Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 Standard Speed MK II or Schneider Xenon

Robino_J

Robino_J

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
524
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm in the market for a lens set and my budget is 20K.

Was looking at Schneider Xenon 5 lenses set or used set of Zeiss Standard Speed MK II.

I shoot on 35mm and Dragon, the talk of CA on Xenon is a little worrisome - how is the CA on Standard Speed?

Let me know what you think.
 
As far as image, Super Speeds all the way. Has a classic look, great on skintones and were the standards for cinema production before the ultra and master primes. I prefer the shaped speeds to to their modern counterparts. I really don't like the zf coatings.
 
abreu-canedo said:
As far as image, Super Speeds all the way.
Click to expand...

He's asking about the older T2 Standard Speeds, not the T1.3 Super Speeds. I actually prefer the warmer look of the Standards, but as I recall the image circle is smaller, more like Academy 35. They can be very pretty lenses. It's been awhile, can't remember if the CA was bad or not. I don't think it was as bad as the 85mm Super Speed wide-open, that one was very noticeable. It's probably less of an issue on 35mm, since it all kind of mushes together in a pleasant way ;).
 
Satsuki Murashige said:
He's asking about the older T2 Standard Speeds, not the T1.3 Super Speeds. I actually prefer the warmer look of the Standards, but as I recall the image circle is smaller, more like Academy 35. They can be very pretty lenses. It's been awhile, can't remember if the CA was bad or not. I don't think it was as bad as the 85mm Super Speed wide-open, that one was very noticeable. It's probably less of an issue on 35mm, since it all kind of mushes together in a pleasant way ;).
Click to expand...

I shoot with Super 35mm film and Dragon 6K, is it possible the Standard speed might not cover? I could shoot 5K on Dragon but I need them to cover Super 35mm on film.
 
We bought a set of Standards at the height of the lens boom in 2006-07! It's a 8 Lens set paid a ton for them.... We also had a set of Ultras, but I always preferred the Standards and still have them to this day! Get the Standards if you find them, I see them from time to time for less then half of what I paid! (you should find a 5 set for $20K no problem)
 
Nick Morrison said:
I can confirm the 16 absolutely does NOT cover 5K/Super 35, we shot with it this week. Covers 4K. Vignettes at 4.5K. Portholes BADLY at 5K.

The 24 vignettes at 5K/Super 35.
Click to expand...

I found this chart by Phil Holland - this is conflicting information. http://www.artbyphil.com/temp/red/r...edDragonCoverage_zeissStandardSpeedPrimes.png

This is a deal breaker for me if the 24mm vignettes in Super35mm and the 16 doesn't cover it at all. I could have lived without the 16mm but the 24mm is too important. Thanks for all the information - I think the best thing is to rent a set and see how much the 24 vignettes in super 35mm.
 
Alvise Tedesco said:
The 24 of the set I rent pretty often doesn't vignettes at 5KHD (Epic Dragon)
Click to expand...

On the 24 we use it's subtle. We shoot 5KHD on it all the time, mind you, and it works. So yes, totally usable at 5HD.

The 16 howeve is totally unusable at 5KHD.
 
Nick Morrison said:
I can confirm the 16 absolutely does NOT cover 5K/Super 35, we shot with it this week. Covers 4K. Vignettes at 4.5K. Portholes BADLY at 5K.

The 24 vignettes at 5K/Super 35.
Click to expand...

It is likely that Jorge's coverage notes (Cinematechnic) are referring to 35mm film, which is less affected by non-telecentric lenses. With digital cameras, the light fall-off at the edges of these vintage lenses will be exaggerated.
 
Xenon are FF, full coverage. CA not so bad as talks suggested.
 
I think I need to be patient and find a standard speed set.

If anyone know about any sets out there let me know - I'm actively looking.

Thanks very much for all the information.
 
We have a set of Standard Primes. So, I could confirm that using Scarlet Dragon 5 K will cover whole lens and even 14mm. The vingeting came from matte box (from distance that you have from lense etc.), not from 16mm. If you need any help just drop me a massage.
 
I have used the standard speeds for a feature shoot and liked them a lot. They are small, light and much better wide open than the super speeds. From what I recall they are fine on a Dragon at 5k 2.39.

They only downside is that they have some of the ugliest flares of all lenses I have used. Totally unusable. I don't have an example at the moment but whenever there's a light source in the frame or just outside you get a bright spiked ring in your image. I would definitely test that before buying in to them.
 
sander kamp said:
I have used the standard speeds for a feature shoot and liked them a lot. They are small, light and much better wide open than the super speeds. From what I recall they are fine on a Dragon at 5k 2.39.

They only downside is that they have some of the ugliest flares of all lenses I have used. Totally unusable. I don't have an example at the moment but whenever there's a light source in the frame or just outside you get a bright spiked ring in your image. I would definitely test that before buying in to them.
Click to expand...

Funny, our Standard Primes (16 and 24) flare wonderfully.
 
I've shot loads with Standard Speeds and love them to bits. My favourite lenses.

As Satsuki mentioned, you need to distinguish between vignetting and portholing on these older, non-telecentric lenses, even though some of the effects appear similar. The wider standard speeds do porthole to varying degrees on digital formats, this can be mitigated by stopping down a bit.

I usually shoot quite happily on the dragon at 5k, for me there's a bit of portholing apparent wide open on the 20 and 24mm but it's not unpleasant. It's worse on the 32mm and I rarely use that lens wide open, I'll go to the 28 or 40 if I need the stop.

I find the brightness falloff perfectly alright for most normal shooting, narrative, commercial etc. If you're planning to shoot green screen or a super-clean infinity cove, I'd plan on renting something else.

I don't have the 16mm in my set so can't comment on the coverage. But I expect all of these would perform better on film formats where their non-telecentricity would not affect the image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top