LENS TEST: Zeiss Super Speed (MK3) VS Zeiss ZF SLR's (Shot on RED)

[Ryan E. Walters]

I figure if you've got a Bartech or Preston then you probably aren't worrying about SLR glass in the first place.

Yep, good point.

Those Prestons sure are fun to work with.

 

[Filipo]

I realy wanted to see zeiss super speeds against SLR lenses on the Red!

thanks !

 

[Ryan E. Walters]

I realy wanted to see zeiss super speeds against SLR lenses on the Red!

thanks !

No problem, glad you liked it.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

Nice review Ryan. I have tested the ZFs myself but not in a controled environment. They are sharp, but no sharper and not really any better color matched than equivalent Nikkors. As you have pointed out still lenses have plenty of resolution for Red 4K, it's the mechanics that really drive the price differences. The biggest drawback to the ZF line as it stands is the lack of a wide option. I would suggest the 17-35mm Nikkor as a good companion lens to a ZF set. As well as a future proof investment for when the Birger Nikon mount ships.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon1740_nikon1735/c1740vn1735a.html - 17-35 Nikon vs 21/2.8 Zeiss Contax Distagon

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_21mm/nikon1424_21mm1.html - 14-24 nikon vs 21/2.8 Zeiss Distagon.

Just in reference to the sharpness and color matched equivalent thought. The infamous Nikon zooms seem to be the kings of sharpness in the Nikon realm, but they do get ... for the lack of a better word... thrashed by a few Contax Zeiss lenses in side-by-side comparisons.

Take that 21/2.8 Distogon comparison for example.

Someone also mentioned the turn-the-right-way feature of the Contax lenses, I'd like to say that "for the money they're awesome" but they're pretty much awesome regardless. As well, the long focal throw on the Zeiss C/Y lenses is pretty nice. Add to that the performance is shot for shot with "new" Z-Series (A, M, K, etc) and you got yourself a deal. Although I'm sure Nikkor glass is fine and I perosnally would like a 28-70 ED riding shotgun. 'Spensive!

All around, if you can find a good set and even score the hyper-expensive 21mm lens you'd have an incredible set of glass.

Unfortunately my set only consists of the second best: 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 60/2.8 Macro, 85/1.4, 135/2.8 and a 28-70 3.5~4.5 for Exterior Daylight work. Gonna try to trade that one out for the 28-85 or 35-70.

The only other Wish-I-Could-Get would be the Contax Zeiss 17-35/2.8. Contax N though. Arg.

Thanks again Ryan for going through all of this trouble to show the value in great still lenses. Makes me feel a lot better about my C/Y purchases.

 

[conrad gaunt]

Great test, very interesting. thanks a lot.

 

[Brian Valente]

Not knocking the Zeiss as it's clearly terrific, but I'm not going to be surprised to find many lenses to be sharp enough to work with RED.

Zeiss 35mm still lenses are already working on DSLRs which are more than 4k of resolution.

Ken Rockwell [says] the sharpness has been tested for the 50mm lens revealing a $99 Nikon in the same category for sharpness as the Zeiss ZF

Ken Rockwell's biggest knock against them was also that they are manual focus lenses. He also thinks the nikon 18-200 vr zoom is the greatest lens on the planet. He is clearly in a different place when it comes to lens evaluation. Sure, you may find one nikon lens that they developed some time ago that is killer sharp, and people have since forgotten about or don't know the value and you can get it for a song and a dance (I have some of these myself). But you won't find a color matched set of similar or the same speed, and you risk widely varying conditions. It's possible, but it's difficult to do.

If you buy set of new Leica M or R lenses they are all and ALWAYS color matched.

I didn't know that, and it's great to know. The zeiss color matching is through identical coatings, which means you can buy one now, and others later, and they will match. To cinema lens' benefit, Cooke matched lens sets (and I'm sure others) are matched by cutting from the same hunk of glass. I am not qualified to comment on what if any significance that is.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Leica uses the best glass and has an excellent lens product control.

Not so many lens brands make their own glass today (Canon makes its own calcium fluorite crystals).

Schott, Hoya, Sumita, Ohara, Cargille or Lightpath to name a few, all produce quality glass that is supplying a main lens brands worlwide.

"Leica has always claimed that high quality optical designs with a special focus on excellent performance wide open need special glasses, special surface treatment, accurate mounts, very tight tolerances and a careful manual assembly with copious quality control and individually machined parts that can be matched pairwise.

It is certainly true that it is more difficult to ensure extremely tight tolerances when the production runs are small and a high level of manual control is required."

LINK>>>

 

[Ryan E. Walters]

Mechanics UPDATE:

Mechanics UPDATE:

I received some questions via email, and I thought that I would add the answers here as well, as I think they are beneficial to know about:

What was the tension like / is there a large difference between the focus tension of the Zeiss SLR's and the Zeiss Cinema lenses?

There was no noticeable difference between the set of SLR's and cinema lenses that I was using. Both focused as smooth as butter, and are very well crafted lenses. When I first bought the SLR's this was the first thing that I noticed in comparison between the Nikkors I had and the Zeiss. Now this is not to say that you can't find a smooth operating Nikkor- you can. But it is less likely if you buy a used Nikkor. I didn't realize how smooth and SLR could be until I got the Zeiss. SLR lenses were not designed with a shifting focus in mind, where cinema lenses are. So having a smooth SLR lens is great for pulling focus, as you get a smooth consistent response from the lens- which may or may not be the case for that $99 Nikkor lens.

 

[Ryan E. Walters]

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon1740_nikon1735/c1740vn1735a.html - 17-35 Nikon vs 21/2.8 Zeiss Contax Distagon

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_21mm/nikon1424_21mm1.html - 14-24 nikon vs 21/2.8 Zeiss Distagon.

Just in reference to the sharpness and color matched equivalent thought. The infamous Nikon zooms seem to be the kings of sharpness in the Nikon realm, but they do get ... for the lack of a better word... thrashed by a few Contax Zeiss lenses in side-by-side comparisons.

Take that 21/2.8 Distogon comparison for example.

Someone also mentioned the turn-the-right-way feature of the Contax lenses, I'd like to say that "for the money they're awesome" but they're pretty much awesome regardless. As well, the long focal throw on the Zeiss C/Y lenses is pretty nice. Add to that the performance is shot for shot with "new" Z-Series (A, M, K, etc) and you got yourself a deal. Although I'm sure Nikkor glass is fine and I perosnally would like a 28-70 ED riding shotgun. 'Spensive!

All around, if you can find a good set and even score the hyper-expensive 21mm lens you'd have an incredible set of glass.

Unfortunately my set only consists of the second best: 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 60/2.8 Macro, 85/1.4, 135/2.8 and a 28-70 3.5~4.5 for Exterior Daylight work. Gonna try to trade that one out for the 28-85 or 35-70.

The only other Wish-I-Could-Get would be the Contax Zeiss 17-35/2.8. Contax N though. Arg.

Thanks again Ryan for going through all of this trouble to show the value in great still lenses. Makes me feel a lot better about my C/Y purchases.

Thanks for those links and info- those C/Y lenses do solve the rotation issue, and from the results of the lens tests, it looks like they do out perform the other lenses!

 

[Brian Valente]

you know we might take these 16-9 lens tests with a grain of salt - they are comparing nikon lenses *adapted* to a canon still camera. I'm not sure how much of an impact if any that has.


Brian

 

[Ryan E. Walters]

you know we might take these 16-9 lens tests with a grain of salt - they are comparing nikon lenses *adapted* to a canon still camera. I'm not sure how much of an impact if any that has.


Brian

Great point. I wonder what kind of impact that has on the lens?

 

[Phil Bates]

I'm glad you are all finding this test helpful

It was fun working with Hunter, and being able to see the lenses in action. He was a great sport in changing out the lens mounts. I'm sure he could do it in the dark by now!

I'll echo everyone else in thanking you for the great test! I have a couple of questions.

Do you have any idea how the Red 18-50mm zoom would stack up in this test (sharpness)?

Also, did you change your mount in a "clean" room? Were you concerned about that?

Thanks again,
Phil
Artbeats Stock Footage
http://www.artbeats.com

 

[Kenn Christenson]

Agreed, although I use the same range in Canon. I think in about 3 months people are going to see that the Birger mount is as revolutionary as the RED itself.

3 MONTHS! SHEESH! Hope I get mine sooner than that!

 

[Kholi Hicks]

you know we might take these 16-9 lens tests with a grain of salt - they are comparing nikon lenses *adapted* to a canon still camera. I'm not sure how much of an impact if any that has.


Brian

The Zeiss lenses are also adapted to the canon, though. Still apples to apples. I don't think the impact on either lens is significant enough to discount the images as the adapters still allow for accurate infinity, marks and flange distances. Could be a bit of haywire goin on, but not so sure.

 

[David W. Jones]

The adapters I use for Nikon to EOS, or Contax to EOS for example, are mechanical, not optical, and do not affect the image quality.

 

[hunterrichards]

I'll echo everyone else in thanking you for the great test! I have a couple of questions.

Do you have any idea how the Red 18-50mm zoom would stack up in this test (sharpness)?

Also, did you change your mount in a "clean" room? Were you concerned about that?

Thanks again,
Phil
Artbeats Stock Footage
http://www.artbeats.com

I was being as careful as I could when changing the mount. The room was fairly clean... There were a few donut crumbs and coffee that splattered around the camera but other than that.

Honestly, its not that big of a deal for me (or at least it hasn't been) I just "check the gate" and blast some air around the mount. No dirt/hair problems so far.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Zeiss 35mm still lenses are already working on DSLRs which are more than 4k of resolution.

What do you mean by "already working", Brian?

 

[Joel Kaye]

SLR lenses were not designed with a shifting focus in mind, where cinema lenses are. So having a smooth SLR lens is great for pulling focus, as you get a smooth consistent response from the lens- which may or may not be the case for that $99 Nikkor lens.

The biggest problem I've found is the mechanics of the focusing part of the lenses. It can vary quite a bit lens to lens and the Zeiss may very well be the best overall.

I'm personally still skeptical that after shooting 1/48th of a second on a movie camera that the last gnats ass of sharpness matters that much. I think you're going to see more people tossing on a promist than fretting that their RED images aren't sharp enough. The softest RED stuff we seem to see is on older semi-expensive PL glass. We used to have a lot "seems soft" comments around here. Don't see that too much on the SLR threads. (Though I do have some wider angle SLR glass that seems soft Certainly your comparison lives up to that.

I think things like the Birger and the ViewFactor products are where we're going to find out how usable SLR solutions end up being. I imagine having a set of the Zeiss is a real timesaver though as finding the gems in other lenses might be a pain.

I'm also a bit skeptical about the benefit of color matched lenses given the amount of grading in any RED shot. I could be wrong here because copying grades from one lens to another might be faster and easier on a matched set, but it sure seems to me that other variables like changes in lighting, exposure, skin tone etc. from shot to shot are going to require that different setups be tweaked anyhow - even lens changes on the same setup. And a lot of guys will be using zooms as a variable prime so that eliminates some of that issue.

 

[Ryan E. Walters]

I'll echo everyone else in thanking you for the great test! I have a couple of questions.

Do you have any idea how the Red 18-50mm zoom would stack up in this test (sharpness)?

Also, did you change your mount in a "clean" room? Were you concerned about that?

Thanks again,
Phil
Artbeats Stock Footage
http://www.artbeats.com

Thanks, glad you liked it.

as for how the RED lens stacks up, I cannot comment directly on that, as we did not have it with us for the test, and I have only worked with it a couple of times, so I do not feel comfortable basing a judgement on it. Anyone else?

 

[Ryan E. Walters]

The biggest problem I've found is the mechanics of the focusing part of the lenses. It can vary quite a bit lens to lens and the Zeiss may very well be the best overall.

Yep, that has been my experience- it was night and day when I switched over to the Zeiss SLR's.

I'm personally still skeptical that after shooting 1/48th of a second on a movie camera that the last gnats ass of sharpness matters that much. I think you're going to see more people tossing on a promist than fretting that their RED images aren't sharp enough. The softest RED stuff we seem to see is on older semi-expensive PL glass.

Agreed- many cinematographers shooting on film will throw a promist, or a net in front of the lens to soften things up some. And I've seen this done with some of the RED footage too. But before softening things up, I want to be sure that the lens can do its job. But your point is well taken.

I'm also a bit skeptical about the benefit of color matched lenses given the amount of grading in any RED shot. I could be wrong here because copying grades from one lens to another might be faster and easier on a matched set, but it sure seems to me that other variables like changes in lighting, exposure, skin tone etc. from shot to shot are going to require that different setups be tweaked anyhow - even lens changes on the same setup. And a lot of guys will be using zooms as a variable prime so that eliminates some of that issue.

Hmm, interesting point. While there are changes in lighting from one setup to the next - say from a wide to a medium or a close up, the changes in lighting usually are not that drastic- at least not so much as to completely change the color grade - Finesse it some sure, but not a complete change. (At least this has been my experience anyway.) And exposure should be the same as well- even if I'm going from a 35mm to an 85mm, I try to keep my lighting to the same T-stop. Unless for some reason I just can't make it work. Then I'll light it so that it feels the same as in the wide shot. So while you could fix the color cast in post, why not shoot it with matching lenses in the first place and avoid the hassle in the first place?

But with the ability to shoot RAW you are given that added flexibility to correct the cast in post...

Using a Zoom as a variable prime would definately solve the color cast issue of non matching lenses.

Good thoughts, thanks for sharing.