Zeiss Compact Primes or RED Pro Primes for the EPIC?

[Ron Reddick]

question on all this, I have a couple of the RPP and and Optima Zoom that I love. With the new FF Dragon coming next year will the RPP still cover without vignetting? Or should I look at saving the money for the UP's

Ron

 

[Adam C Lubkin]

question on all this, I have a couple of the RPP and and Optima Zoom that I love. With the new FF Dragon coming next year will the RPP still cover without vignetting? Or should I look at saving the money for the UP's

Ron

I don't believe anything has been announced as to the format of the Dragon sensor.

 

[Mark Toia]

I decided on the Luma Tech S35 Illuminas. There ultra-prime-like size, incredible speed, sharpness, and character will work perfect as my general workhorse lenes.

Agree... +1

RPP are bloody good optically though! but just to big & heavy!

 

[nima]

Zeiss Compact Primes or RED Pro Primes for the EPIC? What do you suggest?

FedEx has my EPIC already Should arrive tomorrow!

Zeiss CP are Zeiss ZF photographic lenses with cinema housing.
I spoke with a Zeiss engineer last year at Nab and he said that Superspeed are the cheapest way to go.
If I had to choose I would give 20k to the Red guys, they made a great set of prime lenses and they are selling it for a very convenient price.
Although if you have the budget why don't you reserve a set of Cooke Panchro?

 

[Jason Comparetto]

Its probably already been said here, but RPPs are heavy. The CPs will mount to Canon if you ever plan on switching mounts or cameras. I would probably go with the RPPs simply because its a matched set of aperture openings. Otherwise, they probably would have taken over the RPPs in a heartbeat. Of course, that extra stop or two is no easy feat to achieve

 

[Sulekh Suman]

Hi,
Go for RPP's no second thought about it. We are getting our third set for EPIC-M arriving tommorow.
We have done an huge amount of work on these lenses with excellent result.
Check at www.editfxstudios.com
Thanks
Harcharan

I didn't know that Memories in March was shot on Red. Good to know.

 

[Mike Halper]

Thought I'd post a correction of facts I noticed in this thread and the Zeiss CP.2 thread. A CP.2 set is not $37k. You can get a 6 lens set for as little as $23,400, or if you want the 50 macro, 100, and for some reason the 18, it would be $26,400. 6 Ultra Primes will cost at least $70k, and most likely $75k+ for a more common mix of focal lengths, which is $50k+ more than CP.2's not $25k. A similar RPP set with the 18mm (6 lenses) is $22,800, which is not $10k less than CP.2's.

I currently have a set of cine-modded Zeiss ZF's and have been considering a lens upgrade. For me personally, I've come to the conclusion to probably not upgrade to the CP.2's or the RPP's for the following reasons:

A lot of the CP.2's are slower than the ZF's. All of my ZF's are 1.4, 2, or 2.8. Only the 28 and 35 are as fast as the ZF's. The optical quality is very close, and under many situations not noticeable, if not actually the same. The only thing I'd personally gain by going to the CP.2's is the PL mount (I can adapt and mount to the Canon mount), longer focus throws and in the right direction (hasn't been much of an issue for me so far), equal lengths of lenses that don't extend with focusing (I have a nuns knickers for the matte box to solve that), less breathing (I do a lot of handheld and shoulder mounted shooting, so that's not seen as much). So it doesn't seem like a good $ investment to spend about $16k-$17k it would take to sell my ZF's and get the CP.2's.

RPP's, while a good image, are big and heavy. Part of the benefit of the newer cameras is the smaller size and throwing a big and heavy lens on it takes away that benefit. I was also concerned when I read multiple reviews and comments about the markings on the RPP's not being accurate. The aperture markings on the both sides of the lens generally don't match, and the focal distance markings are generally not very accurate. I think that's a terrible flaw in the lens and even if they are a great value for the money, it's still at $19k or $22,800 (if you get the 18mm) and I would expect any pro lens to have accurate markings. Can that be fixed? Yes, thanks to Duclos Lenses, but there's an expense to that which shouldn't have to be endured on a brand new professional lens.

What I've personally decided is to stick with my ZF's for my Scarlet for now. My dream lens is the Ultra Primes and maybe one day I'll get those. I also like the Cooke Panchros and S4's, but I prefer the Zeiss image and really want Ultra Primes.

 

[Mike Halper]

I did the same and just did it again.. I still think the Ultraprime is sharper, but between all three, they all look great and would hold up in a scene together unless someone paused a movie on a 4k projector and zoomed in..

I agree that the UP is sharper than the RPP, which is sharper than the CP2. However, it's a chart. Not sure the sharpness difference would be that noticeable on an actual moving image. I think that's more important. We're talking about motion filming here, not still photography... for the most part.

 

[Matt Uhry]

I agree that the UP is sharper than the RPP, which is sharper than the CP2. However, it's a chart. Not sure the sharpness difference would be that noticeable on an actual moving image. I think that's more important. We're talking about motion filming here, not still photography... for the most part.

I've done pretty complete side by side testing ( SALT ) and have had lot of on set experience and would not say that this is true. They are about equal in terms of resolution and contrast on a MX. The UP's are a bit more user friendly size and weight and have superior markings to the RPP's, but optically to my eyes they are a toss up....

You guys all seem to be chasing the "Sharpest Lens"... The real questions are:

1: Which lens can you keep in focus consistently - "SHARP" is only useful if you can get it in focus. Having things really sharp 50% of the time won't get you back on the next one.

2: How the entire frame looks - focused, how focus rolls off and the more defocused areas.

3: Contrast - how are highlights / lightstrikes handled and flares expressed / suppressed - lots of opinion on what's desirable here.

4. CA - when do you get it and how bad is it ?

5. Geometric Distortion, barrel, pincushion, complex ?

6. Edge illumination falloff.

7. Mechanics - Image shift, focus play, repeatability.

8. Overall color cast - not such a big deal these days when it's a given that we'll finish electronically.

Anyway - this is just a start... buying a lens on sharpness is like choosing a car based on it's top speed - there are many other important factors. otherwise we'd all drive Bonneville style rocket sleds. Wait, that would be cool.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

 

[axel ebermann]

I agree that sharpness as the only factor is a bit overrated. Yes - lenses need to be sharp.
But sharp lenses can look awful because they lack other characteristics.

One thing that nobody has mentioned to far - and maybe I am living in a bubble here...

Protection of your investment !!!


If you look at all of the new lenses that are coming out they all
seem to have their strengths and weaknesses.

But you can see that for example the Schneider lenses are already selling
for about 30% under their advertised book price.

Try that with Ultra Primes. If you bought a set ten years ago you could most probably
sell them for the same price right now.

I was lucky to snatch up a set of pristine Zeiss Superspeeds a couple of years ago.
Like all other lenses they have their strengths and weaknesses - but I would not have a problem
to sell them for the same money I bought them for - or probably more.

Quality glass and grip equipment seems to be the only thing that holds value over more than three years.
So if you are investing into gear that might be a consideration....

I've done pretty complete side by side testing ( SALT ) and have had lot of on set experience and would not say that this is true. They are about equal in terms of resolution and contrast on a MX. The UP's are a bit more user friendly size and weight and have superior markings to the RPP's, but optically to my eyes they are a toss up....

You guys all seem to be chasing the "Sharpest Lens"... The real questions are:

1: Which lens can you keep in focus consistently - "SHARP" is only useful if you can get it in focus. Having things really sharp 50% of the time won't get you back on the next one.

2: How the entire frame looks - focused, how focus rolls off and the more defocused areas.

3: Contrast - how are highlights / lightstrikes handled and flares expressed / suppressed - lots of opinion on what's desirable here.

4. CA - when do you get it and how bad is it ?

5. Geometric Distortion, barrel, pincushion, complex ?

6. Edge illumination falloff.

7. Mechanics - Image shift, focus play, repeatability.

8. Overall color cast - not such a big deal these days when it's a given that we'll finish electronically.

Anyway - this is just a start... buying a lens on sharpness is like choosing a car based on it's top speed - there are many other important factors. otherwise we'd all drive Bonneville style rocket sleds. Wait, that would be cool.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

 

[D Fuller]

I used the Duclos quite a bit Saturday on a commercial shoot. Epic 5k FF: It vignettes noticeably at 11mm f2.8. 12mm was quite acceptable for what we were doing.

A note here--if you are shooting for TV and cropping to a 16x9 frame from 5K, the vignette is no longer an issue.

 

[Mike Halper]

I've done pretty complete side by side testing ( SALT ) and have had lot of on set experience and would not say that this is true. They are about equal in terms of resolution and contrast on a MX. The UP's are a bit more user friendly size and weight and have superior markings to the RPP's, but optically to my eyes they are a toss up....

Looking at the middle of the chart in the images that were posted, the "ARRI RENTAL" is more clear to read on the UP than the RPP, and just barely more clear to read on the RPP than the CP2. In other areas of the chart there are variances. However, the CP2 doesn't disappoint me at all. Again, these are just resolution and sharpness charts, not moving images with color which would be a more important evaluation to me personally. I've always preferred the characteristics of Zeiss over other lenses, but that's just my opinion. Best thing would be to rent the sets of lenses and use them, then make your decision.