinct green or purple tint to them. The in-focus area of the picture seems unaffected. I have not yet seen what stop this goes away at. I expected more of these lenses.

 

[Phil Holland]

I am in the process of testing these lenses but chromatic aberration is definitely an issue. Out of focus areas suffer, having either a distinct green or purple tint to them. The in-focus area of the picture seems unaffected. I have not yet seen what stop this goes away at. I expected more of these lenses.

Try stopping down 2 to 3 stops, you will actually notice improvements 1 stop down as well. Additionally lessen the contrast ratio in your given scene.

These lenses work just like "all lenses" when you get down to it. It's true they have more of a classic look regarding CA than modern. I like to think they are more K35 than Master Prime.

I am in the process of testing these lenses but chromatic aberration is definitely an issue. Out of focus areas suffer, having either a distinct green or purple tint to them. The in-focus area of the picture seems unaffected. I have not yet seen what stop this goes away at. I expected more of these lenses.

Okay. I've been watching this thread for a while and pretty much what Matt Duclos said is spot on.

A few things that need to be understood about Chromatic Aberrations and Lens Aperture. You are entirely at the mercy of a few things like Scene Contrast Ratio, Lens Design, Lens Coatings, etc...

That first one is the big one and seems to be the thing that many people are either confused about or don't understand that shooting in high contrast ratios is what truly reveals CA the most.

So with special thanks to Matt Duclos I zipped down to Duclos Lenses and grabbed a few lenses to test out some common lenses at T2.1 so you guys can literally see an A/B/C/D comparison. I have done a dirty setup with some extreme contrast and clipped the highlights which will reveal the subtle differences between these lenses the most. Though as you'll see all are "in a wheelhouse" of general performance.

If you click any of these images you'll load up a 2560x800 pixel version so you can really inspect these 100% crops from Epic Dragon 6K WS.

For this test setup we had the Zeiss Ultra Prime 32mm T1.9, Schneider Xenon FF-Prime 35mm T2.1, Zeiss CP.2 35mm T2.1, and Canon CN-E 35mm T1.5.

To point out explicitly the Zeiss Ultra Prime and Canon CN-E are stopped down to T2.1 so you can see how all of these lenses behave at the widest aperture available on the Schneider Xenon FF-Primes.










So again, we literally have an Ultra Prime here and also some of the direct price competitors to the Schneider Xenon FF-Primes. I chose the 35mm because that's what I hear the most "chatter" about. I think the one thing that is particularly noticeable from an aesthetic perspective is much earlier in this thread I said that these lenses had a "classic yet modern look". If you look at the foil crops you can see that slight haliation/glow on the specular highlights that attributes to that characteristic. It's subtle, but certainly is a nice and welcomed effect for those thinking about using a filter to get a similar effect.

Another observation I made as I rolled through various apertures on additional lenses like a Zeiss Standard Speed 32mm T2.1 and a Cooke MiniS4 32mm T2.8 was the Schneider Xenon-FF Primes are a bit less contrasty until stopped down in the T4-5.6 range in comparison to these other lenses.

I saw Red Pro Primes mentioned. They are more in line with Ultra Prime-like performance FYI. They are a very good value and horrifically underrated among cinema lenses, but they do have difficulty covering larger formats of course. More of what I think should be useful here is looking at the Canon, Zeiss, and Schneider images as you are looking at lenses designed for FF35 and that's the actual thing going on here.

Hope this clears up a few things.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

But this is a little worrying since much cheaper lenses like the Xeens have a lot of CA wide open, but stopped down to T2.1, the same as Xenon wide open, makes it almost disappear.
Buying a Xenon for almost twice the price of a Xeen I would argue that the CA needs to be much better than it is at T2.1.

 

[Phil Holland]

But this is a little worrying since much cheaper lenses like the Xeens have a lot of CA wide open, but stopped down to T2.1, the same as Xenon wide open, makes it almost disappear.
Buying a Xenon for almost twice the price of a Xeen I would argue that the CA needs to be much better than it is at T2.1.

I would argue something else entirely as the Xeens didn't exist before "now" and aren't exactly "pure motion picture" lenses in many ways. The Xenon FF-Primes are actually the only "pure" budget option when it comes to a "from scratch" entry level motion picture prime set. You can see that reflected in their body design and mechanics.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I would argue something else entirely as the Xeens didn't exist before "now" and aren't exactly "pure motion picture" lenses in many ways. The Xenon FF-Primes are actually the only "pure" budget option when it comes to a "from scratch" entry level motion picture prime set. You can see that reflected in their body design and mechanics.

I keep hearing that the Xeens aren't "pure motion picture" lenses, but I'm not really sure what that means since the specs and experiences from others point to them being both robust and "correct" in it's operation. That leaves what the optical quality can deliver and at T2.1 the Xeens should be quite good. If the Xeens have no or very low CA at T2.1 they beat both the Zeiss and Schneider in that aspect based on those images, since the only ones who seem to have no or low CA are the Canon and Ultras (based on the duclos logo part). Would be nice to see a comparison between the Xeens at T2.1 and the Schneiders at T2.1.

I really think we need a really good and proper test of the Xeens together with other lenses, since they keep getting a bashing because they are Rokinons, but I've yet to be convinced they are actually bad based purely on the actual lens quality (built and optical).

 

[Phil Holland]

I keep hearing that the Xeens aren't "pure motion picture" lenses, but I'm not really sure what that means since the specs and experiences from others point to them being both robust and "correct" in it's operation. That leaves what the optical quality can deliver and at T2.1 the Xeens should be quite good. If the Xeens have no or very low CA at T2.1 they beat both the Zeiss and Schneider in that aspect based on those images, since the only ones who seem to have no or low CA are the Canon and Ultras (based on the duclos logo part). Would be nice to see a comparison between the Xeens at T2.1 and the Schneiders at T2.1.

I really think we need a really good and proper test of the Xeens together with other lenses, since they keep getting a bashing because they are Rokinons, but I've yet to be convinced they are actually bad based purely on the actual lens quality (built and optical).

I'm not really bashing them. They are good value lenses. The lowest cost option at that. There's a combination of things I look for in lenses. Specifically if we're talking about all the above mentioned options I have used all of them a fair amount, tested them a lot, and even own some of them.

I've already had a look at the Xeens, they are impressive for the price. Honestly the Xenons, CP.2s, and CN-Es are also impressive for the price. All of these lens sets feature difference characteristics that truly lead to a different look and feel. That's the whole thing with glass really when it comes down to it.

If I have a free moment next month I'll go out and shoot a side by side with the Xeens to satisfy the curiosity. After my initially quick test however, they are better housed and newly coated Rockinons (which I also have a couple of). The straight shot info is, I shoot mainly with Schneider and Zeiss glass. That's not just because I'm now currently a Zeiss Ambassador, but it's what's been true for several years now well before that. I've put my money where my mouth is have glass purchased from both entities that I shoot the vast majority of my work with those lenses. When I test glass I'm testing a lot of things outside of "cost", but color matching, QC, set consistency, build, mechanics, resolving power, various apertures for practical shooting, flare, glare, aberrations of all sorts, contrast, distortion, OOF, breathing, image shift, etc.....

That leads to a very well informed decision when I decide to shoot with or purchase glass. If they have technical merit and/or general look I like in some way they are in bounds for me.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Yeah, I take your opinion a little more seriously than many others so I trust judgement, I'm just trying to figure out what the hell I'm supposed to get :tongue_smilie:

For me it stands between these and the price I can get them for:

With swedish VAT 25%:
3 Xeens (24, 50, 85mm) = $5940
2 Schneider (35 and 75mm) = $8034
6 Sony CineAlta (though the 20mm won't cover Dragon 6K) = $11904

Without VAT:
3 GL optics Leica R (T1.4 35, 50 and 80mm) = $9881
2 GL optics Sigma (35 and 50mm T1.4) = $7000

All in all, at least 2 or 3 lenses under 11K is the real thing for me... hopefully even under 8K.

 

[Phil Holland]

Yeah, I take your opinion a little more seriously than many others so I trust judgement, I'm just trying to figure out what the hell I'm supposed to get :tongue_smilie:

For me it stands between these and the price I can get them for:

With swedish VAT 25%:
3 Xeens (24, 50, 85mm) = $5940
2 Schneider (35 and 75mm) = $8034
6 Sony CineAlta (though the 20mm won't cover Dragon 6K) = $11904

Without VAT:
3 GL optics Leica R (T1.4 35, 50 and 80mm) = $9881
2 GL optics Sigma (35 and 50mm T1.4) = $7000

All in all, at least 2 or 3 lenses under 11K is the real thing for me... hopefully even under 8K.

That is an interesting situation in there.

I can say only this, and this is mostly from the advice perspective on how to make a decision with glass purchases. When it came time for me to purchase my set of Cine-Xenar III Primes a while back I took my sweet time in testing the lenses out and getting very familiar with them. I tested them against Ultra Primes, Cooke S4s, Mini S4s, and even PV Primos. It took me 3 months to figure all that out before I made my investment. I sort of fell in love with the Cine-Xenar IIIs and what they could do. And it really became a hard choice because I've worked so much with the UPs and I'm pretty fond of the S4s. So the SCX really had to woo me.

Personally if I was in your shoes I'd find a way to rent or test out perhaps 1-3 lengths of each set you are considering and go from there.

I've been shooting for a heartbeat and have glass that's been with me for over a decade and a half, plus I have some lenses that are decades old. Good glass will stay with you a lifetime. Find something that "sings" to you in some way and go from there. If you are primarily renting your gear out, take that into consideration. If not, follow your heart, eyes, and mind.

The Xenons for me are the sudo modern/classical "Standards" for FF35. I dig that. I'm pretty smitten with a few of the CP.2s and certainly all of the CZs. I have a bazillion Canon lenses, so the CN-Es didn't "jump out" at me. The Leica-Rs are indeed a lovely thing, I've been fond of them for some time. In fact the Schneider Cine-Xenar IIIs are very close to what I would dream of when smashing the Leica-R-ish look into a proper cinema lens while doing a few things the Leica-Rs just don't do.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Sorry in my neck of the woods the nit picking performance has nothing to do with purchasing decisions.
The most important factor is what rents . And here that is CP2s and CNEs out of the inexpensive sets. No decent DP (these are the guys making lens choices) would risk their career and production money by trying to save a few bucks on lens set or "experiment" with the new comers. That's why RED RPPs, Sony, Schneider,etc. struggle to get some traction. And probably never will... don't be selfish and get what the market needs- not what you like. You won't be disappointed.
Of course there are always the "vintage look" Baltars, K35s, Zeiss SS, Cooke Panchros, Anamorphics. These rent like hot cakes for music videos and whenever a "weird, bleached, soft" look is needed to make the material stand out from "the crowd". You do have to be current with the "vintage niche" however...

 

[Phil Holland]

Sorry in my neck of the woods the nit picking performance has nothing to do with purchasing decisions.
The most important factor is what rents . And here that is CP2s and CNEs out of the inexpensive sets. No decent DP (these are the guys making lens choices) would risk their career and production money by trying to save a few bucks on lens set or "experiment" with the new comers. That's why RED RPPs, Sony, Schneider,etc. struggle to get some traction. And probably never will... don't be selfish and get what the market needs- not what you like. You won't be disappointed.
Of course there are always the "vintage look" Baltars, K35s, Zeiss SS, Cooke Panchros, Anamorphics. These rent like hot cakes for music videos and whenever a "weird, bleached, soft" look is needed to make the material stand out from "the crowd". You do have to be current with the "vintage niche" however...

I know what rents and I rent them when needed. I totally agree on your assessment there. However, when it comes to my personal aesthetic for a specific shoot I will always be selfish I just shot a weird thing on my modified Olympus OM lenses because they have a funk I'm way into. Not necessarily something I'd whip out for VFX use on a feature, but something I certainly have a place for when going for that "look".

Heh. It's funny. I think of a guy like Alwin Küchler (Sunshine, Hanna, Steve Jobs) who has been one of the more visible DPs who's known to experiment with "weird glass and optics". I've admired his moxie on some decisions. I agree money shouldn't be the "true deciding factor" for a set, but experimentation and importantly experimentation during prep for a project should always be welcome if the DP feels there's something worth while to explore. There's the business side of things sure. But there's also the art and the craft. If the lens and the image created lends itself to the look of the piece, it's worth looking into.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

That is an interesting situation in there.

I can say only this, and this is mostly from the advice perspective on how to make a decision with glass purchases. When it came time for me to purchase my set of Cine-Xenar III Primes a while back I took my sweet time in testing the lenses out and getting very familiar with them. I tested them against Ultra Primes, Cooke S4s, Mini S4s, and even PV Primos. It took me 3 months to figure all that out before I made my investment. I sort of fell in love with the Cine-Xenar IIIs and what they could do. And it really became a hard choice because I've worked so much with the UPs and I'm pretty fond of the S4s. So the SCX really had to woo me.

Personally if I was in your shoes I'd find a way to rent or test out perhaps 1-3 lengths of each set you are considering and go from there.

I've been shooting for a heartbeat and have glass that's been with me for over a decade and a half, plus I have some lenses that are decades old. Good glass will stay with you a lifetime. Find something that "sings" to you in some way and go from there. If you are primarily renting your gear out, take that into consideration. If not, follow your heart, eyes, and mind.

The Xenons for me are the sudo modern/classical "Standards" for FF35. I dig that. I'm pretty smitten with a few of the CP.2s and certainly all of the CZs. I have a bazillion Canon lenses, so the CN-Es didn't "jump out" at me. The Leica-Rs are indeed a lovely thing, I've been fond of them for some time. In fact the Schneider Cine-Xenar IIIs are very close to what I would dream of when smashing the Leica-R-ish look into a proper cinema lens while doing a few things the Leica-Rs just don't do.

I get this perspective, but when keeping it under 11k it becomes a much more spec-focused choice for me. Over 11k (and I mean 11k for a set not 1 lens), it becomes much more of personal choice in terms of looks and feel rather than a technical one. Most sets over 11k already have enough built and optical quality to give you what you need, but under 11k it's a wild west. Then you have to consider client opinion (Zeiss is king, Rokinon is bad etc.), if the lens is actually really bad or if it's decent or superb for that price.

So, then it becomes a much more difficult choice. Would I risk having too few lenses by going with a set of 2 Schneider Xenons instead of 3 Xeens? If I go with the Xeens I have three lenses which people might consider to be bad, but then I have money left to buy a better follow focus, Mattebox and a few NDs instead of going budget on those in order to get better glass. If I get the CineAltas the 20mm won't cover 6K Dragon, they are heavy and they aren't future proof in their FF capabilities. If I buy the Leicas I would probably ruin my bank for a while and there's no guarantee that GL optics will do a great conversion (heard the stories).

Personally, my gut leans mostly towards the Leica-R GL optics conversion. They will cover 8K easily if needed, they have 300 degree rotation and ar both fast and lovely in their look. But it's impossible to try them out since no one has them. Compared to all others they are the prime choice for their price if they work without any problems. But they are the most expensive options out of them all really.

 

[Andrew David Watson]

Hey All,

I thought those considering the Xenons may be interested in seeing some more samples. I have mostly shot with them on the FS7 & C300, so none of these are RED samples. (Typically if I'm shooting Epic, Amira, Alexa, the lens package budget bumps up to match, and I rent S4s, Ultras or Masters).

I bought the Xenons as my day-to-day lens kit, for smaller budget shoots and projects where there isn't always a full check out day budgeted. With that in mind, I couldn't be happier.

One interesting note from using the Xenons across a wide range of cameras is the CA issues. Generally speaking I haven't had much of an issue with CA. On the c300 I rarely notice it. On the FS7 it was there, but not terrible. I have only done one shoot with the Xenons on the EPIC, and it was outside and mostly at a T4/5.6 and didn't notice any. I saw some on the Amira, but only when shooting against a window, with a Joker off frame flaring the lens.

The top post here has some BTS photos and embed Xenon samples: http://www.andrewdavidwatson.com/blog/

 

[Andrew David Watson]

Oh, and I have the full set. 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 100mm. I think my most favorite thing is the color matching. Also, the Red Wing Heritage video was shot 100% with a Black Pro Mist 1/8. And most of the Vasque: Well Hiked also had a 1/8 BPM.

 

[Bob Gundu]

Yeah I'm a big fan of these lenses. Here's a 75mm on a Sony commercial I recently shot. Open in new window for bigger view.

 

[JayEmm]

Regarding the comment about stop, I think 2.1 is a great stop for lenses of this budget. I personally don't like shooting much wider than T2 and I find whenever I do many other issues crop up. Also, when cameras are now coming with 800 ISO as a base, or much higher, the number of places you're going to walk into and have exposure trouble are becoming fewer and fewer.

The CA on the Xenons is still very disappointing and, for me, distracting. I think it should not have been hard to design a 35-50-75mm lens at this stop and budget. It's hardly an unusual lens.