Zeiss CZ vs Schneider CINE-XENAR III?

[Aiden H.]

Hello all, I am by no means an "expert" on lenses, which is why I have been hanging around on the forums lately. I have been learning a lot. Since I lack experience on the field, I can't fully comprehend the aesthetics of certain models of lenses. So I like to create a hypothetical situation in which I present someone (Someone who actually knows this stuff) and the tell me their choices and why. So by the title, you know what's going on. If you had a RED Epic-W on a feature shoot, which set of lenses would you choose and why? The speed, Bokeh, Breathing, etc? Feel free to modify the choices as well. I.E adding a few CP.2 Primes with the Zeiss CZ Set. Thanks!

 

[Mark K.]

Well you're comparing T/2.9 Zooms to T/2.0-2.2 Primes, so some pretty inherent differences there whichever way you look at it.

You get between 2/3-1 stop more light with the Schneiders, and better close-focus with the primes. The Schneiders also have matched placement with focus and iris rings, so lens swaps will be faster too. The Zeisses cover Vistavision, the Schneiders are S35mm only.

Weight-wise, the Schneiders are a little on the heavy-size for primes, so there isn't a big difference in terms of weight between them and the CZ.2s.

Breathing is basically non-existent on the Schneiders and a non-issue on the CZ.2s (if you're making a BIG pull with the 70-200mm CZ.2, you'll see a little shift, but it's not objectionable at all).

As far as I know, both the Schneiders and the CZ.2s are the only lenses out there that feature 18-blade apertures, so bokeh is very smooth and creamy with both at basically every aperture. I'd give a bit of an edge to the Zeisses though, because they have less issues with fringing around the bokeh.

The Zeisses are the clear winners when it comes to CA handling. CA is virtually non-existent on the Zeiss zooms, and when you do somehow provoke it, it's a much more unobtrusive blue/orange (compared to the green/magenta of the Schneiders). I'd say CA handling is the biggest weakness of the Xenar IIIs, they're otherwise pretty great all-round. (though the slightly inconsistent T-stops is a tad annoying - but it's only 1/3 of a stop, so really it's not a big deal).

Contrast is higher on the Zeisses, and the colour skews a little bit cooler than the Xenars. I also prefer the flare on the Zeisses, it's a little prettier, and there's less veiling glare that comes with it.

For the most part, I'd say the choice should boil down to what you need more: the added operating speed of zooms, or the extra 2/3-1 stop of light you can get with the primes. If you need full, unencumbered coverage for 6k Dragon, 8k Dragon or 8k Helium then the Zeisses are the way to go.

 

[Aiden H.]

Well you're comparing T/2.9 Zooms to T/2.0-2.2 Primes, so some pretty inherent differences there whichever way you look at it.

You get between 2/3-1 stop more light with the Schneiders, and better close-focus with the primes. The Schneiders also have matched placement with focus and iris rings, so lens swaps will be faster too. The Zeisses cover Vistavision, the Schneiders are S35mm only.

Weight-wise, the Schneiders are a little on the heavy-size for primes, so there isn't a big difference in terms of weight between them and the CZ.2s.

Breathing is basically existent on the Schneiders and a non-issue on the CZ.2s (if you're making a BIG pull with the 70-200mm CZ.2, you'll see a little shift, but it's not objectionable at all).

As far as I know, both the Schneiders and the CZ.2s are the only lenses out there that feature 18-blade apertures, so bokeh is very smooth and creamy with both at basically every aperture. I'd give a bit of an edge to the Zeisses though, because they have less issues with fringing around the bokeh.

The Zeisses are the clear winners when it comes to CA handling. CA is virtually non-existent on the Zeiss zooms, and when you do somehow provoke it, it's a much more unobtrusive blue/orange (compared to the green/magenta of the Schneiders). I'd say CA handling is the biggest weakness of the Xenar IIIs, they're otherwise pretty great all-round. (though the slightly inconsistent T-stops is a tad annoying - but it's only 1/3 of a stop, so really it's not a big deal).

Contrast is higher on the Zeisses, and the colour skews a little bit cooler than the Xenars. I also prefer the flare on the Zeisses, it's a little prettier, and there's less veiling glare that comes with it.

For the most part, I'd say the choice should boil down to what you need more: the added operating speed of zooms, or the extra 2/3-1 stop of light you can get with the primes. If you need full, unencumbered coverage for 6k Dragon, 8k Dragon or 8k Helium then the Zeisses are the way to go.

Thank you for the detailed response.

 

[Keith B Plummer]

I love my CZ's and they are more contrasty and slightly cooler but they cover everything 8k. Well worth my investment.

 

[Aiden H.]

I totally forgot about the Xenon FF Primes haha. Seeing how those are considered fast primes and they're very affordable, where do you think they fit on the scale between the 2 past sets of lenses I've mentioned? Thanks!

 

[Scot Yount]

Bob Gundu chime in here....

 

[Lee Saxon]

Just got a Schneider PC-TS 90/4.5 HS Makro-Symmar. Why in the hell they stuck a 6-blade diaphragm in this of all lenses if they had an 18-blade unit available is hard to imagine.