Would a Canon AL mount be able to hold a Zess CP.2 lens?

[Michael Pyon]

Anyone know the answer or tried it?

 

[Tim Wilson]

Yes. Definitely.

 

[Jack Shanahan]

Yes. Definitely.

+1 cp2 are super light + the mount is sturdy with a great locking mechanism.

 

[Scott Brown]

I'm looking at the Canon mount and I'm wondering if the Titanium mount is worth the cost differential? Will the AL mount cope with the larger heavier Canon lenses i.e. 70-200mm without additional support? Longer term, would the TI mount be a safer option?

Scott

 

[Marc Berger]

Sure, on longer term or if you work in harsh environments with big temp. changes, the TI mount is the better choice. But I can confirm that the Canon AL mount works great without support and a 70-200mm or CP.2. I use those combinations every day.
Marc

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

Conventional wisdom is not go to past the Canon 70-200 without lens support on the AL mount. You'd want support on anything past that on a TI mount as well, though, do to the risk of the lens wobbling or flexing and messing with your image. That's usually the primary concern. Tweaking/bending/breaking the mount is pretty hard to do, AL or TI. The Red mounts are super solid.

But Canon 70-200 without lens support is done all the time.

 

[Scott Brown]

Marc/Nick

Thanks for this - so probably the AL Canon mount would be quite adequate for our needs and we can put the money saved into glass )

Scott

 

[Alvise Tedesco]

AL mount rock solid. Way better than Canon mount on Canon camera (Zeiss CP twist slightly when mounted on a C300...)

 

[Trevor Meeks]

The weight/leverage of the CP2 lenses on the Aluminum mount is nothing. Completely rock solid. I run CP.2s and a Genus Elite mattebox (clamp-mounted to the lens) and there is absolutely no problem with this.

I think people think of the Aluminum mount as this wimpy, cheap thing that they have to worry about... seriously, for 99.9% of your needs, this mount is completely reliable, plenty strong, and perfectly built.