Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Can someone help me understand why a $3900 Zeiss CP2 prime is so much better than a $1000-1500 ZF2 SLR lens and a $1600 Sony Zeiss 24mm 2.0? Optically, the Zeiss SLR lenses for Nikon and Sony are the best money can buy; so, I don't understand what benefits you get from spending several thousand $$$ on 'cine' lenses.

Thanks

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

For you, it may not be worth the extra cost.

Reasons why it's worth it to many who can afford it:

*Longer throws means it's easier to focus accurately.
*Pitch gears mean you can use a follow focus system natively, without the hassle of addon gears.
*Nikon still lenses (including Zeiss ZF lenses) turn the opposite direction of cine lenses. Focus pullers have a lot of muscle memory in pulling the "correct" way. This can be overcome with a reversing gear follow focus unit.
*Cine lenses are housed in such a way that it's easy to fit a follow focus on both the iris and focus rings (and zoom, when applicable).
*Cine lenses are given witness marks - actual human tested distance readings. Still lens marking are not necessarily accurate. Witness marks mean a good focus pullers can pull by distance readings alone.
*Cine lenses have a declicked and manually acessible iris. Many still lenses do not have this on the outside, and even when they do, they frequently have click stops, and may not be in a convenient position to put a pitch gear on.
*Cine lens sets tend to be housed similarly, expediting lens changes, and meaning the same mattebox and follow focus positions can be maintained.
*Cine lens are designed to minimize breathing, which is a zoom that occurs as you change focus. Still lenses - even the Zeiss ZF lenses, have significant breathing.

That's what I can think of off the top of my head. If these things don't matter to you - don't spend the extra money.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Hi Steve. To add to what James has outlined. In summary, the Zeiss CP.2 lenses are designed to be used on a set where there are expectations with workflow, not the least of which is the consistent placement of the gear rings so Assistant Cameramen call move from one lens to the other in quick succession. If a camera rig is setup with motors for focus, iris and even zoom, then if your lenses have the rings in different places, it means increased downtime on the set. If you have a crew standing around waiting for lens changes, this becomes a costly and unproductive exercise. Also, the scale of economy is different on film sets as well. Things just cost more. Not justifying it. It just is.

The hard plain truth of the matter is the CP.2s are simply rehoused ZF.2s. I didn't come up with this. I heard it right out of a Zeiss Manager's mouth in this excellent must see video presentation.


This presentation will most likely give you more knowledge and confidence in making your decision.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

I own a set of ZE's and also use the CP2's from time to time. All of the above info is well-presented and correct. Workflow is indeed the bottom line, as you will not detect a difference in the actual image. For a lot of people who pull their own focus and have time to make lens changes, it's not worth it.

As an FYI I use the Preston FIZ HU3 system with these lenses--it's the latest generation remote lens controller that allows you to program in the individual lens with a set number of focus points and it interpolates the inbetween points. As a result, you have a knob with full 300 degree+ turn and accurate markings down to inches on the hand unit. This effectively levels the playing field between the ZE/ZF's and the CP2's when it comes to pulling focus--they respond exactly the same. I already owned the system from my Steadicam days but it's in no way cost effective to purchase for this purpose--it's extremely expensive! At some point I should put up a video demo of it though--it's a fantastic way to work with DSLR's (the AC can, if they choose, do their work at the monitor to ensure sharps, good for performance music videos where everything is moving all the time).

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Also, in general PL lenses are built with the rigors of the production environment in mind. The types of focusing and Iris mechanisms, are more robust. Cine lenses are designed to last a "lifetime". Although a 20k set of CP's may not. Hence the low cost.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Charles, I have a question about calibrating the digital systems, specifically the fairly new Bartech digital receiver when you wish to only utilize part of the travel along a lens ring. I am thinking about a situation where you have vignetting at the far end of a zoom range and you want to eliminate the possibility of the vignette coming up when in the heat of a shoot. Here's the set of questions...

Is it possible to manually calibrate a digital system so it only uses a portion of the travel along a given lens ring? If not is there another solution?

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Let me say to those that have contributed to the above, thank you for your shared experiences. You have all added tremendous advise to those who may be considering to move forward on a "prime way" of acquisition.

Having rented Zeiss Master/Super Speeds, P+S Pro 35 for many years/gigs, and also placing my still collection of ZF's on an EX Letus combo or 5D, and now dealing with what to do with lens on an F3 (Tapa adapter not yet to arrive), I too am staged to make a large long term investment into a set of primes.
I used today, for the first time the Sony Primes, which performed wonderfully. I will be comparing it to my ZF's once the Tapa adapter arrives. My hope is that Sony will add a <35mm and a >85mm lens to the present selection. The price for the three included in the "k" package is more than most new comers to the world of primes could imagine. They are giving away a teaser of a package to initiate the masses.
So what to do. Well most will benefit right from the start with the Sony 35/50/85. Speed was terrific, 2.0 and minimal breathing. We shot/cut a series of matched sequences without an issue.
So, it now as always depends on your market. Does your client base have the ability to hire a set of Cooke, Zeiss Master, et al..
These lens could cost up to three times the imager "F3". It has always been about the glass, after your skill set as a DP.
What is great about the compartmentalizing of new imagers is that you now decide what to add.
Stay tuned for S Log/RGB. The next best thing to great glass.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Hey guys, Thank you very much for the great info.

When I showed my biz partner the CP2 lenses on B&H, he almost $h!t a brick because he is financing the F3 purchase and thought we would need a set of those lenses. However, I am buying the lenses for the F3; so, I am trying to come up with a plan. For the immediate future (til Nov 2012 when elections are finished), we don't plan on having any productions costing over $50k with most between $5-20k not including multi-cam/Tricaster shoots. This estimate/plan is for TVCs only with many political commercials on the lower end. With my current funds and future productions, I am hoping to start off with good Nikon SLR lenses and slowly add great Sony Zeiss lenses because I want to get a Sony Alpha DSLR as I miss still photography a great deal. And the look of the A900 and Sony Zeiss glass is my favorite.

Furthermore, with all the great success Canon users have had with all the shortcomings of the 7D & 5D, I figured the F3 + SLR lenses would be a comparative breeze.

Just found Duclos cine-modded lenses. Does anyone have experience with them and are they reliable?

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

I just saw the F3 for the first time today and played (only played) with the Sony lenses. I could not evaluate them at all. In fact the only thing we could evaluate were things like the viewfinder and its amazing ability in low light. What struck me the most though was the enormous size of those lenses. Why in the world are they so big? It seemed like it would require twice as many case just to hold them. Was that to get a longer focus throw with a follow focus? I'm not proud of my reaction, but just on an aesthetic level I was repelled. Am I ridiculous?

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Andrew:

Yes, it is possible to define a limit to the travel of the lens to prevent vignetting etc. You would obviously need to create a new set of focus marks when you do this. On the Preston, it's a simple matter of dialing to one end, holding down a switch and dialing to the desired end mark, then releasing. You can stretch a tiny range of travel on the lens to the entire turn of the knob this way, helpful for extremely delicate focus pulls. I haven't played with the new Bartech receiver yet so I'm not sure how it works in this way.

Steve:

The Duclos mods are great, in particular the iris de-clicking and the gears, which are such close tolerance as to appear factory installed (but can be removed if necessary--they are press-fit). I didn't get their 80mm step-ups as some of the Z series are 82mm and it seemed a little strange to not have them all conform to that, so I got third-party 82mm step up rings and now they all have the same front diameter.

Lenny:

Modern cine lenses are all that size, mostly due to the internal gearing as you guessed. Honestly I find it a little amusing that you were aesthetically repelled!! That's a new one.

Welcome to the PL world folks...

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

With so many people thinking that they need great PL glass for this camera, I am starting to think that Sony is targeting possible Red owners/operators rather than the plethora of XDCAM EX owners (such as me).

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

One downside to the size of modern PL prime lens is that you can't use a lens turret. These could mount 3 lenses, which was a big advantage in pre zoom lens days. 35mm cameras like the Arri 35 II series were fitted with these.

I'd be surprised if turrets came back, but quite a few cameras were fitted with them in the past. Handy for people shooting docs with primes.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

When zooms, especially bigger ones came into play in the 60s/70s, a lot of IIc's were converted to hard fronts because the zooms would flex the turrent out of alignment and cause backfocus problems. And that was with the turrets and underlying body construction made out of thick cast aluminum, nothing like what we have now.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Absolutely, the zooms need solid mounting and people were no longer using their Arri 35 IIs as newsreel cameras. .

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

I think the modern day equivalent of this is the concept of being able to select a windowed portion of the sensor, effectively multiplying the focal lengths. That will be very helpful.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

"Modern cine lenses are all that size, mostly due to the internal gearing as you guessed. Honestly I find it a little amusing that you were aesthetically repelled!! That's a new one."


Guess I'm showing my age and how long its been since I worked with top gear. Used to shoot film and run a rental department but that was when Superspeeds were cool.

What do you gain with those big housings that you don't get with slimmer lenses? I looked at a set of Zeiss superspeeds yesterday and they were nowhere near that size. Am thinking about a set of ZF.2 primes and they are of course much slimmer. Is it all about focusing mechanism and longer throws?

On a strictly practical note it will mean larger and/or more cases to carry.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

The Speeds were always the most compact lenses. Even they got bigger over time--the later generations were larger than the early ones.

Most of the current lenses have larger elements as well as the gearing factor. Master Primes are pretty colossal. Listen, nobody is more particular about lens weights than a Steadicam operator! (no longer my problem, thankfully). On Panavision jobs, when the 50mm Primo or 29mm Speed (the heaviest of each set) was called for, I'd sigh (on the inside of course, only smiling on the outside).

More and larger cases, sure. But only when compared to smaller cameras/smaller sensors! I still think of this stuff as traveling light because I am comparing it to 35mm.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

I feel like Super Speeds have elves inside them. They are tiny, fast sharp and look great.

They were however some of the more expensive lenses of the day. I think part of the Size of lenses nowadays are just to have room to work on them for remote work. Like a remote follow focus and a remote Iris motor... Lining up several motor drives can take up a lot of space. The real estate is valuable near the lens. ITs tough getting alot of crap attached to a 50mm SS. the Iris and Focus ring are pretty close to each other on an already small lens.

http://www.pure4c.de/mm/mm001/zeiss_highspeed_50.jpg

where as:

http://www.actionaudioandvisual.com/...prime_65mm.jpg

the rings are further apart. Just seems like a small light lens is worthless if its too small to work on a modern motorized camera.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Interesting theory Timur, although I don't really think the manufacturers take remote motors that much into consideration (not to the point where they would make the lens housings larger for that reason). Motors have gotten easier to configure than they used to be when I started--the analog Hedens with the bodies that ran parallel to the lens were really hard to mount with shorter lenses than their later digital versions, Preston, Scorpio etc. I know that one of the selling points for modern lenses is that the focus and iris gears are positioned the same on every lens in the series to avoid having to reset the hard follow focus (or remote motors) each time.

Speeds definitely present a challenge for motor mounting! I deal with that one now with my ZE's--the 50mm is exceptionally short and the space between mattebox and camera body is minute, especially with the handgrip bulge on the right side of the DSLR bodies.

The worst I ever had was on a small broadcast lens that had focus, iris and zoom half an inch apart from each other, and I had to work from one side as the zoom housing wouldn't come off. It took a full supply of dogbones and small iris rods to offset the motors from each other on that one. Always sorry I didn't take a picture. It looked insane.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Seems to me that they would take into consideration ergonomincs. A slightly bigger lens is easier to deal with than a tiny old school panchro. But what do i know...


BTW charles, i dig your reel.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

I've done some recent comparative tests. You might want to read this: www.kamrat.tv

(Sorry for double posting. I realised that this was relevant in this thread just after starting a new one.)

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Ola,

Excellent article and thanks for the time you put into this. Although I ordered my F3 with the set of Sony primes, I will mostly use the camera for doco and news magazine and for that purpose, I need lenses that are lighter and more versatile than PLs so, your paper is of great interest to me. Also, one thing that really bothers me with PLs is that options for super wide or long focal lengths are very few and the cost of either owning or renting a PL lens in the 300mm range is quite prohibitive. On top of this, I could not really picture myself use a 25lbs lens in my workflow.

Best,

Thierry.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Ola,
A stunning piece of work and extremely useful, thank you!

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

FYI, from all the tests I have seen, Tokina usually has the highest CA.

Over at lensrentals.com, they usually publish their repair data, and there are always a several very expensive 'Pro' lenses that suffer some sort of mechanical problem.

Look at the most recent data report. Here is the original link LensRentals.com - Lens Repair Data 4.0

After seeing the data on my favorite Sony Zeiss lens, 24-70 2.8 and another great Sony lens, the 70-200 2.8, I am rethinking my plan on using mostly Sony Alpha lenses with a F3. In addition, they reportedly cost wayyy more to repair than CaNikon.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Has anyone used NOVOFLEX adapters? They make Nikon G and Sony Alpha manual aperture adapters and look to be a bit easier to use than MTF because they have a ribbed ring.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Thierry, Most rental house's 300mm are Canon & Nikon mods anyway and in the long end, compromising on a smaller max. aperture will get you a lighter lens. On the Nikkor camp, 300mm F4D ED-IF is still available in manual aperture and is reasonable sized, while the F2.8 is quite a bit larger and requires cradle and rod support (time & hassle), and the F2 is huge. I just bought a manual Nikkor 180 and can't wait to try it on the F3 if and when my MTF adaptor arrives . Maybe a good doubler on that lens will get you close to 300mm with minimum added weight.

The Canon camp is tough because they went all electronic aperture and that leaves only used markets for manual aperture lens. (At least until the Birger adaptor appears that's suppose to allow electronic aperture control) When that happens, my 2 cents worth to shoot fast would be just 3 zooms - the ultrasharp low distortion 16-35 L series II, the 24-70L, and the sharp but flattering (women's faces) 70-200 L series. Add Canon's much improved 1.4x doubler and you're closer to 300mm.

On the wide side, I'm still researching and you probably have better insights. Love the Canon 14mm so much I'm planning to shoot without aperture control on the current MTF adaptor, and just pile a ton of ND filters and use the ISO and shutter speed to control exposure.