Zeiss cp.2 vs Canon CN-E why the bad rap

[Will Vazquez]

After years of using vintage lenses, I want to buy a set of used cinema primes. Yes, I love the image from my Leica R, canon FD, NIKKOR ais, even my classic ZE. But I’m sick and tired of wobbly mounts, wobbly lens helicoids and gears being in different positions. I just want a simpler life with a decent image on proper.cinema lenses. I know that the Zeiss cp.2 are rehoused ze/zf.2 i’m fine with it, but I’ve heard some things about people having issues with the used copies. I’m also interested in Canon can-e primes. What is the experience that you guys have with these lenses, what’s good and bad about them? Why do some people hate them ? Also, please don’t suggest to me those DZOFilm vespid primes, or the NiSi Athena, I’ve tested these lenses, and I think they look like 7artisans but for more money. I’d rather have a ZE classic than those lenses. Thank you.

 

[Antonio De Rosa]

Personally i prefer CN-E over the CP.2, i like the skintone tonality more... As lenses are more creamy while Zeiss are little bit more cold and crisp due the micro contrast for me.
Both have breathing.
Like you, i don't like the DZO's but I've read good about Athena. Why you don't like these lenses?

 

[Will Vazquez]

Personally i prefer CN-E over the CP.2, i like the skintone tonality more... As lenses are more creamy while Zeiss are little bit more cold and crisp due the micro contrast for me.
Both have breathing.
Like you, i don't like the DZO's but I've read good about Athena. Why you don't like these lenses?

I like the CN-E but I don't like the heavy green bokeh fringing.
To be honest, I may be wrong about the Athena lenses. I only did a quick test with the 35mm that a friend bought and the issue I found was how fast the lens loses contrast when light hits front element. Could be an issue with backlight situations. Perhaps a hard matte on matte box will help with veiling flare. Maybe I'll buy a set to play with.

 

[Zack Birlew]

It is a struggle I know! I really like Zeiss lenses but for what I want to do the Arri Signature primes make a much better fit as I am looking for the least flare prone lenses for certain VFX purposes. Other than that, I do also like Sigma Art/Cine lenses but the lens flares on those can get pretty shimmery despite their clear crispness. Also, like you, the chromatic aberration issues with some older lenses and even newer lenses throws a wrench in the works sometimes too.

I would say if the project doesn't have to worry about flares then that opens up most lenses and then it comes down to the look and bokeh. The Canon CN-E lenses look nice, I've always liked Canon lenses and that's why I have a mostly complete FD set of primes and zooms and I've nabbed a deal on EF lenses here and there, but like choosing them over Nikon or Zeiss it comes down to what you want for a particular project.

When it comes to the newer lenses like the DZOs, Nisi, Irix, etc., I really like them all for one reason or another but they can look a little "same-y" when comparing them. That's why Laowa and Mitakon throwing out weird, APO, or fast lenses helps to differentiate them from the bunch and why I tend to follow their progress. However, I wouldn't say no to any of the others as they all look like fine options and DZO especially has been killing it with zoom options. My brother is actually pretty adamant about Meike cine lenses for a project he wants to work on so it's nice to have quality options for different projects.

 

[Antonio De Rosa]

It is a struggle I know! I really like Zeiss lenses but for what I want to do the Arri Signature primes make a much better fit as I am looking for the least flare prone lenses for certain VFX purposes. Other than that, I do also like Sigma Art/Cine lenses but the lens flares on those can get pretty shimmery despite their clear crispness. Also, like you, the chromatic aberration issues with some older lenses and even newer lenses throws a wrench in the works sometimes too.

I would say if the project doesn't have to worry about flares then that opens up most lenses and then it comes down to the look and bokeh. The Canon CN-E lenses look nice, I've always liked Canon lenses and that's why I have a mostly complete FD set of primes and zooms and I've nabbed a deal on EF lenses here and there, but like choosing them over Nikon or Zeiss it comes down to what you want for a particular project.

When it comes to the newer lenses like the DZOs, Nisi, Irix, etc., I really like them all for one reason or another but they can look a little "same-y" when comparing them. That's why Laowa and Mitakon throwing out weird, APO, or fast lenses helps to differentiate them from the bunch and why I tend to follow their progress. However, I wouldn't say no to any of the others as they all look like fine options and DZO especially has been killing it with zoom options. My brother is actually pretty adamant about Meike cine lenses for a project he wants to work on so it's nice to have quality options for different projects.

For sure we have today a lot of choice, that's good as you said "Choose the right lens for your project", I couldn't be more agree with you.
Purple fringing as @Will Vazquez says is horrible in some type of lenses sure especially when the background is really bright but over this objective problem i like they're creamy look.
@Zack Birlew I've a Canon FD set too and i love them! Which one you have?

 

[M Harvey]

Hey Will--totally understand where you're at in your frustrations with adapted lenses!

I've only worked with the CP2s a few times and the CN-Es once. The bottom line is that I think each set offers good mechanics and a good basic look, and so they're great as "daily driver" lenses where you need to produce a professional product but aren't going for a special look (beyond perhaps adding filters).
As far as complaints, you'll get different types of color fringing with each set in high stress situations-- but it's also true that you'd get those with many more expensive sets. In the CN-Es I used, the 35mm was pretty soft-- but that might have just been the condition of the rental lens. Some people also wish the lenses had smaller fronts (both are 114mm I think. You could consider the newer Zeiss CP3 set with 95mm fronts if you care).
TLDR: it'll come down to your preference as far as the look of each set and where you find the best deal. if you like the ZE lenses, I see no reason not to go for CP2. Why do some people hate these sets? Again, my experience is limited, but I don't think there's a big "gotcha" with either set. We live in an age when people seem to attribute almost mystical qualities to lenses, and I sometimes hear really passionate opinions based on very thin experience. Some people see "soul," others see lens flare distracting from a poorly lit shot.

If I were comparing myself, I'd try them against the Nisi and DZO lenses mentioned above (I've never tried either myself, but they look like fantastic values), as well as the Sigma primes (especially if you like to shoot wide open). I'd also probably throw the Tokina zooms (11-20, 25-75, 50-135) into the comparison, because I think they have a very nice look and would work for me for a lot of jobs.

 

[Les Hillis]

Seeing the feedback when those lenses first came out, people seemed to be complaining just as much about the fact that the lenses were too much of a re-housing of already existing lenses and not totally newly designed cine-lenses, than they were actually finding fault with the lenses.

People might not have found the lenses to their taste, but I don't recall the cinevised versions introducing any real flaws that weren't already there in the pre-existing lenses they were based on.

People just wanted something newer and better, at more affordable prices than the existing cine-lenses of the time, back before the big increase in new (and cheaper) cine-lenses we've seen since then.

 

[Zack Birlew]

For sure we have today a lot of choice, that's good as you said "Choose the right lens for your project", I couldn't be more agree with you.
Purple fringing as @Will Vazquez says is horrible in some type of lenses sure especially when the background is really bright but over this objective problem i like they're creamy look.
@Zack Birlew I've a Canon FD set too and i love them! Which one you have?

I currently have a 20mm 2.8, 24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.0, 35mm 2.0, 50mm 1.4, 55mm 3.5 Macro, (I think) 100mm 2.8, 100mm 4.0 Macro, 135mm 2.0 (broken mount), 135mm 3.5, 200mm 2.8, 35-70 2.8, 35-105 3.5, 50-135 3.5, 80-200L 4.0, and 85-300 4.5.

I got lucky on finds for the wide end and the 135mm 2.0 is just missing the rear part of the lens while the glass is mint so that's a definite cine rehouse candidate. The zooms are pretty cool too and my favorites are the 35-105 and 85-300 even though I know they're both outclassed by the super expensive 50-300 4.5. I have the Nikon 50-300 ED so I can get a great idea what the Canon FD version would be like but with the Nikon in the kit I don't feel too left out.

Also, I keep going back and forth on whether to pick up an 85mm 1.8 and 135mm 2.5 lenses or not as I know it makes more sense to hold out for the 85mm 1.2L and the mid range 50mm and 55mm 1.2 lenses to complete my set but the 100mm makes up for it pretty well to cover both the 85mm and 135mm area unless I toss in my 135mm 3.5 to the kit.

As for the set overall, I really don't know if the cine rehouse set prices are justified as I'm just as happy with my Nikons and Pentax Takumars but Canon FDs just happened to latch on to the lens circles just right so it is what it is. I do plan on rehousing my set once I get the funds as I can see some of the weakness in the build of a few lenses as well as the slippery smooth focus rings and the great glass would definitely be better served in cine rehoused bodies.

 

[Phil Holland]

CN-E and CP.2 primes were absolutely ground breaking when they were released. Mainly in the sense that they were affordable cinema optics that also covered full frame, which wasn't exactly common. They were both based on Canon's and Zeiss's stills lenses, but with proper mechanics, lens body design, focus throw, and mounts (assuming Duclos Lenses PL mount mode for the CN-Es here). Canon are the EF L-Series Primes. Zeiss CP.2s were the ZE or ZFs. CP.3s are Milvus btw. I'll also throw a biscuit to Schneider Xenon FF-Primes as they were the first ground up design for cinema in that pricing category.

Shortly there were other options like Xeens, based on the Rokinon Cine glass and rather inspired by Canon's designs.

But the jump came when measurably better lenses arrived near the same price point. Namely Sigma Cine and Tokina Cinema Vista. Both are punching way above their weight in performance to price ratio and are often used instead of much more expensive sets. And I can safely say the Tokina's have been modified into now countless variations out there by tweaking things, stripping coatings, replacing elements, modifying mechanics, etc.

The recent onslaught of DZO, Meike, Irix, Dulens, SLR Magic is in there too, and more represent cheaper lenses as a whole. Often sacrificing something notable, but in most cases the benefits are the price and the lens size. I'll put a caveat here that the Irix primes, the T1.5 ones, punch way above their weight, but as of yet, not a full set.

The only downside to CN-E and CP.2 lenses is more modern lens manufacturing techniques leading to higher quality glass, better coatings, and often better focus pulls have transpired near their price point. But yes, some of us also did gripe for what was mentioned above, particularly when putting them up against premium S35 glass at the time. Which is largely when other companies were inspired to do it in earnest due to market demand.

But yes, rehousing should be brought into the conversation. It is now financially much more achievable than when CN-E and CP.2 glass had their bit day. Lots of vintage stuff that people enjoy using can be made for similar or slightly more higher prices. Though the new companies and the waitlist at each one has become frightening.

I'll also highlight that RED played a huge role early on in this aspect of the industry evolving. Less so now as there are so many cameras. But just to put a fine point on it, when I was coming up you could by a set of K35s for around $4-$6K. They are now going for over $350K for a good set. And there was a time where barely any real PL options existed beyond Ultra Primes and Cooke S4s. Tremendous growth really. Not all good, but we have more options than ever. And I'm a glass nut, so I've mostly enjoyed this outside of wallet pain.

 

[Fred Potts]

I like my CN-E lens

 

[Timothy Jones]

I like my CN-E lens

I like my CN-E lens

As I’m sure you know the zooms were made from scratch with new optical recipes, unlike the primes.
I also have them and they are very nice . Underrated.

 

[Will Vazquez]

But the jump came when measurably better lenses arrived near the same price point. Namely Sigma Cine and Tokina Cinema Vista. Both are punching way above their weight in performance to price ratio and are often used instead of much more expensive sets. And I can safely say the Tokina's have been modified into now countless variations out there by tweaking things, stripping coatings, replacing elements, modifying mechanics, etc.

I'll also highlight that RED played a huge role early on in this aspect of the industry evolving. Less so now as there are so many cameras. But just to put a fine point on it, when I was coming up you could by a set of K35s for around $4-$6K. They are now going for over $350K for a good set. And there was a time where barely any real PL options existed beyond Ultra Primes and Cooke S4s. Tremendous growth really. Not all good, but we have more options than ever. And I'm a glass nut, so I've mostly enjoyed this outside of wallet pain.

I love the Tokina Vista lenses, they are the best bang for the buck at that price point, still pricey compared to CP3, but Vistas render a really high end, round, dimensional image. I hope to pick up a used set in the future.

For the moment, I got a used set of CP2 Super speeds and really like them. They have slightly better sharpness, contrast and color than their ZE/ZF2 siblings, and you can see by looking at the glass, that the CP2 have more complex coatings to the ZE/ZF2. I like them enough for now, except for how loud the metal bangs when it hits the focus stops at each end. I tried some Canon CN-E and didn't like the look of them, especially the focus fall off... for my taste that is. They are nice mechanically though, but limited to EF. I don't like the look of CN-E, they certainly have nothing in common with FD, except the brand name.

I used to have two Konvas 35mm cameras 20 yrs ago with crystal motors and a set of standard and super speed Lomo lenses, I also had a full set of square front Lomo anamorphic. I paid from $300 to $500 for each of the lenses on eBay. I also had a Canon K-35 25-120mm f2.8 zoom on Oct-19 mount that I paid $500 bucks for. I sold them all in 2008 for a little more than I paid, but not much. Nobody wanted them back then. I wish I had kept them though. Crazy prices today.

Lomo lenses looked average on 35mm film. They didn't have the magic that Zeiss or Cooke had at the time. And Canon K-35 lenses nobody liked. They were looked down upon. They also didn't look that great on 35mm film. What's interesing, is that on modern digital sensors, Lomo and K-35 look fantastic. The sensors on RED and ARRI cameras bring out a magical look from vintage lenses.

 

[vincent kardasik]

We just won an Emmy for Outstanding Cinematography for a Nonfiction Program for season 2 of HBO 100 Foot Wave. Cinema Verite is the core of the show and all interviews were shot with a set of CNE.
They are not perfect and we used them between T2 and T4 so they showed some imperfections but I still really like their look, their fall off and their render on skintones.
Mechanically talking, they are great lenses and really easy to carry as they remain pretty light.
Great option for a one man band or a small crew.

 

[M Harvey]

For the moment, I got a used set of CP2 Super speeds and really like them.

Thanks for reporting back, Will. And that's crazy about the lenses you had and sold. There are a lot of stories out there like that, of course. (Makes you wonder if in 10 years we'll all be chasing 1st Gen Nikon AF glass or early Rokinon lol)

We just won an Emmy for Outstanding Cinematography

Congrats, Vincent, that's amazing!

 

[Fred Potts]

The Red Pro Primes work great and I feel are under rated. The lenses are heavy but to me that means they are well built. This shot was with the Red Pro Prime 35mm lens on the Red Epic Dragon 6k

 

[Michael von Hirschheydt]

Most so called cine vintage lenses from the 70/ 80 share comparable issues: heavy color fringing, heavy flares, limited sharpness, chromatic aberrations, vignetting, derived from foto lenses. In this respect they a comparable to modern Chinese budget lenses. In case you desire a filmic look and especially good skin tone rendering you may consider the relatively new Zeiss Supreme Prime Radiance series. The lenses are newly developed and in this respect "modern" but render a filmic look. The price reflects the optic and mechanic value so they are more suited for renting.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Also the Sigma Cine Primes may be worth checking out...