Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

High Speed Lens Shootout

Regarding SALT test from 2012. I find results for new Zeiss 35mm f1.4 as a very big joke. (good,good-,good).
It is perhaps the sharpest lens in Zeiss ZE/ZF line up FULLY OPEN.. . .
 
Last edited:
Jacek Zakowicz said:
It's definitely not the lens mount. Either the (lens) internal mechanics are a bit sloppy or the mount fit to the camera is sloppy. If properly mounted the Canon EF, Nikon F etc. any proper bayonet mount is as solid as can be... guarantied:)
Click to expand...

That's funny. Because I have found to my dismay that the Zeiss CP.2's EF mount on a Canon 5D Mark III is horrible in terms of a mount fit. There is a lot of play in there, and almost to the point where I have considered not using them. And not just one lens, most of them. For a supposedly "pro" solution, I find the tolerances unacceptable on Zeiss's part. Feels almost like a cheap chinese adapter.
 
Definitely not?

The lens had little image shift on the projector.

Jacek, where are you working at these days?

W
Jacek Zakowicz said:
It's definitely not the lens mount. Either the (lens) internal mechanics are a bit sloppy or the mount fit to the camera is sloppy. If properly mounted the Canon EF, Nikon F etc. any proper bayonet mount is as solid as can be... guarantied:)
Click to expand...
 
Zeiss CP.2 85mm T1.5

Zeiss CP.2 85mm T1.5

It arrived today. I will let you know what I think and perhaps post some images. Doing a test with it in low natural light tomorrow and projecting at a local rental house in the afternoon. Hope the results of your test are coming along well.
 
85mm Cp.2 1.5

85mm Cp.2 1.5

Just projected the lens at a local rental house and we were all blown away with the results. Did you guys project the lenses at all?
 
Patrick Elliott said:
Just projected the lens at a local rental house and we were all blown away with the results. Did you guys project the lenses at all?
Click to expand...

You didn't read the thread did you? ;) Yes we projected them all

What were your numbers and I'll tell you how close they were to our projector tests at Duclos? I wasn't blown away by the numbers, but then again we had a bunch of cinema lenses compared directly to one another.
 
Patrick Elliott said:
Just projected the lens at a local rental house and we were all blown away with the results. Did you guys project the lenses at all?
Click to expand...

Yes we certainly did. Some impressed, some depressed, most did reasonably well.

More tomorrow.

phfx_SALTIIIPreview.jpg
 
Excuse my question, if that is common knowledge, but I couldn't find an answer so far.
Light becomes refracted differently based on its wavelength, hence the prism-colors (...and lots of efforts inside the lens to correct for this phenomenon).

I read more than often that lenses are projected, but I never have seen someone describing the light quality (frequency) of that projector.


Is that neglictable at all?
 
Dr. Sassi said:
Excuse my question, if that is common knowledge, but I couldn't find an answer so far.
Light becomes refracted differently based on its wavelength, hence the prism-colors (...and lots of efforts inside the lens to correct for this phenomenon).

I read more than often that lenses are projected, but I never have seen someone describing the light quality (frequency) of that projector.


Is that neglictable at all?
Click to expand...

That would be a question for Matthew Duclos but my guess is there is a calibration standard for cinema lens projection.
 
Phil Holland said:
Yes we certainly did. Some impressed, some depressed, most did reasonably well.

More tomorrow.

phfx_SALTIIIPreview.jpg
Click to expand...

On pins and needles. I just don't want the Super Speeds to have "depressed". As long as they showed some balls by 2.8, and were "aesthtically" interesting wide open (if a bit soft), I think I'll feel OK.

That's the only set I have an emotional, vested interest in.
 
Thank you Matt, I would of course love to have a "white paper" or something like that :o) To have comparable results with others, there should be something... (As a side note [extreme-point!], think only on the IR dot on old still glass, how far off that focus point is)

Yes, I hope Matthew Duclos has a minute to share his idea about. He has certainly a great reputation and I would appreciate it highly!


Matt Ryan said:
That would be a question for Matthew Duclos but my guess is there is a calibration standard for cinema lens projection.
Click to expand...


SALT III: I look forward to the results! ...can't wait :o)
 
Matt Ryan said:
You guys should hold your predictions. There's going to be some surprises.
Click to expand...

Looking forward to the results... interested in the Illumina results (as there's been so much pro and anti sentiment regarding them).

It's 01st Feb here in the UK... now where's the thread... LOL :)
 
Andy White said:
Looking forward to the results... interested in the Illumina results (as there's been so much pro and anti sentiment regarding them).

It's 01st Feb here in the UK... now where's the thread... LOL :)
Click to expand...

Sorry but we work in PST in the good old USA! haha

I can answer a bit for the Illuminas in that the early anti sentiment was due to an improperly sealed sets of lenses but has since been corrected. Charlie Pickle can answer more of those questions once we post the results as a distributor and repair center for Illuminas (seriousgear.com).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top