What lenses will you buy?

[Shawn Nelson]

I still think the RPPs are the absolute best thing in the <$50k bracket. They seem to have no real competition unless you're okay with older period glass. Some are, some don't want their stuff to have that tint

 

[Mitch Gross]

I'm curious about the new Schneiders, but there's not much info out yet.
EDIT: Found some info HERE.

We'll have some resources and info up on the Abel site soon.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Schneider-Kreuznach was already making Cine-Xenon lenses for ARRI Arriflex 35 II.

If somebody have a sample of that old and very tiny lens can have a look at those

vintage Cine-Xenons that also have the same 18-blade iris for an exceptional bokeh effect.

Great lenses and also GREAT PRICE for a set.

 

[Mitch Gross]

These lenses are vastly beyond those old gems.

 

[michael zaletel]

Almost definitely an Arri/Fuji Alura 45-250mm T2.6
Still toying with the idea of a pair of Optimo Rouges but I'd have to sell my sizable Standard speed set. If I won the lottery I'd buy a set of Leica primes in a heartbeat.

Hey Evin, How much is that 45-250mm T2.6?

-michael zaletel

 

[Mitch Gross]

I believe the price sheet ARRI was distributing indicated something like U$36,000 (that's from memory, I may be a little off).

 

[Benjamin Rowland]

Mitch,

Since you've had access to the Zeiss CP2's and the Schneiders, how do they compare?

Thanks for all the great info you add to this forum.

 

[Martin Widerberg]

I'm thinking Nikon or Canon if Reds electronic control of them are as good as I imagine it will be. I can see many benefits with the remote focus pulling and if you are able to do preset focus stops. I can't make up my mind if it will be Canon or Nikon. I have a big collection of fine Nikon manual lenses I'm very happy with but going electronic I might jump ship. Nikon lacks a fast 35mm in their current line, but they have some fantastic zooms. Any thoughts on that?

Martin Widerberg

 

[Tom.Wong]

I'm also hoping someone or a company will come up with a way to rehouse electronic lenses with PL housing while maintaining the electronic functions too. Rehoused EF L series glass would be out of control amazing. Speed, Full Frame, really sharp. Same goes with any other manufacturers

If the option was out there I'd buy all L series primes and have them all rehoused.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Mitch,

Since you've had access to the Zeiss CP2's and the Schneiders, how do they compare?

Thanks for all the great info you add to this forum.

These types of comparisons are always tricky because they so often come down to a matter of taste. That and using words to describe image characteristics is rather limiting. I'm working on a resource for our website that will help people in this.

The Compact Primes are physically much smaller and lighter and they cover FF35. Their T-stops do vary in the wide end and there are currently more available focal lengths. They have 14-blade irises and a nice bokah (and please don't ask me to describe the bokah -- it would take the length of War & Peace). Contrast and color rendition is nice and accurate. The lenses are quite sharp and the focus curve is rather sharp, meaning that focus drops off fairly quickly. This is the classic Zeiss look -- some call it "clean" while others think it "clinical."

The Schneider Cine Xenars use a telecentric design that makes them larger and heavier than the Compact Primes. They are all about T2.0-T2.2. The Cine Xenars has 18-blade irises that describe a near-perfect circle and a very attractive "Leica-esque bokah" (that's quoting from numerous others that have looked at the glass). Contrast and color are quite good, with a bit of warmth to the image, although not as much as Cooke. The lenses are sharp and focus drops off more gradually than on the Compact Primes.

As I said, these descriptions can only take you so far. We're working on making comparative images available. They are both very nice lens sets.

 

[Brian Broz]

I'm leaning towards the Schneider Cine-Xenars...just awaiting more information and final pricing.

BB

 

[Erich Roland]

We ordered a set of the compact primes from Abel.

the change-able mount helped the choice.

On the wide end (at least in PL) we have a spare 16mm 2.1 to fill the space for wide without dropping in speed. Zeiss needs to solve that issue.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

RPP & RPZ, simply the build quality, the sharpness, which I favor most in lenses, I can always make the image soft, or give it more contrast, but the sharpness to me is NUMBER ONE, and the value RED offers in the PRO line of Lenses is simply not even comparable with anything out there.

Further more in using RPP for S3D we found that the RPP's offer the best matching then any other lenses we tested, including the UP, so for me RPP's and RPZ's all the way.

But off course I know that there will be many occasions were a particular job, will require other lenses, but for me I will be buying up what ever RED produces, if after testing I find that their quality continues to be at par with what they have been producing so far with the RPP and RPZ, and after shooting with the 18-85 can't wait to get my hands on the new 17-50.

 

[Mitch Gross]

I can always make the image soft, or give it more contrast,

On a basic technical note, one can always remove contrast but one can not add it.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

On a basic technical note, one can always remove contrast but one can not add it.

What I meant to say Mitch is that Contrast can be manufactured by way of lighting and subject placement, what you can do in post is similar of what you can do to sharpen, both will give some result at a price, but Sharp lenses to start have a priority in my Book vs, others that have a soft look to them, for that I can use a multitude of ways from filters, or post in order to achieve it, Contrast in lenses is obviously a necessity, but some offer more contrast then others, while some offer more sharpness then others, I much prefer Lenses which are Sharper, like the RED Pro lenses, and not necessarily saying that they are by any means less contrasty.

 

[Evin Grant]

Mitch, you're talking about optically in camera only correct? Because it's obviously very easy to add contrast in post.

BTW I've been hearing $20K for the Aluras, if it's $35K that's going to be a much bigger nut to swallow.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

We ordered a set of the compact primes from Abel.

the change-able mount helped the choice.

On the wide end (at least in PL) we have a spare 16mm 2.1 to fill the space for wide without dropping in speed. Zeiss needs to solve that issue.

Sweet!

 

[Mitch Gross]

Mitch, you're talking about optically in camera only correct? Because it's obviously very easy to add contrast in post.

I am talking about optically in camera because we are talking about lenses.

A lens will transmit information to the sensor. After that, you can only throw info away as you manipulate. You cannot add what is not there. You want a lens that is capable of delivering across the widest range of contrast and then you can choose to throw away want you do not want. But you cannot create contrast.

In post you are not actually adding contrast, you are enhancing the contrast that was captured by the sensor. If I had an image with a very bright window and a dark shadow, a contrasty lens might deliver me detail in both extreme areas, where a less contrasty lens might wash out one or the other. If I shot with a less contrasty lens and then enhanced the image in post to make it appear more contrasty, detail would be lost because the sensor never saw it in the first place.

It is the basic argument against "fix it in post." It is always best to capture as much as you can in the very beginning because after that you can only throw away more info from there.