Zeiss CP.2

[Brian Iannone]

I'm going to be purchasing some new lenses soon, and have been looking at Zeiss' CP.2 series. I specifically like their 21mm T/2.9. I'm starting this thread because, basically, I'd like to hear anything you have to say about these lenses. Advantages, disadvantages, suggestions, alternative recommendations, etc.

 

[Matt Ryan]

I can tell you that the lenses don't match across a set as far as color rendition goes. The wider lenses have a slight orange tint to them. The 18mm 3.6 is way too slow. The 21 at 2.9 is pretty slow if you are in low light situations. I would say if you can, get the Red Pro Primes instead. RPP's color is consistent (neutral), same speed throughout the set, and are extremely sharp.

Here are some grabs from a short I shot for school on the CP.2's. I avoided the 18 and 21 because of the color tint and slower speed. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?68813-Lab-36-Red-One-MX-with-Zeiss-CP-2-s

I have found that on the set of CP.2s we used some were not as sharp as the others. Not sure if this is a servicing issue or a general consensus on these lenses.

 

[Brian Iannone]

Very interesting. What lens(es) other than the RPPs would you recommend?

Also, as a general question to everyone, if you had to choose a focal length for a single lens you were getting (and you were shooting on a Scarlet at 4K [1.6x crop factor]), what would it be?

 

[Matt Ryan]

Honestly in this price range I've only used the RPP's and CP.2's. I would choose the RPP's any day. Standard Primes are in the price range and are all 2.1 with consistent color. I'd still choose RPP's.

Although if you want lighter lenses and can deal with inconsistent color and t-stops then pick up the CP.2's. Just test the lenses before you buy cause they can end up being an expensive mistake if you know what I mean. Jim did a test with Peter Lik and they were disappointed with the CP.2's. To each his own, some will love, some will hate.

As for only one focal length, my pick is a 35mm

 

[PatrickFaith]

I have the 21 and 50 cp .2 ... real cool thing about them is you can switch the mount (converting mine right now from EF to PL due to the scarlet AL EF delays), this allows a lot of long term flexibility (i.e. i tend to keep glass forever, some of my glass is over 30 years old and is still in great shape, but I change camera's every 3 years). So to me, glass is a long term investment, bodies ... not so much, thus the flexibility of the mounting option shouldn't be understated.

 

[Matt Ryan]

I have the 21 and 50 cp .2 ... real cool thing about them is you can switch the mount (converting mine right now from EF to PL due to the scarlet AL EF delays), this allows a lot of long term flexibility (i.e. i tend to keep glass forever, some of my glass is over 30 years old and is still in great shape, but I change camera's every 3 years). So to me, glass is a long term investment, bodies ... not so much, thus the flexibility of the mounting option shouldn't be understated.

Exactly, if theres one thing to splurge on its lenses. They last forever if you take care of them and they retain their value over time unlike camera's or other gear.

 

[Brian Iannone]

As for only one focal length, my pick is a 35mm

Just out of curiosity, why do you like 35mm? (I feel like I've been saying the phrase "Just out of curiosity" every day now...)

real cool thing about them is you can switch the mount (converting mine right now from EF to PL due to the scarlet AL EF delays), this allows a lot of long term flexibility (i.e. i tend to keep glass forever, some of my glass is over 30 years old and is still in great shape, but I change camera's every 3 years). So to me, glass is a long term investment, bodies ... not so much, thus the flexibility of the mounting option shouldn't be understated.

Agreed. That's one of the reasons I've been looking at the CP.2s. Being able to switch from a cinema camera to a DSLR and back is just too convenient. But, if there's that large of a loss in quality between the CP.2s and RPPs, I might have to remain stuck with PL mount lenses. Permanently... Which I don't mind too much (to me, quality > convenience), but it would be nice.

 

[Costelloe Michael]

Brian,

Also dial in your main use for the lenses. I have RPP's and CP2's and I use them both.

Cp2's are small, compact and lightweight and can be canon mounted, I use them like this with L series as run and gun.

RPP's are Larger, telecentric and sharper, i use them on larger-crewed commercial projects and low budget features.

Anything bigger than this and I also hire in UP's or MP's.


MC

 

[Matt Ryan]

Just out of curiosity, why do you like 35mm? (I feel like I've been saying the phrase "Just out of curiosity" every day now...)




Agreed. That's one of the reasons I've been looking at the CP.2s. Being able to switch from a cinema camera to a DSLR and back is just too convenient. But, if there's that large of a loss in quality between the CP.2s and RPPs, I might have to remain stuck with PL mount lenses. Permanently... Which I don't mind too much (to me, quality > convenience), but it would be nice.

I enjoy using the 35. Anything longer than a 35 becomes useless as a wide regardless of how far you back up the camera and or the subject (especially when your in confined spaces) and anything wider you have to bring in extremely close to get any medium or close ups and it doesn't have the look of the longer lenses. Typically the wider lenses in a set are less sharp with the exception of RPP's and higher end glass.

Everyone has their own preference for their favorite lens. It goes back to the idea to shoot as much as possible and figure out what works best for your style. Most importantly only make a decision on gear if you will still be happy about the choice 5 or 10 or 20 years down the road.

 

[Brian Iannone]

I enjoy using the 35. Anything longer than a 35 becomes useless as a wide regardless of how far you back up the camera and or the subject (especially when your in confined spaces) and anything wider you have to bring in extremely close to get any medium or close ups and it doesn't have the look of the longer lenses. Typically the wider lenses in a set are less sharp with the exception of RPP's and higher end glass.

Everyone has their own preference for their favorite lens. It goes back to the idea to shoot as much as possible and figure out what works best for your style. Most importantly only make a decision on gear if you will still be happy about the choice 5 or 10 or 20 years down the road.

I see. I know it all comes down to personal preference, but if you were shooting at 4K on Scarlet with its 1.6x crop factor, would you still prefer 35mm lenses, or would you use 21mm ones (which would have an equivalent of 34mm)? A 35mm lens on a Scarlet becomes 56mm, which doesn't really seem wide enough for most shots.

 

[SUNILPREM]

The CP2 plus point is Interchangeable lens mount,all lens are Full 35mm coverage,so in future there have any Full 35mm camera will come out in market(like canon 5d m2)this CP2 are good for that

 

[Lee Saxon]

The 21 ZF you mention is fantastic, much much better than Nikon/Canon's 24 1.4s (even stopped down to the 21's f/2.8). The newer 50 f/2 & 100 Macros are also fantastic. The 85 1.4 is good but inferior to both Nikon & Canon's 85 1.4s. The 50 1.4 is okay but not as good as Nikon's recent 50 1.4 redesign. The 35 is just decent (but so are Nikon & Canons' 35s). The 28 sucks, skip it.

I compare these to still lenses as a way of reminding you that these are "just" rehoused still lenses.

Certainly the CP.2 have advantages over the ZE/ZF they share glass with. Identical barrel diameter, identical focus ring placement, 14-blade (instead of 9) iris, interchangeable mount (no Nikon, though )

For me those advantages don't make the CP.2s worth 4+ times as much as the ZE/ZF.2, but lots of very knowledgeable people disagree with me.

 

[Brian Iannone]

The 21 ZF you mention is fantastic, much much better than Nikon/Canon's 24 1.4s (even stopped down to the 21's f/2.8). The newer 50 f/2 & 100 Macros are also fantastic. The 85 1.4 is good but inferior to both Nikon & Canon's 85 1.4s. The 50 1.4 is okay but not as good as Nikon's recent 50 1.4 redesign. The 35 is just decent (but so are Nikon & Canons' 35s). The 28 sucks, skip it.

I compare these to still lenses as a way of reminding you that these are "just" rehoused still lenses.

Certainly the CP.2 have advantages over the ZE/ZF they share glass with. Identical barrel diameter, identical focus ring placement, 14-blade (instead of 9) iris, interchangeable mount (no Nikon, though )

For me those advantages don't make the CP.2s worth 4+ times as much as the ZE/ZF.2, but lots of very knowledgeable people disagree with me.

On a slightly unrelated note, I have a question regarding follow focus systems and Zeiss' ZE lenses. I'm new to follow focus systems and know that many DSLR users have been using using their Canon lenses with FFs. How does one use a Zeiss ZE prime with something like Arri's FF-4?

 

[Andrew Benz]

On a slightly unrelated note, I have a question regarding follow focus systems and Zeiss' ZE lenses. I'm new to follow focus systems and know that many DSLR users have been using using their Canon lenses with FFs. How does one use a Zeiss ZE prime with something like Arri's FF-4?

Brian, this link is what you want to look at, research and then call Duclos to ask any further questions that you may have concerning both thePrime sets. There is also a lot of good information above concerning both the ZF.2's and the CP.2's but please check your findings with Matthew Duclos or hit up Mitch Gross for clarification on the differences between the two sets that may not be apparent by simply looking at them.

http://www.ducloslenses.com/Duclos_Lenses/zf2set.html


Lee, would love to come back later today and ask you a couple of questions but I have to head out. Cheers!

 

[Mark Toia]

By a couple of f2.8 ZOOMs... seriously...

Start with RED ZOOMs... pin sharp, F2.8 & cheap!!!! ... and you get 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 27, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, & 50mm... for the simple price of 6K...
Imagine carrying all that glass around in a case...
Then find yourself a 50 to 150mm... you get another 50mm, a 51, 52, 53, 55, ........... on & on & on.... 147, 148 149 and a 150mm...

Need I say anymore...

By primes when you start wanting F-stops of 1.8 or less... don't waste your monty otherwise...

From a guy that has been there done that... In other words, learn by my mistakes.

 

[David W. Jones]

I agree with Mark. Something like the Duclos 11-16 & red 17-50 will cover a whole lot of ground to start with.

As a side note to those who think swapping mounts on the CP.2 lenses is an easy on location process not needing bench time. Changing mounts requires reshimming the mounts and is best left to a qualified optics house.

All the best!

Dave

 

[Jeffrey T. Morgan]

+2 on what Mark said. The 17-50 is not too heavy for run and gun, it's 2.8, its really GOOD!... I always hear such mixed things about CP2s.

I would wait a few more days for the Dec 10th shootout results. It is a whole bunch of lenses in this price range. For now just watch them and look for your favorite, then when they make them "unblind", see wat you chose!

 

[Brian Iannone]

Brian, this link is what you want to look at, research and then call Duclos to ask any further questions that you may have concerning both thePrime sets. There is also a lot of good information above concerning both the ZF.2's and the CP.2's but please check your findings with Matthew Duclos or hit up Mitch Gross for clarification on the differences between the two sets that may not be apparent by simply looking at them.

http://www.ducloslenses.com/Duclos_Lenses/zf2set.html

I was looking at Zeiss' ZE and ZF.2s, but there were a couple of things that I found disadvantageous: 1) lack of a PL mount, and 2) lack of rings for use with FFs

I would wait a few more days for the Dec 10th shootout results. It is a whole bunch of lenses in this price range. For now just watch them and look for your favorite, then when they make them "unblind", see wat you chose!

Which shootout are you referring to?


As of right now, I'm slanting more towards RED's Pro Primes/Zooms. I've hearing too many mixed replies about the CP.2s.

 

[CK Olsen]

The biggest concern I've heard re: the CP.2 's is that switching the mounts takes time and a high level of skill... As much as I like my gear, I have very little desire to be a lens tech on set, so that selling point kind of fell by the wayside in my decisions...

Have you looked at much stills glass? Both Nikon and Canon DO make good glass at BARGAIN prices, as opposed to Red, that makes GREAT glass for GOOD prices... and the lenses, esp primes, are VERY lightweight, so it really depends on your shooting style.

(Either way, I love the RPP's...)
-CK

 

[Iain Philpott]

Not that I know this for certain but when I posted about the CP2's and said what were the alternatives regarding something more organic for beauty I was recommended to take a look at the Illumina's. I would add two things one of which back's up Jim's recent lens test. 1.) I much prefer Nikon glass on my 5D. 2.) I think there is so so much more than just whether or not a lens is sharp. Maybe thats the nature of what I shoot - female beauty. I'll give you one modern technology example. I used to shoot a lot of beauty on the Fuji 6x8 camera. That 180mm lens was positively orgasmic. Just a dream. After much deliberation I bought the Canon 45mm tilt-shift (over the 90) and use it with the Canon 2x extender. My God how much nicer is it than Canon's 90mm tilt-shift? My belief is by the bucket load! The Canon 2x extender was never designed for this lens but it works oh so well in such a organic flattering way. Yes it's not so sharp and yes I do understand the argument that you can do it in post but sometimes, just sometimes post is not as good. And as photographers or DOP's we should go back to the belief of honing our craft and creating whatever effect we need to 'in camera'.

Not trying to hijack Brian's thread but would love to hear more feedback about the Illumina's?