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 :)

NOT ANOTHER LENS TEST ARRR: SONY CINEALTA V CANON CNE V ZEISS

If anybody has used the Canon CNE and the Xenars... can someone please chip in on how much better the Xenars are (if they are at all)... does anyone prefer the Canons to the Xenars?

Phil if you stumble on this thread your contribution would be appreciated as your advice has helped in the past.
 
Last edited:
NOSA OBAYIUWANA said:
If anybody has used the Canon CNE and the Xenars... can someone please chip in on how much better the Xenars are (if they are at all)... does anyone prefer the Canons to the Xenars?

Phil if you stumble on this thread your contribution would be appreciated as your advice has helped in the past.
Click to expand...

I really like the Canons and I think the Xenons aren't very good compared to them, but the Xenars are in a different ballpark and they cost differently because of it. I haven't tested them personally, but the things I've seen is better. But comparing lenses I think you should compare the Xenons to the Canons, not the Canons to the Xenars. Other than that, there's the specs for them, the Canons breathing is minimal compared to the others in the same price class, they are faster than any other full frame lenses (I'm not sure about the coverage of the Xenars) and they have more blades than most. The sharpness is also very very good on the Canons, but the Xenars are sharper I think.

But better that someone who actually tested the Xenars weight in on those.
 
We bought a set of the Sonys and I like to second what Nosa said. If you can accept the limits in use with the Dragon sensor these lenses are a no brainer at this price. I´m not sure about shooting them at T2 though they are significantly better from T2.8, so Christoffer has a point about them being a bit slow. The Xenars have a very pleasing overall look, I really liked them a lot, they have an insane close up ability, nice flares, very controlled breathing and good mechanics. Unfortunately for my taste they have a strange CA behavior which ruled them out for me. May be James could chime in, AFAIK he tested them recently.
 
NOSA OBAYIUWANA said:
If anybody has used the Canon CNE and the Xenars... can someone please chip in on how much better the Xenars are (if they are at all)... does anyone prefer the Canons to the Xenars?

Phil if you stumble on this thread your contribution would be appreciated as your advice has helped in the past.
Click to expand...

I heard my name all the way through the internet!

Yep, the Schneider Cine-Xenar IIIs have turned out to be one of my favorite prime sets, still surprising to me as I pretty much turned away from the version I set with a confused shrug. But they are indeed designed for S35 filming and you will experience coverage issues on the wides above 5/5.5K filming. That said, they are freaking gorgeous (especially the focus pull/out of focus image growth) and don't breath at all when focusing. Which is something they actually do better than any prime sets out there. They have a look I'm really, really smitten with.

The Xenon FF-Primes are more in line with the price point comparison against the Canon CN-E primes. It's a game of trades when comparing them. You either want the speed of the Canons or the more consistent look (and consistent speed) of the Schneiders really. One nice thing is Schneider makes a 75mm T2.1. I'm a big, big fan of that focal length. They also have that 18mm T2.4 on the horizon, which I like. Though it's taken a while for it to be developed. The Schneiders XFFs have this crazy classic/modern look I really like and they fill a neat gap between my glass that is more clinical and my wacky real funky lenses.

I do like the CN-Es to an extent. Still use them once in a blue moon. The 35, 50, and 85mm I've been fans of. The 24mm is pretty nice as well. I prefer the Zeiss CP.2 15mm over the Canon 14mm any day of the week however.

I do own both sets of the Schneiders and have shot something recently that I can show soon showing exactly what they can do. A little stress testy, a little practical testy if you will.
 
Jarek Zabczynski said:
I read that only the 25mm Sony has some vignetting on 6k.
Click to expand...

Nope. I might be able to get my hands on them again soon, I'll test for coverage. But I think the 20, 25 and 35 have different levels of noticeable vignette.

The set I used was half plastic though, so that might have changed for the 35.
 
The Xenars do look pretty fantastic. There's not much under $50K/set that compares. I shopped the CP2 and the CN-Es and went with the Xenons. I wanted to like the others more, but the Xenons agreed more with my sensibility. My clients have been very happy with them and I think the bokeh is rich and creamy. It's been a pretty slow roll out of the product line though. I've been waiting for the 18 and 135, and waiting... and waiting.
 
The xenon's out-of-focus definitely looks amazing, and that's on every lens in the set at any aperture.
 
Mike P. said:
I read somewhere that if you remove the PL mount, there's an FZ mount underneath, and then from there you can adapt to EF... Though that might have been the previous plastic-generation Sonys and/or completely false.
Click to expand...



That wouldn't be physically possible as the FZ mount has a shorter flange distance than PL - an FZ mount would extend further away from the back of the lens, not closer to it.
 
2ls8pok.png


Tortured my little apprentices to do another test yesterday between the Sonys and the Xenars (Prokit were mighty kind to bring them to my studio).... here are a couple of things I noticed

1. The Xenars are visibly sharper.
2. The Sonys are very close though.... and as I said before, for the price (£6500), they are an astonishing buy. If you look at the test they do not resolve fine hair detail quite as well.
3. They were instructed to do the test at maximum aperture.... we all know that all lenses sharpen up, so my interest was to see them at wide open T stops. I am trying to make a decision about whether I should buy a 4 lens Master-prime set for £50K (which would do everything) or the 6 lens set of Xenars.
4. The out of focus area of the Xenars were more pleasing to my eyes (although this is just my own taste)


I am posting a link to the test below:

PLEASE NOTE THAT AT THE END I THINK MY STUDENTS HAVE IT WRONG ON THE EXTREME CLOSE UP SHOTS - I SUSPECT THE XENARS AND THE SONYS HAVE BEEN REVERSED BY MISTAKE - they did not use a board and the editor may have switched them. I will check and correct - but I'm not certain because in the studio I thought the Xenars were sharper.... but my perception may have been warped

The Xenar V Cine Alta test:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvCcJz2H4Jw
 
Last edited:
Ulf Krentz said:
We bought a set of the Sonys and I like to second what Nosa said. If you can accept the limits in use with the Dragon sensor these lenses are a no brainer at this price. I´m not sure about shooting them at T2 though they are significantly better from T2.8, so Christoffer has a point about them being a bit slow. The Xenars have a very pleasing overall look, I really liked them a lot, they have an insane close up ability, nice flares, very controlled breathing and good mechanics. Unfortunately for my taste they have a strange CA behavior which ruled them out for me. May be James could chime in, AFAIK he tested them recently.
Click to expand...

I noticed this Ulf.....I was a bit shocked actually when a saw a bit of purple fringing on a slightly overexposed area.... did not see that on the Sonys.... it would not rule out the set... but I was was surprised as I was not expecting that.

The real question for me is whether the Xenars offer enough pump in performance from the Cine-altas, CNEs or Sonys. My other option is, as I said above, to buy a 4 lens set of Masterprimes....the Masters would meet all my needs.... speed.... sharpness...durability....full frame coverage (except on the 18mm).

Another plus is as the lenses will be going out on features, commercials and music videos the Arri Masterprime name is industry standard and I won't need to do any explaining.... in the U.K a lot of producers and D.Ps still are unaware of the Xenars.
 
Nosa, I really appreciate you posting you and your student's findings.

I got to use the sony's recently and couldn't find any significant flaw, decently fast and decently sharp, decent breathing, even bokeh and very little CA. Other than weight, I wonder if you found any other drawbacks?

I was also making a budget for lenses recently and noticed that the full set of six Sony's are currently on sale for 1/2 the price of a single Master prime. For my little indie operation it's too good to pass up.
 
Anton Shavlik said:
Nosa, I really appreciate you posting you and your student's findings.

I got to use the sony's recently and couldn't find any significant flaw, decently fast and decently sharp, decent breathing, even bokeh and very little CA. Other than weight, I wonder if you found any other drawbacks?

I was also making a budget for lenses recently and noticed that the full set of six Sony's are currently on sale for 1/2 the price of a single Master prime. For my little indie operation it's too good to pass up.
Click to expand...


I agree Anton.... they are a steal and the rumour floating around is that Sony is about to discontinue the lenses and have reduced the price to sell off existing stock.

Drawbacks?

1. Not as smooth on the focus and aperture rings as the xenars... they are good just not as smooth as the schneiders
2. They are not as sharp or as contrasty as the schneiders.... but only by a little... you really do have to pixel peep to notice the difference
3. Build quality .... I will give the schneiders an 8/10 and the Sonys a 7.8/10

The Sonys amazingly have less C.A wide open..... finally I did say above that they do not resolve fine hair detail as well as the Schneiders.... it also seems that the Schneiders protect the highlights just a little bit better....although this is almost imperceptible.
 
Also another slight drawback is that some of the black-caps do not fit tightly (a small thing I know)
 
NOSA OBAYIUWANA said:
Here is a shot of the purple C.A..... was really surprised as the Sonys did not exhibit this

riuidz.png
Click to expand...

Thanks for showing this, I already started to doubt my sanity as everybody praised the Xenars to be perfect. I was not willing to accept this fringing, it really shows its ugly side when you move focus, as the color changes from purple to green in the transition which makes it very noticeable and it is extreme on high contrast edges. The Sonys are also very sharp and start to shine from T 2.8. I´m really happy with my decision. Just worked for a corporate on Saturday and extremely happy with the results. Regarding the coverage, these are meant for S35, so vignetting is there at 6K open gate, but on the 25 and 35 you might get way with either 6KHD or 6KWS. Cheers, Ulf.
 
NOSA OBAYIUWANA said:
Here is a shot of the purple C.A..... was really surprised as the Sonys did not exhibit this

riuidz.png
Click to expand...

How was this on the Canons? I understand that T1.3 has it, but in comparison to the others at T2.0?
 
Got to handle the Sony's again today and they all cover 6k HD, stopped them down and racked from close to infinity there's no porthole and the illumination gets even pretty quickly as you stop down. On the set I used the caps fit tightly. I ordered them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top