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 :)

Xenon vs. CP2 vs. Re-housed

Roberto Battiston

Roberto Battiston

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Andes
Greetings. Nice to be here at reduser. We´re one block from our Epic now, also aiming some lenses.
Been reading everything about primes between 10k - 20k a set.

I just feel the new Xenon FF (coming from some tests) are the ones we like most. It´s a shame most of the videos from Schneider are 300fps / 3k, but, features as size & weight, coverage until 43mm / 8k?, makes them the most interesting to me, including CP´s. We were after rehoused things (Contax, Leica, ZF.2) until Xenon FF. Just any opinion would be helpful guys, we´re just a little worried regarding CA noticed by some users.

Kind regards,
Gino.
 
Unless my health kicks me in the rear even harder then it has for the past few weeks, we'll be filming a piece in venice Italy with the Schneider Xenon, it will have a wide range of exteriors and interiors with water reflections, skies over water, color masks, various palettes, dresses of various complex textures, Skin tones, multi millennia hold buildings and structures, interiors of similar, and so on, in this I believe it will be perfect test for the lenses as much as it will be for Dragon.

We'll also post a "Making Of" and a gear review of each of the products used, the Xenon included, we'll shoot lot's of material at 24fps, while some at near 100fps to further slow down in post were needed.


As far as what I think personally about the lenses mentioned, I have made my opinion known many times, the CP2's are NOT on par with the Schneider mechanically, in fact they should NOT even be mentioned on the same sentence, and that is how it is.

Image quality wise, many will argue, of course only the Bias ones will say that the CP2's are great, but those that don't own a set of them, will tell you differently.

However both can and do produce great images, just that the Build quality, true Cine lens structure, Focus trow, fill and distance of travel of the Schneider makes them superior to the CP2's.

Chromatic Aberration, is present in both lenses, in different ways, and it will appear differently deepening on subjects shot, Aperture chosen and so on, yet it is decently controlled on both lenses, and for the price range of this lenses, you certainly can't expect the type of extremely well controlled CA as in the Master Primes, Summilux C Primes and Summicron C Primes.

I simply wouldn't worry about it.

To work with, I find the CP2's annoying in their super FAT front element, I don't really care for the design either, year they sure did a good job as a rehousing, but they could have done WAY better, since Zeiss is the maker of one of the BIG boys in the industry, and yes of course for the price no open is saying they should have given you Master Primes, but because they do make MP's they know better then to send out such mediocre set o flenses, even for that price!!
 
The reality remains that the most complete option for switching between EF and PL mounts is the CP.2's. The Xenon set will take time to fill out and user switching mounts doesn't yet seem to be an option.
We know there is a bit of CA on the Schneiders, but of course the same is true for almost all the sets you mentioned.
What is of greater concern to me is the question of breathing. Very curious to know if the Xenon's perform better on that front.
 
I have strong feelings about lenses and more or less this is how I see things from a narrative perspective.

Personally in this price range I'd be looking at them in this order:

- Schneider Xenon FF-Primes
- Rehoused Leica-R Primes (might be able to get that in PL mount in an easier way soon)
- Canon CN-E Primes (EF mount only today, but...........)
- Zeiss CP.2 Primes

However, I will say this. Zeiss has some great CP.2 glass in there. While I'm not crazy about the range as a whole they do represent a good value. In fact all of these options do.

One thing to take into account is lens speed and that's where the Xenons get hurt a bit at T2.1. You can find T1.3-T1.5 glass in the Leica, Canon, and Zeiss Primes. If that's important to you I'd favor the Leica or Canon Primes in reality, but that's my preference in terms of the look and character of how the lenses draw and render.

Character-wise I'm really fond of the Leica-Rs and Schneider Xenons.

Mechanically speaking the Xenon Primes easily beat out the other lenses.

Interestingly enough all of these sets approximately resolve the same level of detail minus a couple odd ducks in there. So from that perspective in terms of pure lines it's more or less a wash.
 
Phil Holland said:
I have strong feelings about lenses and more or less this is how I see things from a narrative perspective.

Personally in this price range I'd be looking at them in this order:

- Schneider Xenon FF-Primes
- Rehoused Leica-R Primes (might be able to get that in PL mount in an easier way soon)
- Canon CN-E Primes (EF mount only today, but...........)
- Zeiss CP.2 Primes

However, I will say this. Zeiss has some great CP.2 glass in there. While I'm not crazy about the range as a whole they do represent a good value. In fact all of these options do.

One thing to take into account is lens speed and that's where the Xenons get hurt a bit at T2.1. You can find T1.3-T1.5 glass in the Leica, Canon, and Zeiss Primes. If that's important to you I'd favor the Leica or Canon Primes in reality, but that's my preference in terms of the look and character of how the lenses draw and render.

Character-wise I'm really fond of the Leica-Rs and Schneider Xenons.

Mechanically speaking the Xenon Primes easily beat out the other lenses.

Interestingly enough all of these sets approximately resolve the same level of detail minus a couple odd ducks in there. So from that perspective in terms of pure lines it's more or less a wash.
Click to expand...

Phil,
Mechanically speaking the CP.2's do a far better job than the Canon's or the Leica's. In fact that is exactly what they have going for them.
While I can understand other preferences from an optical point of view, no one else offers fully interchangeable user friendly mounts.
They are a consistent 300 degrees of rotation and have very, very good witness marks. Further the Canon's aperture settings are too close to each other and very easy to bump. They also have electronic issues which can create false contacts and create error lock ups on Canon cameras. They too are inconsistent across the aperture range and suffer most of the same issues of rehoused glass which is not cinema native.

Both the Xenon's and the CP.2's offer 14 blade iris's and neither Canon or rehoused Leicas offer this.

Personally, having seen and held the Schneider's they don't feel that much better mechanically to me than the CP.2's even though they were designed from the ground up as Cine lens (or should I say "video" lenses? :-). Nowhere near as good as their Xenar III series. They are heavier to be sure than the Zeiss's, but I don't see that as a plus. In fact one of the chief reason people like to rent the CP's is for how light they are.

As I mentioned before, my curiousity about the Xenon's has to do with how they deal with breathing issues, this is where all these other sets fall down the most for me.
 
Clayton Burkhart said:
As I mentioned before, my curiousity about the Xenon's has to do with how they deal with breathing issues, this is where all these other sets fall down the most for me.
Click to expand...

Which is why I own the Schneider Cine-Xenar IIIs. They actually don't breath, which is really impressive on the longer lenses.

That and the crazy close focus ability.
 
Phil Holland said:
Which is why I own the Schneider Cine-Xenar IIIs. They actually don't breath, which is really impressive on the longer lenses.

That and the crazy close focus ability.
Click to expand...

Phil, I'm seeing some pretty cheap original Xenar sets around. Aside from the mechanical/ergonomic issues, they held their own optically IIRC? There's little or no optical difference between the originals and the the IIIs, am I right? I tested the originals very briefly and I did have a soft spot for the images...

Mike
 
Roberto,
I bought the set of cp-2s when they first came out several years ago. They have served me very well and I use them for about 50-60% of my work. The interchangeable mount is actually very useful and allows me to use them on stills cameras or a c300. They are built well, with a consistent diameter and have a 300 degree focus throw. They are not master primes as some people love to point out but they are great for the money,have produced many great images and are easy to work with.
Having said all of that, if the schneiders had been available when I was buying, I would probably have seriously considered them.
I also have many stills lenses that I use on the epic and f55. Optically they are great but mechanically a pain. It really depends on what kind of work you are doing. With a one man band the stills/rehoused lenses actually work very well as you are pulling your own focus but if you use a focus puller, he/she is going to prefer the cp.'s or the schneiders.
I guess the question for you is what kind of shooting do you intend to do?
 
Mike 'Fireman' Ross said:
Phil, I'm seeing some pretty cheap original Xenar sets around. Aside from the mechanical/ergonomic issues, they held their own optically IIRC? There's little or no optical difference between the originals and the the IIIs, am I right? I tested the originals very briefly and I did have a soft spot for the images...

Mike
Click to expand...

Mike,

I´m sure Phil will give a concise report soon, just wanted to give my experience, too. The mechanics on the III series is the part that makes them attractive for me. They are not telescoping any more, gears where they should be and always at the same position through the line and as Phil already pointed out an insane ability of close focus. Also the overall look was really very pleasing for me, so the downsides boil down to the smaller image-circle which make them unusable with ff sensors (24x36) in case you think of using or renting them out with other cameras. There was one other thing that irritated me and that was a strange colorshift of the CA when "focusing through" an object. Tough task to make a decision, but for me the price difference between a series II and III would still be worth buying the new ones. YMMV.

Cheers,

Ulf
 
Clayton Burkhart said:
Phil,
Mechanically speaking the CP.2's do a far better job than the Canon's or the Leica's. In fact that is exactly what they have going for them.
Click to expand...

Really? The canon mechanics seemed to be pretty good when I played with them. At least on par with the CP's if not better. (EF mount only is the killer, other wise I think I would have bought a set for sure).
 
Shane Kelly said:
Ketch, you forgot the part where you admitted that you are getting sponsored by schneider for your tour.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, I guess I didn't wonted to sound like a broken record about it... Just don't forget that we PURCHASED the very two PL mount Xenon sets form Filmtools... ;)


Still, I choose my sponsors, and no tty either way around, so I only work with gear I think is the superior one, and never didi never will accept Sponsorship from any one with gear I don't think is the best in it's given category.

Also to be precise, Schneider, as well as all other Sponsors, are sponsoring me with gear, not with actual cash for the my Tour, all of that cash it actually comes out of my own pockets, as it always did... ;)


All above said, in my strong opinion the Schneider are far better lenses then the CP2!
 
Mike 'Fireman' Ross said:
Phil, I'm seeing some pretty cheap original Xenar sets around. Aside from the mechanical/ergonomic issues, they held their own optically IIRC? There's little or no optical difference between the originals and the the IIIs, am I right? I tested the originals very briefly and I did have a soft spot for the images...
Click to expand...

I haven't tested every set out there, but yes the optics themselves should be the same. The big difference is that the 18mm, 14mm, and eventually 135mm only exist in the Cine-Xenar III set.


Ulf Krentz said:
I´m sure Phil will give a concise report soon, just wanted to give my experience, too. The mechanics on the III series is the part that makes them attractive for me. They are not telescoping any more, gears where they should be and always at the same position through the line and as Phil already pointed out an insane ability of close focus. Also the overall look was really very pleasing for me, so the downsides boil down to the smaller image-circle which make them unusable with ff sensors (24x36) in case you think of using or renting them out with other cameras. There was one other thing that irritated me and that was a strange colorshift of the CA when "focusing through" an object. Tough task to make a decision, but for me the price difference between a series II and III would still be worth buying the new ones. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Bingo. In reality when I was deciding to purchase them I was a bit nervous on the coverage front. I actually used a DSLR and measured their "projected Dragon coverage" and I liked what I saw. They are indeed an S35 set though. The all cover 6K HD and 6K WS and I shoot in those formats to most at the moment, plus I have plenty of FF35 glass when I do shoot 6K FF.

But yes, the huge selling points for this set where several things Schneider (or in actuality Isco) nailed. No breathing, fantastic mechanics, accurate scales, smooth color, Leica-esque draw, really nice out of focus image performance, and impressive close focus abilities. When I listed out the pros and cons of the sets I was looking to buy, the pros far out weighed the cons with this set and they are extremely competitively priced compared to similar glass.

It was a hard choice, I was going to go with a limited set of Ultra Primes or maybe wait for the Summicron-Cs, but these still have "pluses" against those sets and color-wise they cut decently with Leica Summilux-Cs.

Three months is how long it took me to compare and decide on a set of primes to buy. It's a big decision because we aren't talking small money here. So I looked as deeply as possible into my wants and needs from a theatrical, narrative, and commercial perspective. That's pretty much what influenced me.

Back onto the topic that's more or less why the Xenons and rehoused Leica-Rs are a tough decision as they have similar-ish draw and color, but given what I know know about all of the Xenons that are coming out in the near future that set will be complete within a year and will be a "whole set".

And I understand the merits of the housings on the CP.2s over the CN-Es. However, if we're talking the faster glass in the set I do prefer the Canons in that specific case. Though there might be two or three CP.2s I'll add to my kit in the near future. I'm eyeballing that 28mm pretty hard and nothing touches their 15mm prime. That thing is a beast.
 
I still need to spend some time with the Xenons, I've only had a chance to fondle them so so far but I liked what I saw. The CNEs did not impress, (although the Duclos mount makes them much more attractive) NAB should be interesting though, I'm hearing rumors from a few dark corners about some interesting new options coming.
 
Wow, thanks a lot to everyone. This forum is really full of nice working people, it seems. I´m happy to have your thoughts about this, confirming my ideas. I´ll go for the Schneider Xenons, for "documentary" reasons. I think it´s nice to have the ability to change them (ex: while on a steady), without loosing (too much) balance. And of course, they´re made in germany, among their great cine-housing. Good shot from Schneider, considering the other options on this range.

Hope to see those images somewhere in a near future, Ketch.
Cheers guys!.

EDIT: Phil, I also think Leica´s are the second choice. I was thinking to buy them and send them to someone for rehousing.
 
Last edited:
Roberto Battiston said:
...Hope to see those images somewhere in a near future, Ketch.
Cheers guys!.
Click to expand...

Starting today we'll be shooting my Short in Venice Italy, so I hope to have images in the days to come.

The short will be shot almost entirely on the Schneider Xenon glass, with few shots with use of Diopters.
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
Starting today we'll be shooting my Short in Venice Italy, so I hope to have images in the days to come.

The short will be shot almost entirely on the Schneider Xenon glass, with few shots with use of Diopters.
Click to expand...

Enjoy! :wink:
 
Ketch, good luck on your short, can't wait to see images. I recently received my XENONs as well and shooting a music video with them.
This is the way to go man, and from now on "Vignetting Karma" NO MORE! ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top