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 :)

What's your take on Zeiss Compact Primes?

Alexander Ibrahim said:
These are DSLR glass rehoused.

They certainly won't be too sharp - although I don't know how a lens could be. If a lens is too sharp for what you are doing, then drop a filter on it.

Just remember though you can make a lens softer on set with filtration or in post, but you can't make it sharper. Hopefully this will obviate that question in the future.

They are not as sharp as the Arri/Zeiss Master Primes, that much is certain.
Click to expand...

Still photography lenses can be very sharp, and in fullframe shooting will normally resolve more detail than a HQ s35 cine lense

, even a master prime I suspect. Not looked at compact primes though, I'm using ZFs with focus gears
 
"""""""""You should also try and check out some of the Illumina lenses. T/1.3 set of 5 lenses just under $30000. A bit more than the CP set, but t/1.3. I'd expect to have to shoot those around t/2 for most work, but having the option to open up makes me happy.



Getting back to the Zeiss CP.2 set, I'd almost definitely skip the Zeiss 18mm at t/3.5. This is extra "bad" as the wide shots where you are likely to use it are the ones you'll have the most difficulty putting light into. So, even if you are happy working at 2.8, I'd grab the RPP 18mm instead.[/QUOTE]"""""""""""""



I work a lot with CP.2s ,and i like them, and for sure its away better than work with canon glasses , i have my Scarlet coming on the way and i'm researching wich lens to buy , no budget for cookes , no budget for ultra primes. , the only lens that fills the gap betwen canon still glass and ultra primes are CP.2.
i would like to buy the Alura 18-80 but 10 months wait, will kill my bussines.
And them i did read you saying about the Illumina , thats when i found this....

https://vimeo.com/36791058

It really scares anyone.
The CP.2 set that i rent looks perfect compared to this.
Its matter of busines level, it is dificult to have a "real" feedback from people who look through a EVF that costs almost more than my entire camera set. joking.
I cant spend more money renting them, and dont have money for panchros , and something that turns things really more dficulty is the wait time...8 months...and needs to get it paid in full when place the order.
I think i'm pretty decided to go for CP.2 ,
 
I own a set of Zeiss CP1 (same glass as CP2) and a RedPro Zoom 17-50 and must say that im amazed, how good the zoom is in comparison. Wide open it´s clearly sharper than the CP - actually its nearly as sharp as the Ultraprimes. Im not to happy about the chromatic aberrations on the CP. You can already see the aberrations on a professional lensprojector and it can be quite annoying on graphic shots. Im happy with the lenses for the price and use them on low budget shoots, but would always consider renting better glass for bigger projects.
 
Stefan Ciupek said:
I own a set of Zeiss CP1 (same glass as CP2) and a RedPro Zoom 17-50 and must say that im amazed, how good the zoom is in comparison. Wide open it´s clearly sharper than the CP - actually its nearly as sharp as the Ultraprimes. Im not to happy about the chromatic aberrations on the CP. You can already see the aberrations on a professional lensprojector and it can be quite annoying on graphic shots. Im happy with the lenses for the price and use them on low budget shoots, but would always consider renting better glass for bigger projects.
Click to expand...

This makes sense. A number of your CP lenses are 1.4 and f2, so they are likely a but softer wide open. But at 2.8 I wonder if they aren't as sharp as the zoom? There's even a chance that at 5.6 they start to pull away.

Its nice you have options!
 
CPs are definitely soft compared to any modern (or even some not so modern) zooms. I have found they are out performed by every zoom I own - cooke 20-100, technovision 25-250, ekran 25-80, and of course the duclos 11-16.

Nick
 
Nick Gardner said:
CPs are definitely soft compared to any modern (or even some not so modern) zooms. I have found they are out performed by every zoom I own - cooke 20-100, technovision 25-250, ekran 25-80, and of course the duclos 11-16.

Nick
Click to expand...

Even stopped down? At 2.8 the 35, 50, and 85 1.4 should be razor sharp. My Contax, which are the original designs for the CP's, are insanely sharp stopped down.

Obviously, wide open they are going to be a bit soft.

Super Speeds behave the same don't they? I remember Dave Mullen saying that Super Speeds at 2.8 were as sharp as UltraPrimes.

Obviously, there are slower lenses in the CP line, and THOSE...yeah...are going to be problematic at T3 (the 18 and 25 in particular). The 21 should pe pretty sharp wide open.

The 35, 50 and 85 are supposed to be based on those Super Speed designs, and the 28 F2 is based on a cinema design also. But the true still lens designs in the set (again, 18 and 25 in particular) are probably the real weak points.

Its for this very reason that I've been looking to get a Standard Prime 16mm as a wide, cuz my 18mm wont cut it.

But the 1.4's in this set RULE.
 
I Have never used them when I had the opertunity to shot them at their best. One job, I had to shoot a big green screen thing, and at the last minute they told me they wanted to shoot at 1 200th of a second shutter. OK, so much for my nice fat stop. All the other times I have used them, I have been working at somewhere between a 2-2.8 split, and they didn't impress me there either. I go out of my way to not use them now. If they aren't any good at the stops I shot most interiors at, they aren't any good to me.

To be clear, they are not horrible by themselves. They just suck compared to better lenses if that makes any sense. I think you could work away quite happily if you didn't work with better lenses all the time. My issues with them are -

-Generally on the soft side till you stop down - i've never had the luxury to stop down till they looked good.
-They flare really easily. Particularly veiling flare when there is something bright in the frame. They don't have nice flares with point sources either.
- They are not "snappy" they are relatively low contrast. This would probably improve with a fatter stop. I know contrast can be added in post, but I don't want to have to .
- the not having consistent stops is really annoying.

On the plus side, they are light, have excellent markings, and are very AC friendly.

Just my opinion, some people love them.

Nick
 
Nick Gardner said:
I Have never used them when I had the opertunity to shot them at their best. One job, I had to shoot a big green screen thing, and at the last minute they told me they wanted to shoot at 1 200th of a second shutter. OK, so much for my nice fat stop. All the other times I have used them, I have been working at somewhere between a 2-2.8 split, and they didn't impress me there either. I go out of my way to not use them now. If they aren't any good at the stops I shot most interiors at, they aren't any good to me.

To be clear, they are not horrible by themselves. They just suck compared to better lenses if that makes any sense. I think you could work away quite happily if you didn't work with better lenses all the time. My issues with them are -

-Generally on the soft side till you stop down - i've never had the luxury to stop down till they looked good.
-They flare really easily. Particularly veiling flare when there is something bright in the frame. They don't have nice flares with point sources either.
- They are not "snappy" they are relatively low contrast. This would probably improve with a fatter stop. I know contrast can be added in post, but I don't want to have to .
- the not having consistent stops is really annoying.

On the plus side, they are light, have excellent markings, and are very AC friendly.

Just my opinion, some people love them.

Nick
Click to expand...

Yeah, that low contrast thing comes down to personal taste. Tends to happen more on the faster lenses (28 f2, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, and 85 1.4). Great for faces, I guess not ideal for say architecture.
 
Contrary to Internet Opinion I don't think these are "based" on the Contax Primes at all.

Maybe the optical formula is similar - the coatings are completely different.

I believe the Contax smoke these for image quality, but these have very good mechanics.
 
Silly as this may sound.. if you have a crap budget to play with.. Go the canons. 16 to 35 2.8, 24. 1.4, 35 1.4, 501.2, 85 1.2, 70 200 2.8...
You get 6k+ coverage with bright F stops and everything from 16mm to 200mm.

I'm a PL Lens man... but you cannot beat Math and good old fashion logic.
 
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 basically 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, I'd take a Red One and CP.2s over an Epic and Canon stills glass, each and every time - until the end of time.
 
Mark K. said:
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 basically 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, I'd take a Red One and CP.2s over an Epic and Canon stills glass, each and every time - until the end of time.
Click to expand...

Mark, very well said.
 
Mark Toia said:
Silly as this may sound.. if you have a crap budget to play with.. Go the canons. 16 to 35 2.8, 24. 1.4, 35 1.4, 501.2, 85 1.2, 70 200 2.8...
You get 6k+ coverage with bright F stops and everything from 16mm to 200mm.

I'm a PL Lens man... but you cannot beat Math and good old fashion logic.
Click to expand...


I agree Mark,

The Zeiss ZFs and ZEs are also a good low budget alternative, small and extremely lightweight.

...but i think i prefer the color rendition of the Canons.

Do you like the electronic lenses controls with the Epic ?

Antoine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top