Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Master Zoom vs. Master Primes

Mike 'Fireman' Ross

Mike 'Fireman' Ross

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
1,672
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Wellington New Zealand
Hope you all had a great holiday!

Question:

I know the Master Zoom is supposed to cut perfectly with MPs; the basic color rendition should be as close to identical as makes no difference.

But does the MZ equal the MPs quality in all other respects (except, obviously, speed)? Is it as clinically accurate and precise?

To put it another way, if I shot a project on the Master Zoom at, say, T3, would the most demanding client, or the pickiest pixel-peeping colorist, see *any* difference compared to the same project shot on Master Primes at T3?

I've never shot the Master Zoom so would appreciate answers from people who have a good deal of experience with both.

Many thanks.

Mike
 
Yes Mike,

even so there are some differences form the Master Zoom to the Master Primes, as they should be, this are absolutely nothing you should concern about as no one, and I mean that, will ever see any differences unless analyzed on a projector, at a pixel by pixel base.

The MZ is however Super Color Matched to the MP's, so you are good there as well as far as matching the look, when used as Vary Prime, and Focal to Focal at same speed, this will be undistinguishable one to the other, to the naked eye, and even to a well dressed eye... ;)


The MZ, is second to none as far as Zoom goes, despite its age, only reason is not used as much is purely its massive size and weight!!
 
I like shooting on big zooms. Forces you to treat the camera like a person. You have to take into account its safety and comfort.

You rely on dolley, and good operating.
 
Timur Civan said:
I like shooting on big zooms. Forces you to treat the camera like a person. You have to take into account its safety and comfort.

You rely on dolley, and good operating.
Click to expand...


He he, you are right, but fortunately some of us do that even at the smallest and lightest configuration... ;)


But, I can surely see your point were as the camera set up gets smaller and lighter might let you treat it less respectfully vs the art it self, and ending up operating it as if was a simple hand held wedding video camera.
 
Paul E. McCarthy said:
The Master Zoom is so big its ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It is a Beast, but only slightly larger (in girth) then the 12x Angenieux. The Optimo is used all the time and has become the "gold standard" in its focal range and speed. The size is just what a pro has to put up with to get the needed focal range, quality and speed.
 
Mike,

Zooms will always have some tradeoffs compared to primes, all things being equal.
They contain more elements, so the contrast won't be not as high as that of the primes. Some geometrical distortions, particularily at wide angle and close focus are greater than the primes.
Then, there is size factor and speed, where primes have significant advatages.

It is hard to make a general recommendation as the choice would be very project specific. If I was shooting live performance, Master Zoom would be my first choice. For just about anything elese, I would prefer the primes.
 
Interesting thoughts, thanks for those. I'd hoped Ketch would have something to say!

Pawel, your points about contrast and distortion are true as generic points, as you make them, for an 'average' zoom - but the Master Zoom is *not* an 'average' zoom! For Zeiss to put 'Master' on the lens I would have thought they would have to be de minimus... I guess I'm hoping to conclude I can use a Master Zoom as a direct equivalent for a set of MPs, with the ONLY tradeoff being the speed... size & weight go with the territory, I'm with Timur on that one :-)

Mike
 
Timur Civan said:
I like shooting on big zooms. Forces you to treat the camera like a person. You have to take into account its safety and comfort.

You rely on dolley, and good operating.
Click to expand...

*Ding!*

The biggest project I shot last year, I used the RPZ 18-85 almost exclusively (the Nikon 14-24 went on for some jib shots). I liked the way I found myself working with that, and the clients were pleased - which is what matters!

Yes sometimes, especially when there's a Need for Speed, primes are the only choice - I'll be *all over* these Hawk/Vantage T1.0 primes if they're any good! - but I *like* shooting zooms as variable primes. I think it helps that I shot so much medium format in the past, with never a zoom in sight, that it's never a temptation for me to get 'lazy' with the zoom ring and compromise on composition...
 
Hey Mike,

Pawel knows Master Primes better than anyone I've ever met. A true expert who has only not owned Master Primes, but has a high-end lens evaluation system and encyclopedic knowledge on the subject.

He has spoken to me at length about MPs, ARRI/ZIESS Variable Primes and the Master Zooms, as well as the differences/trade offs of each.

I would take his advice as incredibly specific, not generic! :thumbup:

Mike 'Fireman' Ross said:
Pawel, your points about contrast and distortion are true as generic points, as you make them, for an 'average' zoom - but the Master Zoom is *not* an 'average' zoom! For Zeiss to put 'Master' on the lens I would have thought they would have to be de minimus... I guess I'm hoping to conclude I can use a Master Zoom as a direct equivalent for a set of MPs, with the ONLY tradeoff being the speed... size & weight go with the territory, I'm with Timur on that one :-)

Mike
Click to expand...
 
jimhare said:
Hey Mike,

Pawel knows Master Primes better than anyone I've ever met. A true expert who has not owned Master Primes, but has a high-end lens evaluation system and encyclopedic knowledge on the subject.

He has spoken to me at length about MPs, ARRI/ZIESS Variable Primes and the Master Zooms, as well as the differences/trade offs of each.

I would take his advice as incredibly specific, not generic! :thumbup:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification; he started 'Zooms will always...', so I took it as generic observations on zooms in general, rather than anything specific to the MZ.

Mike
 
Thanks Jim, Yes, the comments were both in general and specific.

Resolution wise, all Masters will outresolve the Epic sensor fully opened. But, the primes will have slightly higher micro-contrast.

I personally find ability to shoot sharp images at f/1.2 very liberating. Mainly for estetic reasons, but also for shooting at night or/and at high frame rates. Primes give you more options. Overall I'm leaning towards the primes, if I had to chose one, but I can think of shoots where I would prefer Master Zoom instead.

Why don't you get both and put this debate to sleep? :)
 
jimhare said:
Heh, I'd like to keep my house! Can you imagine Vicki's reaction if I spent $1/3 million on lenses? :emote_whack:
Click to expand...

+1!

Master Zoom in the realms of something I would own.

MPs... not so much, those I rent, don't see that changing.

Mike
 
Mike 'Fireman' Ross said:
+1!

Master Zoom in the realms of something I would own.

MPs... not so much, those I rent, don't see that changing.

Mike
Click to expand...

The amazing part is you actually can own one at a VERY reasonable cost. I just bought one a month ago! ;)
 
The lenses, if you rent them too, are probably a better investment then the house, oddly enough.

She might be very happy in a couple years when you bring her 1/4 million in profits :)

Of course, you can't live in a lens, but you can travel the world with with the profits!
jimhare said:
Heh, I'd like to keep my house! Can you imagine Vicki's reaction if I spent $1/3 million on lenses? :emote_whack:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top