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 :)

my lens decision..

I have zf 28, 50, 85, macro 50 and macro 100. I use them a lot. I think they look fantastic. The feel robust, the flare is beautiful and they always impress my clients.

I'm the only person in in my nitch using the ZF, and my work don't look like everybody else that rent MP, UP and that get me a lot new work.

I use the tokina 11-16 for wide, also a lens to love.
 
in my book sigmas don 't look the same as zeiss zf. they are warmer, closer to nikon.
I am in love with the ZFs. All have canon adapter mount, so switching from Red to MKII is a breeze.
Thinking of getting CPII...
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
andrew.. does the sigma match the zf's pretty well?
Click to expand...

The Sigma 20mm f1.8 is a little bit warmer than the ZFs. But for the price its still not bad. Footage of Selma Blair shot with my 20mm on my RED MX made it into the RED MX reel for the RED Event and it looked awesome. The flare on it is really cool. If you want to try it out hit my up and I'll let you take it for a spin.
 
I shot a feature using the Zeiss CP and was very pleased with the look. The housing and handling is well worth the money. Scales are very accurate and it makes much sense to me having all lenses with the same dimensions on a filmset. There is no feeling that makes me feel the look is not organic. My director who shot 14 feature films until now and all on 35mm liked the look very much, too.
They do breathe though which does not really disturb me so much but it is there. I was shooting with Red´s normal sensor and with the latest software release find it ok to push as far as two stops rating the camera 200 ASA mostly. The lenses match very well and we shot one day with a 180mm Ultra. You won´t notice it except for focal length was my impression. Bokeh shows clean circles in highlights. Zak is right when he says T3.6 is almost blind. But the lens is sharp and shows almost no distortion. I compared them directly to my Mark I lenses. The Mark I has a filmic look right away but is not as sharp. Also distortion is not as clean. That does not really surprise me while the CPs are made for FF35 and though with S35 you always stay in the sweet spot.
 
I was lucky enough to be able to see that lens in action (a friend was testing what I believe may have been a grey market version) and let me tell you it's an amazing piece of glass. Even at 1.4 this lens is sharp with little CA... This is simply the best wide angle lens I have seen at that speed!...one draw back...no aperture ring.... :(
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
alexander..the cp2's are the same aperture as the ZF's

so your paying for the new housing.. and the mounts..

im ok with taping my zf's and staying on a nikon mount (i have the opitek, which is great)
Click to expand...

Oh, they aren't really the same lenses.

Zeiss did change the aperture on the 50 and 85 lenses to t/2.1 The reason I got when I asked was that users were getting unacceptable results with the t/1.5 due to extremely shallow DoF. (An "improvement" which I despise.)

Its the same glass, and the housing is different. They really are pretty different to use, mostly as a result of the improved housing.

Breathing is much better. I don't know how much you are bothered with the breathing on the Zeiss SLR lenses, but it makes me crazy sometimes, and other times I don't care.

The real selling point for me is the larger focus rotation, which matters a lot on the wide lenses I find. I work with a lot of directors that stage fairly two dimensionally, so a lot of pulls end up being inside a millimeter of rotation on the handwheel. Its tough

Is it worth the money? That's for you to decide.

For myself, I'm undecided on the longer lenses, constantly back and forth. But on the 35s and wider I'm quite interested in the CP.2 lenses for their operation characteristics and their ability to serve on a variety of camera mounts.

That last bit may not matter to you. I shoot with both a RED and a Canon Seven D. So interoperation has some value to me.

Likewise the Zeiss LWZ.2 gives me the same advantage, and its better glass at t/2.6 is a marked advantage over the ZE/ZF glass at wider focal lengths.

Its really the top runner to cover all, well most, of my wide angle needs. My one lens to take me through a few cameras.

Going wider, I'm stuck on the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Compared to everything else I'm considering, the EOS mount version is dirt cheap, so much so that I can afford to have one for the DSLR and a Nikon or PL mount version for the RED.

I don't know, I may be restating the same points here.

I would advise setting up a test for yourself so you can try following focus on some different set ups on the CP.2 and your ZF lenses. Regardless of the outcome, it will be time well spent.
 
Just got my 17-50 in today. RED has hit a home with this one. it wen up against the new cooke panchro's and the 18-100 cooke. More than holds its own. Footage to follow soon.
 
Andrew Walker said:
(snip)
I'm planning on going Canon mount on my Epic and getting adaptor rings for all my Zeiss ZFs. The main reason for this is so that I can use the "L" Canon primes on Epic. The 24mm f1.4L mk2 I have is awesome and is my main timelapse lens.
Click to expand...

The Canon 24mm f1.4L is my personal favorite lens. That said, some of the top lens people I know are adamant that for the rigors of Cine use the PL mount is far superior to EF or F mounts just in terms of maintaining proper FFD. YMMV.

Cheers - #19
 
Last edited:
Alexander Ibrahim said:
Oh, they aren't really the same lenses.

Breathing is much better. I don't know how much you are bothered with the breathing on the Zeiss SLR lenses, but it makes me crazy sometimes, and other times I don't care.
Click to expand...

Did you mean that breathing is much better compared to the photo lenses or comparing CF1 and CF2?
 
Markus Rave said:
Did you mean that breathing is much better compared to the photo lenses or comparing CF1 and CF2?
Click to expand...

I think the breathing is better than the photo lenses.

I am specifically comparing the Zeiss ZF with the Zeiss Compact Prime CP.2.

I've never seen the original "CP.1", nor have I worked with the Zeiss ZF.2

I have to admit its possible the ZF.2 also exhibit improved breathing characteristics
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
andrew.. does the sigma match the zf's pretty well?
Click to expand...

Zakaree,

I just was shopping for Sigma & Tamron lenses.

I don't think they are a great match for the Zeiss ZF. Its a good looking lens, but it doesn't look like a Zeiss. Its a bit softer, and the color is less punchy.

From handling different models, and different units of the same model, I can also say Sigma's build quality is quite variable. More good units by far... but there are some bad surprises.

On a side note, not precisely relevant to Zakaree's needs

I am also thinking of picking up a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 EF-S lens to hold me over on my DSLR until I make a decision on my lens kit. Its a great value, and not a bad looking lens. My limited testing indicates that it holds focus through zooming better than the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8

I was surprised to see how variable Tamron's build quality was as well. At least it seems to be between different products. Within the same product quality seems to be fairly consistent. Still one model Tamron lens can be jangly junk, the next model can be solid.

That's the price we pay for low priced lenses though. Do your research and handle them in person before buying.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
The Canon 24mm f1.4L is my personal favorite lens. That said, some of the top lens people I know are adamant that for the rigors of Cine use the PL mount is far superior to EF or F mounts just in terms of maintaining proper FFD. YMMV.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

Oh I know how many people that work with high end PL glass look down upon still glass. But I don't care what they think. If you can deliver the amazing images using Canon, Nikon or Sigma glass then what does it matter really. Of course the key is finding a DP that's cool working with that glass and a focus puller that won't complain too much:laugh:.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
Zakaree,

I just was shopping for Sigma & Tamron lenses.

I don't think they are a great match for the Zeiss ZF. Its a good looking lens, but it doesn't look like a Zeiss. Its a bit softer, and the color is less punchy.

From handling different models, and different units of the same model, I can also say Sigma's build quality is quite variable. More good units by far... but there are some bad surprises.

On a side note, not precisely relevant to Zakaree's needs

I am also thinking of picking up a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 EF-S lens to hold me over on my DSLR until I make a decision on my lens kit. Its a great value, and not a bad looking lens. My limited testing indicates that it holds focus through zooming better than the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8

I was surprised to see how variable Tamron's build quality was as well. At least it seems to be between different products. Within the same product quality seems to be fairly consistent. Still one model Tamron lens can be jangly junk, the next model can be solid.

That's the price we pay for low priced lenses though. Do your research and handle them in person before buying.
Click to expand...

I remember hearing bad reviews about the Sigma 20mm 1.8 before I was going to buy it. But it sounds like those people did get a bad lens. Every lens I buy I check out to make sure its good to go. If not it gets sent back until I get a good one. I find the footage from the lens to be amazing but it does have a focus motor in there that does make some noise when you rack the focus. Its slight but its there. I guess I could have Duclos remove the motor if its possible.
 
Andrew Walker said:
Oh I know how many people that work with high end PL glass look down upon still glass. But I don't care what they think. If you can deliver the amazing images using Canon, Nikon or Sigma glass then what does it matter really. Of course the key is finding a DP that's cool working with that glass and a focus puller that won't complain too much:laugh:.
Click to expand...

It isn't a matter of looking down on SLR glass. I like SLR glass, and I REALLY like the price... and they do deliver great pictures. Sometimes its being penny-wise and pound foolish to bring them onto working film sets.

SLR glass is defective by design for the cine application.

This is all most easily summed up as a result of the overriding factors in SLR lens design: low cost and auto operation via built in servo motors.

There are also issues that, while important for cine use, have no bearing in still photography. Breathing is an example. In still photography who cares if the focal length changes during a focus change?

Its not that you can't do the work, its that you are making your job harder than it needs to be, and compromising the results. If you've ever changed camera movement because a pull was too small, or because the lighting change was too extreme, you've already fallen victim to this.

I can say from an expensive experience as a 1st AC that pulling a 1mm rotation on the handwheel smoothly and on cue is a lot harder, and leaves fewer creative options than making the same pull on a cine lens where I have 2-3cm of rotation on the handwheel.

I can do both, but I promise I can pull the cine lens with less practice and more repeatability on any set up. I can also give you more choices in how that pull looks. It adds up to fewer blown takes, which can mean more set ups in a given amount of time. It could mean that I can take those extra takes and give you different performances on the lens, a slow roll, a snap roll, maybe chase the focus a bit. That means more work finished in the work day, or getting to rest the crew earlier after you've made your day.

For example, to compare the Zeiss ZF 21mm f/2 vs Arri Zeiss LWZ 15-45 t/2.6 , both On RED One, both at the same frame size and distance. The Zeiss was actually at 20mm or so, but it was also at t/2.8 not f/3.5.

We were shooting Nikon mount primes all day, but on that shot we weren't getting satisfaction after a half dozen takes. The director was pissed, and called lunch. I had the ARRI lens delivered, and converted the RED to PL over lunch.

We got the shot in one take after lunch. We shot out the day with that lens and worked much faster- even got ahead. The producer was so happy with improved performance/speed he let me fill out the kit with a few, then brand new, Arri MPs. I'd have been happy with ultra primes, or a Cooke S4 set but the house didn't have any in stock.)

That's looking at just one aspect of the difference in cinema lenses versus SLR lenses as a 1AC. I'm not even going to consider the DP and directors legitimate concern over the lens.

A producer must decide what the value of all that is. If labor costs me $500/day, including unlimited overtime, then I'd rather stick with SLR lenses and work the crew to death. If labor costs me $5 per minute, which is easy on a professional non-union set, then it makes perfect sense to give the crew every tool they need to work faster and get them off the clock as early as possible.

So, while SLR lenses can deliver the shot most of the time, sometimes they slow you down, or force you to alter your plans. In those cases cine glass can save you both money & time.

You get what you pay for... and beware of false economies.
 
Great Thread, thanks!
One question:
Can I use the Zeiss ZE on Red one with a Canon mount?
How do I control the apeture?
 
not outside my budget.. but outside of what i want...

not super into the rpp's.. great bang for buck.. but way too heavy.
I like to throw the camera up on my shoulder alot, which is mostly wider lenses...

and an 18 would need to be light for me..

im going for the 21mm zf.. wide enough.. same family of lenses.. same size
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top