Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Zeiss 21-100vs...?

Jeffrey Wright

Jeffrey Wright

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
46
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
Squaw Valley, California
Hey guys! Trying to figure out a cine zoom. I'm a snow/outdoor shooter and need to be able to carry all my gear in a pack. I own my own Epic Dragon and the company I usually am working with has a couple of Epic W's I use some of the time. I don't think I'm probably going to get a great rental rate on every job I bring it on but am the kind of person that tries hard to have their own gear in order to have it totally dialed. It's rare that I have an AC to pull focus and normally I'm one man banding or at the most will have a tripod/battery sherpa helping out. I feel that with pulling your own focus it's pretty important to have a good "feel" for your lens and going between rental options and L glass I think I'm missing out.

In the interest of budget and weight I've been using Canon L glass for the last 4 or 5 years particularly the Canon 24-105, 70-200, and Tokina 11-16. I've had no complaints with image quality but was what put me over the edge on making a change was recently renting the Zeiss 21-100 and Canon 17-120. The ability to be able to rack with a real focus throw with a skier coming at you at full speed made such a huge difference I didn't really know I was missing.

Canon 17-120
Too expensive for my budget

Zeiss 21-100 $8,000+ (used)-$10,000 (new) +$1,000 for filters = $9,000-$11,000
Pros:
Pretty decent 5x zoom range
lightweight 4.4lbs
Still have the option (EF mount) to use my existing wide and telephoto zooms as well as my Contax prime kit
Zeiss is probably a better sounding rental option for clients

Cons:
expensive
exposure ramping and a stop slower than the Red zooms
Filter system is a pain (I already own a zip box but no 4x5.65 filters))
Coverage on bigger sensors?


RED RPZ 17-50 and 50-150 combo $3,500 each x2 +$300 for 67mm filters +2x PL doubler $1500 =$8800
Pros:
I like the idea of being able to use the 67mm filters and avoiding the zip box which hates going in and out of the pack
a bit cheaper
Shorter length fits my pack setup much better

Cons:
Stuck in PL mount so I'm handcuffed on the wide and long ends though I'd probably pick up a 2x doubler
Forced into a used "owner/operator" market so not 100% on quality of each lens
a little heavier at 3.2lbs+3.2lbs=6.4lbs combined

Fujinon 20-120
Pros:
servo
6x zoom

Cons:
more expensive
close focus is really bad

Angenieux 25-250 T3.7 HP 8.5lbs $7,000?
Pros:
10x zoom/good on the tele end
Easier on the budget

Cons:
need a wide PL option
old
Does the front element rotate, filter options?
cover 6k?
Heavy
only used option
Quality vs Zeiss and RPZ?
Would need a wide PL option

Pros:
Wouldn't need a tele option
within budget

Red 18-85 $3,500-4,000
Pros:
With a 2x doubler I could probably get away with just one lens
Cons:
Too heavy
used owner operator market



Laowa 25-100 2.9
Pros:
within budget
lightweight
fast

Cons:
No EF option (sounds like there might be an EF option)
Doesnt exist yet
would need a wide PL and a PL tele option


Any other options?

Thanks guys!!
 
Last edited:
Okay, I know you said it's too expensive for your budget, but the 17-120 is worth every penny, especially if you're largely operating by yourself or with limited support. I've owned one for several years and I've never regretted buying it for one second. And Canon recently dropped the price again, so it's down to $22,850(originally ~$31K). I come from a broadcast background and I'm used to large zoom ratio servo lenses and not having to change lenses(often), so it really fits my style of working.

17-120
Pros:
Long zoom ratio-7x
Built-in servos for zoom, focus and iris
Decently wide back-end
Decent reach
Decent close focus(just under 2' from front of lens)
Built-in macro focus ability
Built-in back-focus adjustment
Focus throw designed for single operator operation(~170-180 degrees)
Overall designed for single operator operation
Constant T2.95 aperture from 17-91(5.3x)
Swappable PL/EF mount system available from IBE Optics/AbelCine that maintains data/power/control with both mounts. I had it installed on mine.
Slightly larger than s35 image circle
Nothing else like it exists in the s35/large sensor world.

Cons:
Heavy(front heavy)
Expensive(ish)(compared to the other lenses on your list, still a good deal for what you get, though)
Aperture does ramp during the last 29mm of the zoom range(worth it for the range and versatility imo)

Now, I don't own the Fuji 20-120, but have a client with one and I've used it several times on one of their Amira's and I will say that I do like it more than I thought I would(Ironically all of my broadcast 2/3" HD lenses are Fuji). With that being said, though, I have a friend who bought one and he said if he had it to do over, he'd buy the Canon.

For me, the Zeiss is a non-starter, because it's not wide enough and not long enough. Also it has a really long focus throw for single operator operation and its mounts are "dumb"(may or may not be important).

I have no personal experience with the Angenieux or RED and the Laowa isn't out yet, but not enough range for me, anyway.

So yes, the Canon is the most expensive on the list by a fair margin, but it's the most versatile for "one man band" type operation and pretty much the de facto lens in the s35 sensor EFP/Feature/Sports world. Which is where I'd classify what you're doing.
 
Last edited:
thanks Christopher! Great argument for the 17-120. I think I'm gonna hold off until next winter and see if I can line up enough work to justify it.
 
Jeffrey Wright said:
I've had no complaints with image quality but was what put me over the edge on making a change was recently renting the Zeiss 21-100 and Canon 17-120. The ability to be able to rack with a real focus throw with a skier coming at you at full speed made such a huge difference I didn't really know I was missing.
Click to expand...

You write you rented the Zeiss 21-100, so how did it worked for you? Where you okay with the long 300 degrees focus throw? Where you okay with the wide end being only 21mm? I think it's a fantastic lens for the money, but as others said here, the Canon is probably the best all around lens in it's class.
The benefit of the Zeiss is it's size and price, it's feels smaller and more compact from the Canon. I will completely rule out the big massive zoom, like the RED 18-85 or the angie, those are monsters, you can't use them them by yourself really.

Btw, I'll also consider a used Cabrio 19-90 if you consider the Canon, such a great lens!
 
The Canon is a great lens...but...it ramps. If that is not a problem for you then no problem. The Fuji 20-120 is a shade slower than the Fuji 19-90 (which does not ramp btw) and the 19-90 has a larger image circle than the 20-120. I have seen version 2 19-90s going for the mid teens. Take the FIZ servo off and it lightens the load quite a bit. I have not used the Loawa but it looks interesting.

EDIT: I would love to own a Fuji 85-300...man...even though it does ramp!
 
Last edited:
HP FTW. Shooting ski you need more on the tele end fo sho. Those other zooms are pretty limiting for shooting on a mountain. Get a 1.4 expander for the HP and have a 35-350 in your backpack that covers 6K FF. Misfit clamp on mattebox so telescoping is no problem. 11-16 in PL used and you are good to go. Get a microforce and get buttery zooms as well. It is heavy though... Or stick with L glass and practice more focus pulls with them... L glass is pretty easy on the back! Tripod needs to be pretty beefy for the HP as well so take that into account.
 
Scot Yount said:
The Canon is a great lens...but...it ramps. If that is not a problem for you then no problem. The Fuji 20-120 is a shade slower than the Fuji 19-90 (which does not ramp btw) and the 19-90 has a larger image circle than the 20-120. I have seen version 2 19-90s going for the mid teens. Take the FIZ servo off and it lightens the load quite a bit. I have not used the Loawa but it looks interesting.

EDIT: I would love to own a Fuji 85-300...man...even though it does ramp!
Click to expand...

True. The 17-120 does ramp and the 19-90 does not. But... the Canon also does not ramp from 17-91. So you can get a little philosophical and say you have a 17-90 T2.95 lens with a bonus 91-120 T2.95-T3.9 lens built into the 17-90.

BTW: Just saw the other day that Fuji just dropped the price on the “non-servo” version of the 20-120($9,999) and are offering some pretty good 0% financing deals on almost all of their other glass, including the “servo’d” 20-120.
 
Oron Cohen said:
You write you rented the Zeiss 21-100, so how did it worked for you? Where you okay with the long 300 degrees focus throw? Where you okay with the wide end being only 21mm? I think it's a fantastic lens for the money, but as others said here, the Canon is probably the best all around lens in it's class.
The benefit of the Zeiss is it's size and price, it's feels smaller and more compact from the Canon. I will completely rule out the big massive zoom, like the RED 18-85 or the angie, those are monsters, you can't use them them by yourself really.

Btw, I'll also consider a used Cabrio 19-90 if you consider the Canon, such a great lens!
Click to expand...

I really liked the lens. Of course I would have liked wider and longer but compared to my 24-105 I appreciated the extra width. I did ok with the focus throw. I wasn’t needing to start my shot at infinity and get to 6”. Infinity to 5 feet is pretty manageable on the zeiss.

I have used the 19-90 but it was on a shoot in AK and I ended up running a 50-300 Nikon that had been converted to PL for most of the trip. It was a great lens but being stuck with only PL options was very limiting. Also, at the time there weren’t many alternatives to a full mattebox so the entire setup was pretty clunky.
 
Mike McEntire said:
HP FTW. Shooting ski you need more on the tele end fo sho. Those other zooms are pretty limiting for shooting on a mountain. Get a 1.4 expander for the HP and have a 35-350 in your backpack that covers 6K FF. Misfit clamp on mattebox so telescoping is no problem. 11-16 in PL used and you are good to go. Get a microforce and get buttery zooms as well. It is heavy though... Or stick with L glass and practice more focus pulls with them... L glass is pretty easy on the back! Tripod needs to be pretty beefy for the HP as well so take that into account.
Click to expand...


Default Today, 01:25 AM
Thanks Mike! Appreciate you weighing in. I used to shoot snowboarding for the other Mike. Now I’m mostly working for Warren Miller and it’s quite a bit different. Way more backlit pow turns (and more racking) than bigger lines and jumps. I think I’d really like to try the Angie, especially for bigger AK stuff. When I’m running the Zeiss I’ll cheat down to 4K or even 3k if I need a little punch (Warren miller is still mastering in 2k) and normally carrying my 70-200f4 (though it’s impossible to zoom) or keeping my ef converted Nikon 50-300 (if it didn’t focus backwards I’d probably use it a hell of a lot more) in the heli for the longer BbQ shots. I think the Zeiss was an attempt at bridging the gap between the L glass ad the bigger PL stuff. It lets me stay in the L ecosystem with one Cine bread and butter lens but letting me carry the lighter wide and long stuff when I need it.
 
Word Jeffrey! I hear that. I actually use a PL to EF adaptor on my HP now so I can use all the L and Art Glass as well with no mount changes.
Hard to beat the L glass in the mountains.
Cheers
Mike
 
I used the Canon 17-120mm for the first time on a pilot for a doco series last week, and I have to say, I was instantly smitten.

I spent a lot of time at both 17mm and 120mm throughout the shoot, which has me suspecting that I'd feel the pinch on the wide-end a bit with both the Fuji 20-120 and the Zeiss 21-100mm (although around 20-21mm is usually wide-enough for a lot of things I shoot), for verite work in tight interior spaces, it makes a big difference.

The macro mode is very useful too.

The Canon really does offer up a level of versatility that I've never seen in a lightweight S35mm format. B4 news cameras could do this stuff all day, and it was easy with S16mm zooms. But on S35mm, I don't really see there being anything else that can quite touch it.

Obviously the convenience comes at a price premium. But that ability to shoot all day, wide shots and ECUs, all on the one lens. The speed that allows... it's a BIG deal.

I don't think I'll be hopping on verite jobs without it moving forwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top