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 Supreme Prime series

Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Just to add to the discussion... unless the mounts are interchangeable, why would you want LPL mount on these? Unless there are two distinctly different designs for the sets, this means they were more-or-less designed for PL/EF and the LPL is just a mount change. So if there is going to be a PL to LPL adapter, wouldn't just getting these in PL cover all PL and LPL cameras? If you got these in LPL, they would not be able to be used on PL, even though they were designed to. Just throwing out some food for thought.
Click to expand...


One reason might be that lens adapters degrade the image and are less than ideal. Ideally you do not use a lens adapter and instead use a lens that mounts directly to the camera's lens mount.
 
I can think of 2 potential reasons..

Using with a native LPL camera (I expect to see more of these coming)..

The LPL mount is, as well as being shorter, quite a bit wider and performance (especially for a fast lenses as this leak suggests) could be better without the restrictions of the PL .. 62mm is wide and welcome.

i seem to remember ARRI shared some tests where a MP65mm covered more of an LF sensor when the LF didnt have PL mount.. the PL mount is a restriction when it comes to big format and that is why both PV and ARRI are trying to move on and it is not just the flange depth issue but the width that is a issue..

Just some more food for thought:-)


Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Just to add to the discussion... unless the mounts are interchangeable, why would you want LPL mount on these? Unless there are two distinctly different designs for the sets, this means they were more-or-less designed for PL/EF and the LPL is just a mount change. So if there is going to be a PL to LPL adapter, wouldn't just getting these in PL cover all PL and LPL cameras? If you got these in LPL, they would not be able to be used on PL, even though they were designed to. Just throwing out some food for thought.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Lindsay said:
I can think of 2 potential reasons..

Using with a native LPL camera (I expect to see more of these coming)..

The LPL mount is, as well as being shorter, quite a bit wider and performance (especially for a fast lenses as this leak suggests) could be better without the restrictions of the PL .. 62mm is wide and welcome.

i seem to remember ARRI shared some tests where a MP65mm covered more of an LF sensor when the LF didnt have PL mount.. the PL mount is a restriction when it comes to big format and that is why both PV and ARRI are trying to move on and it is not just the flange depth issue but the width that is a issue..

Just some more food for thought:-)
Click to expand...
I don't see how PL is any restriction to FF if the clear diameter is 54mm and Monstro FF- the biggest sensor now has 46mm diagonal.
 
John David Pope said:
One reason might be that lens adapters degrade the image and are less than ideal. Ideally you do not use a lens adapter and instead use a lens that mounts directly to the camera's lens mount.
Click to expand...

A solid lens adapter, if made correctly and with enough tight tolerances, will not degrade the image. Think of all the Sony cameras with FZ native mounts + professional adapters, such as the F55. When Arri said the LPL mounts will have PL mount adapter possibility, I assumed it was to professional quality.


Michael Lindsay said:
I can think of 2 potential reasons..

Using with a native LPL camera (I expect to see more of these coming)..

The LPL mount is, as well as being shorter, quite a bit wider and performance (especially for a fast lenses as this leak suggests) could be better without the restrictions of the PL .. 62mm is wide and welcome.

i seem to remember ARRI shared some tests where a MP65mm covered more of an LF sensor when the LF didnt have PL mount.. the PL mount is a restriction when it comes to big format and that is why both PV and ARRI are trying to move on and it is not just the flange depth issue but the width that is a issue..

Just some more food for thought:-)
Click to expand...


The PL mount will not be a restriction to these lenses because they seem to be designed for PL. You are correct about benefits of LPL, but only when they are designed to be for LPL.

I was just saying if the mount is the only thing that is different between LPL and PL versions, why not get the PL's which would be vastly more universal at the moment. Just because it has a LPL mount doesn't mean it benefits from LPL optical design.
 
Jacek Zakowicz said:
I don't see how PL is any restriction to FF if the clear diameter is 54mm and Monstro FF- the biggest sensor now has 46mm diagonal.
Click to expand...

It's not a restriction to the primary rays but it could possibly impact bokeh rendering?

If you want image-side telecentricity like Arri tout on the Signatures, then you leave almost no room for the housing on PL... barest coverage on Monstro leaves only ~3mm around the rear elements with a PL. Realistically that would vignette or give mechanical design issues.

Image-side telecentricity is not common or essential however.
 
I think this is more of a general future centric transition. PL was made that way because of the space needed for the spinning mirror. That went away. It is definitely easier on the lens designers to have more space to place components in the back of the lens. The mount is also beefier and has larger opening. There is no optical reason for it but there are plenty of mechanical reasons....
BTW I just saw a PV35 to PV70 adapter at the J.L. Fisher event on Saturday.. I wonder if they coordinated with ARRI haha....
 
Thank you John...

No cine lens i know of is actually 100% image side telecentric and the full Ray trace for all the different parts of the out of focus portion of a fast lens is pretty crazy.. those simple 2 rays diagrams for the in focus plane do oversimplify what is actually going on in real images with real lenses.. I care about everything projected..

Ps

This is interesting

https://www.arri.com/largeformat/

Scroll to the Q: Can I attach the existing 54 mm PL lens mount to the ALEXA LF

And check out the 2 projected circles
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
EF? For goodness sakes. Oh well, whatever.
Click to expand...

Is a bit odd for a €15,000 lens to be offered in EF mount.

However I'm all for having more flexibility in options for mounting! Especially if they're doable in the field.
 
 
Last edited:
These are the modern day Master primes. Looks like they are built with Otus glass characteristics and CP3 mechanics with the added benefit of XD. These lenses will see a TON of work on many different types of productions... would love to get my hands on them.
 
They look like Otus so that's a good thing, that lovely APO backgrounds, smooth and not green or magenta. So a great choice. Just a little but beyond ownership but always a rental possibility.

cheers
Paul
 
Thanks for posting the links Teddy! It's like zeiss does not want to compete with other lens manufacturers in the larger than Vista Vision market with the Supreme Primes. Or they didn't want to compete with Arri's Signature Prime series of lenses for some reason or other. Maybe to get a certain visual quality from the Supreme Primes, they were limited to a 46.2 Vista Vision image circle.
 
Whelp, now I can talk about the Zeiss Supreme Primes. I was fortunate to have a few good at these since last year.

So the quick skinny low down.

13 new focal lengths. Lots of optical lessons and tech learned from CP.3 and Otus lines, but these are indeed their own thing. They range from 15-200mm, which makes them a nice pairing with the Zeiss Cinema Zooms.

25, 29, 35, 50, 65, 85, 100, 135 all T1.5

15, 150 T1.8

200mm T2.1

Designed for an image circle of 46.2, these are generally RED VV friendly. Though a smidge of corner related vignette on the 25mm at 8K FF on Monstro. All feature 95mm fronts and are impressively lightweight. Fairly minimal breathing due to a floating element design. Also, all feature Zeiss XD lens data. Pretty interesting flare character.

Shipping this month, the 25, 29, 35, 50, and 85. The rest of the set gets fleshed out over the next 1.5 years.

_Z3A6554.jpg


_Z3A6557.jpg


_Z3A6558.jpg


_Z3A6564.jpg


_Z3A6566.jpg
 
I was wondering when you would post Phil. What did you find interesting about the flare from these lenses?
 
Not to derail the conversation, but what is that light looking filter holder on the front? Also, I'm curious about the flaring on these. Do they have any organic feel to them a la Contax? Thanks!
 
rand thompson said:
I was wondering when you would post Phil. What did you find interesting about the flare from these lenses?
Click to expand...

RJ_Ortiz said:
Not to derail the conversation, but what is that light looking filter holder on the front? Also, I'm curious about the flaring on these. Do they have any organic feel to them a la Contax? Thanks!
Click to expand...

It's more organic than you'd think for sure. I'll be able to share images soon too.

That's just a Bright Tangerine Misfit Atom on the front. These were taken the 3rd time I looked at the primes when I was doing some filtration tests.
 
So many great movies shot with 27mm or so on 35 and yet no 40-42mm FF equivalent. I am hoping that the next Otus is a 40 not a 35. But don't expect it to happen.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Phil and Michael for the explanations of the flare characteristics, thats great to know. I will be looking foward to those images Phil!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top