Opinions on aesthetic and bang for rental buck CP.2 vs good Nikons

[Brant Hadfield]

I know that the CP.2s are better in terms of cine design. But in terms of image aesthetics, are the CPs worth roughly twice the rental cost? I have decent Nikons already for daily jobs, and I actually REALLY like the look, warm, sharp, though not abrasively so. A nicer feel to the image than with my Canons, as the Nikons seem less harsh, and less video-ish combined with Scarlet. Something nice on those old Nikons' coatings.

But the upcoming shoot is a bigger budget, and higher end. I would like to have better glass, and could rent even better Nikons than I have, or rent CP2s. Problem is, I've seen virtually nobody on this forum have anything really good to say about the look of the CP.2 image. People say great things about the markings, the build, ease of use. Those are all huge advantages over the Nikons operationally. But I can rent even better Nikons than I own, for half of rental of the CP.2s.

Advice? I won't really be pulling focus. I want the best image I can afford, and would consider almost anything. Speedprimes (which are a but less for rental than the CP.2s), or I would even go extreme quality of quantity and rent just 3 Master Primes or Cookes. What do you think? My minimum DOF will probably be 2.4-2.8 generally.

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

I like the look of CP.2's. They're a decent set of prime lens for a budgeted cinematographer. In terms of look, the bokeh is on par with zeiss ZE glass. Images are much more contrasty and have a look to them that you won't be able to get from Canon or Nikon still glass. I've shot with compact primes alot and wouldn't hesitate to use them again. Do remember though they are budget orientated cine lenses, so they don't stack up to more expensive ones.

Now are they worth renting? That's up to you. Personally, if I had the funds to get Cooke or Arri glass, I would definitely go that route. The compact primes aren't special enough to justify getting them over more top notch glass. They're not rated across the same t-stop range, nor do they provide you with the 'Cooke' look or the fantastically sharp contrasty look of master primes.

In short, CP.2's are worth purchasing to compliment a RED on medium to low budget shoots. When you have the money for better glass, get better glass.

 

[Larry McKee]

It may depend on your subject matter. I have found that for products, I like the Zeiss sharpness, although I have never used the CPs. Only Master Primes and Ultra Primes. For people, I will choose Cookes. I have a nice set of Nikons that I use on lower budget projects. I, too, really like the way they render people. Now that the S5s have hit the market, I have found you can get some really good deals on S4 rentals. You may find you can rent S4s for about the same price as the CPs. I think you will find that if you like the Nikon look, you will love the S4s.

 

[Nick Gardner]

I openly hate the Ziess CPs and would rather shoot on vintage nikon stills lenses. They really are my last choice of lenses to use. If I had to use the Ziess ZFs or ZEs or whatever, then I would take the CPs for the mechanics, but short of the Canon 16-24(or whatever it is) and the canon 24-70 (or whatever) they are really shitty.

My gripes are -

soft wide open - And I like soft lenses. I own a shit pile of old soft glass that looks nice and makes pretty pictures. These lenses look like a mistake wide open.

Super flare pron. anything bright in the frame sets the whole frame to milky low contrast world.

They are just not attractive. I have to work twice as hard to make a woman look good with these lenses as with anything else. Cooke 20-100 Woot! lomos! great! Ziess Standards, Ziess speeds, Red Lenses, anything else.... Great! I do not like them.

I am opinionated, and yours may differ from mine, but there you go. I have never heard anyone I know personally say anything good about them including people who own them.

That's my two cents and that's probably all it's worth.

Nick

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I know I'm a minority, but I feel the Zeiss CP's are crap. The 18mm is utter rubbish. They're half the price of Ultra Primes and nowhere near half as good.

As for which ones are better between the CP.2's and good Nikon lenses, that's somewhat up in the air. The "good" Nikon primes like the latest G-series and a few different previous versions can beat the CP.2's hands-down when it comes to technical superiority, glass/ image quality, etc.. I much prefer the look of Nikon glass. I suppose I'm biased in that regard since I've been a Nikon shooter for several years. Although, I really don't see how anyone can prefer the optics of the CP's over the good Nikon primes.

Where the CP.2's have an edge over Nikon primes is that they have proper "cine" style mechanics with longer throw or barrel rotation for focus and they have a smooth iris. All the current model Nikon lenses have electronic apertures and extremely short focus throw, which can make them difficult to work with.

Anyway, I feel like I'm just repeating what others have said and what the OP seems to already know, or at least on some level. My advice to the OP -- your Nikon glass is awesome and great. But depending on the job at hand, you may do yourself better to rent proper cine lenses where it's much easier to operate and pull focus. You don't have to rent CP's, there are other options like the Cooke /i Panchros. Those lenses are frickin' sweet and they sell/ rent for about the same prices as the CP.2's. There's also the RPP's too. Can't say enough good things about the RPP's. Of course, they do have their two major known flaws -- too few markings, which causes real issues with some AC's and the 35mm and shorter focal lengths are extremely large and heavy. The 18mm is larger/heavier than the 300mm. Other than that, they're awesome.

You can rent a set of older Zeiss T2.1 "standards" for less than the CP.2's, typically. They're not up to snuff with the current lenses on the market, but the have good mechanics if you get a set that's properly maintained and they have a lot of character, definitely a vintage feel to the image.

 

[PatrickFaith]

I shoot with nikon (converted with ef adapter) and cp2 ... my nikon is a bit "magical" (I agree with Nick Gardner). Only problem i have with my Nikor's is they add a bit of "magical" color which is hard to deal with if you are doing cut's between different lenses. So if your shooting with one lens ... old nikor's are awesome ... but if u need to switch lenses for different focal lengths, I prefer my cp2.

 

[Lee Saxon]

Maybe the CP.2s are more different from the ZFs that I realized, but my experience with the latter is that they don't match any better than my Nikkors.

 

[Brant Hadfield]

Thanks for all of your input thus far. The responses are adding credence to what I suspected. That is, that the CP.2 have proper mechanicals, and superficially may look better on the camera to a client. But when it comes to making you smile as you look at the monitor, the Nikons will probably win (especially given my taste, which values warmth over purely optical precision). I suspect over the decades that Nikon developed their lenses, they set out to create coatings which made human subjects "look good". I wonder if, with the CP.2s, Zeiss primarily set out to create a mathematically precise lens, with proper cine mechanics and layout, with a lesser emphasis on the aesthetics. Bottom line, I have yet to read from anyone who seems to think the CP.2 aesthetics are anything much better than alright, and more often, much worse than that.
None the less, whether it makes sense for me to rent only 3 Cooke's, or have a full pallet of EF adapted Nikons to go with my wide angle Tokina, is a decision I will probably put into the hands of the director after I explain the pluses and minuses, costs, etc. Some of the project will be shot from the shoulder, with a relatively shallow DOF - 2.4 - 2.8, somewhere in the neighborhood. I would still love to hear more opinion, as I am open to many possibilities.

 

[Mark K.]

Interesting to hear so much hate on the CP.2s, I'm a Nikon shooter myself, and though I love my Nikon glass, I've always preferred the slightly cooler, contrastier look of the Zeiss primes (first on SLRs and later on Video cams), they've got a 'wow' factor I've only seen matched by a couple of Nikon lenses like the 85mm f/1.4 and 200mm f/2.

I can't say I've ever noticed an 'unattractive' aesthetic with them either. Personally I think they make wonderful pictures, and the feedback we've had from clients on shoots where we've shot on either CP.2s or cine-modded ZFs - has been overwhelming positive, they've all loved the image the lenses put out too.

CP.2s are what they are. The entry level of proper cinema glass.

Does that make them bad? Not at all. It makes them the cheapest way to get proper cine-functionality.

Are you going to choose them over Ultra Primes or S4s? Of course not. But you can almost buy a full set of CPs for the cost of a single UP/S4. The highest performance comes at a price.

What you get with the CP.2s is excellent mechanical operation, a lightweight form factor, lovely Zeiss glass and the versatility to be able to mount them on just about any camera you can think of.

Are they perfect? No, that requires more money - a LOT more money.

They're still leagues ahead of any still lens in existence - for the simple fact that they're made for film work, they offer precise, repeatable manual control (which is more than can be said for still lenses and some other 'affordable' cine glass).

At the end of the day we're talking about images, and how a person perceives an image is a hugely subjective thing. So I say simply shoot with whatever makes you happy.

Personally I'd take a Red One and CP.2s over an Epic and Nikon or Canon stills glass, each and every time - until the end of time.

 

[Brant Hadfield]

Thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts. I've decided to rent the Superspeeds, as there seems to be general agreement that they offer better performance aesthetically, and of course are quite fast, at about the same rental rate as the CP.2s.

 

[Justen Nguyen]

I know I'm a minority, but I feel the Zeiss CP's are crap. They're half the price of Ultra Primes and nowhere near half as good.

I'm glad I'm not alone. Personally I'm not a fan of the cp series at all. Zeiss is great for ergonomics and an image that is sharp and clinical, thats a bit on the cooler side. I prefer the look/character of Nikon lenses. I definitely think the superspeeds were a good choice though

 

[Lee Saxon]

I know I'm a minority, but I feel the Zeiss CP's are crap. The 18mm is utter rubbish.

The 18 & old 25 2.8 are definitely crap, but it's too harsh to say they're all crap. The 28 is fine. The 25 2.0, 35s, 50 non-macro, & 85 are all pretty good. The 15, 21, 50 Macro, & 100 Macro are stellar. [disclaimer: I'm going by word of mouth on the new 15 and the new 25 2.0, but the rest are my own assessment]

That's comparing them to other stills glass (my primary focus), though. As Japanese-made stills glass goes, they're quite good.

But that's where the trouble started. They didn't call them Cosina's and price them accordingly. They slapped the Zeiss name on the side and charged the Zeiss premium, raising expectations to a level much of the line-up couldn't meet. Then they compounded the problem by putting them in cine housings and absurdly overpriced them, placing them in contention with the likes of Ultra Primes.

 

[J. P. Morgan]

After using both sets of CP2s and ZFs and my own Nikon lens set (standard speed, not even the supers), I much much prefer the Nikon look. They are plenty sharp and the focus roll-off is much nicer than ziess: I think the out of focus areas on the ziess are too "sharp" for lack of a better word.

 

[Dan Kanes]

If there are Red Pro primes in your rental market I would use those especially if it's a white cyc job or green screen or product.

You will love them.

Nikkors are very good lenses, old ones for that organic look, new ones for anything really.

That 14-24 and other G series are sort of "god lenses" minus cine mechanics.

I have been a proponent for years of a native Nikon Cine lens line.