Lost in all the talk about cameras are the lenses.

The new EF zooms are identical to the PL zooms, but with the new mount. They are more accurately EF-S zooms in that they cover Super 35mm and APS-C sensors, but not full frame.

The EF cine primes are more interesting. They cover the full 35mm frame. They include EF electronics, so they communicate traditional EOS metadata. Not only does that allow capture of lens information, but it enables peripheral illumination correction to reduce vignetting in-camera. These suckers are also L-prime fast. Initially they include a 24mm t1.5, and a 50mm t1.3 and slightly later next year we get the the 85mm t1.3. Those who know L-lenses know where the glass for these cine lenses is sourced.

In the words of Ron Popeil, "but wait, there's more..." According to Erik Allin of Canon, "There’s also two more of the Cinema Primes, one would be an ultra-wide and one would be a telephoto over and above what we have already announced so we have two more in the pipeline and from there we will see where the market tells us we need to go."

I can guess that the telephoto would be a T2.1 135mm, based on the EF 135/2L. For the ultra-wide, a T2.9 14mm would make sense, based on the EF 14/2.8L. (Yes. These are just a guesses.)

These primes give Zeiss a run for their money. Once all five are released, they'll be faster, wider, and longer than the Zeiss offerings and they'll have nice metal bodies with long throws, hard stops, gear teeth, and calibrated marks. Add the metadata and peripheral illumination correction, and these are an easy choice.

All they need is a big mechanical M/AF switch to disengage the long, heavy focus travel for photo mode and they'd be perfect. ;)

Oh, and a macro. Short focus distance is about the only thing lacking from the plan.

There are many things that characterize a lens, for instance:

-Build
-Durability
-Resolution
-Bokeh
-Color rendition
-Breathing
-Speed (T stop)
-Weight
-Flare
-Constant dimensions for the set
..etc.

Cheap lenses fail at some of those points, while the expensive ones like Zeiss Ultras or Masters excel at all of them. But even among the best there are still differences, as some people prefer the tones from Cookes rather than the accuracy of the Masters.

Canon has been building very good lenses for photo and video for a long time, but has never done anything for the film market.

The announced Canon 30-300 PL zoom is priced just like Angenieux's excellent Optimo 24-290, but the french zoom is not only faster but has a fixed T.
Variable aperture zooms are a problem in the film world, and they're essentially considered at their slowest stop. Nobody changes a lighting setup just because some focal is faster. In the case of the Canon that makes the entire lens a T3.7, which is quite slow.

Anyway Let's just wait and see how these new ones perform. I wouldn't discard or praise ones or others before trying them first.


Which Zeiss do you think the Canons will give a run for the money?

Canon have made cine lenses in the past, the K35 prime lenses are examples. They also made zoom lenses for 16mm & Super 16.

I stand corrected.

All I've ever seen though are Arri/Fujinon/Zeiss, Cookes, Angenieux and Schneider.

BTW, I just found out the Canon is T2.9 till 240mm, so that essentially makes it a fixed aperture zoom.

On paper (and that's all we have right now), the Canon primes would challenge Zeiss as follows:

Canon T1.5/24 vs. Zeiss CP.2 T2.9/25 (Two stops faster.)

Canon T1.3/50 vs. Zeiss CP.2 T2.1/50 (1.3 stops)

Canon T1.3/85 vs. Zeiss CP.2 T2.1/85 (1.3 stops)

The 24mm lens is a clear winner as Zeiss doesn't have anything fast beyond the T2.1/28.

I'm assuming that Canon will create beautifully solid, metal lens bodies. We can already compare Canon's colors with their photo lens coatings to Zeiss'. In the world of heavy grading, this difference is subtle to my eye. Also, it's more of a personal preference than a good/bad comparison.

I haven't used the CP.2 lenses myself, but I use ZEs and some L-glass. Frankly, I think I lean towards L glass slightly, but I *strongly* prefer the feel of the ZEs for video use. Put the two sets of glass in similarly nice cine bodies, give me the metadata for in-camera correction, and give me the additional speed, and I give Canon the edge - on paper, of course.

Does anybody know the prices of the new lenses? This could tilt the field either way...

3900$ for the Zeiss, 6800$ for the canons.

Ouch. Consider the field tilted back toward Zeiss.

Then again, it really depends on the rental price. Most of us buy ZE or L glass (if not just EF glass, vintage glass or whatever) and rent the cine lenses.

Lost in all the talk about cameras are the lenses.

The new EF zooms are identical to the PL zooms, but with the new mount. They are more accurately EF-S zooms in that they cover Super 35mm and APS-C sensors, but not full frame..

Canon CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 L S - Cine Lenses - Canon Europe (http://www.canon-europe.com/For%5FHome/Product%5FFinder/Digital%5FCinema/Cine%5FLenses/CN%2DE14.5%2D60mm%5FT2.6%5FL%5FS/)

According to canon Europe they are full frame. That explains the size weight and price of these beasts.
IMO they are a bargain.

Also it's now certain there will be a FF digital cinema camera, if not cameras, from CANON.

It does say 35mm and Super 35 on that site, but everywhere else just says Super 35. The size does look pretty normal for a Super 35mm cine zoom lens and that is the bigger market, although that's not to say it doesn't cover FF35, but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't. If you're shooting film using the standard 35mm motion picture frame, you'd just say 35mm, which is different to FF35 used in stills.

I'd tend to wait until Canon says FF35 before thinking that it does.

They're called "EF", not "EF-S". If it only covered S35/APS-C it would be EF-S, I think.

If it says EF it should cover full frame. However... I'd be happily surprised if it did (not that I'm in the market for one of these).

All the reviews I've read have said that the primes are FF but the zooms are S35 only.

That is correct, the forthcoming primes will be FF but the two existing zooms are S35 only.

I can understand why Canon wouldn't want to call the zooms EF-S as that tends to be their budget line of lenses. Clearly, the cine zooms are not low-cost gear.

The "S" in EF-S simply refers to short back-focus, a design which is specifically
made for EOS bodies using APS-C sensors. The EF-S design enables wide angle
focal lengths (which are otherwise difficult to achieve on crop-sensor cameras),
and allows the lenses to be made smaller, lighter, faster and (generally speaking)
less expensive.

They are not necessarily "budget" lenses; they are simply optimized for APS-C
sensors. Consider the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, which is built to L-quality
standards in terms of optical performance. It's also accordingly priced as an
L-series lens, with an MSRP of more than $1,000. It isn't nearly "budget line."

While it's true that many EF-S lenses are indeed less expensive than most
EF lenses, in certain cases EF-S lens models are indeed very, very good. I
would rate the aforementioned EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as a better lens than
the EF 17-40mm f/4L, and a close contender to the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
(obviously it's not as long, but it is stabilized, and you'd be hard pressed
to discern any difference in image quality).

If Chris is certain, then it's a mistake. Jon also is right, they calling the lenses after their mount not after a variation of the mount. On the other hand, it means that they are compatible with EF mount FF DSLRs, and the 14,5-60 is huge compared to the similar EF-S 18-55 2.8 and 4 times as heavy.
Maybe somebody must check with Canon for clarification.

It's not a mistake. They would not call it an EF-S lens if it doesn't
use the short backfocus design that gives the EF-S line its name
(see my previous post).

The zoom lenses come in two flavors, EF mount and PL mount.
The EF mount version is not "branded" as an EF lens. Instead,
the model numbers are:

Canon Zoom Lens CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 L S
Canon Zoom Lens CN-E30-300mm T2.95-3.7 L S

The caveat is that they will not cover full-frame sensors. That
doesn't make them EF-S lenses (again, see my previous post).
Nor are they branded EF. The PL versions came first, these
are just slightly re-engineered with EF mounts. Nothing more
to it than that, and no mistake has been made in nomenclature.

If Chris is certain, then it's a mistake. Jon also is right, they calling the lenses after their mount not after a variation of the mount. On the other hand, it means that they are compatible with EF mount FF DSLRs, and the 14,5-60 is huge compared to the similar EF-S 18-55 2.8 and 4 times as heavy.
Maybe somebody must check with Canon for clarification.

This is cine lens, which isn't a varifocal lens. The lens itself is faster, the aperture being given in T stops, so the f stop is probably something like f 2.3-2.4, it's wider angle, so the front element is larger.

The mechanics are superior to a stills zoom lens, so also adding weight. The Zeiss Master Zoom weighs 12.6 kg, although having the same T stop, it does have a slightly larger zoom ratio (16.5 - 110 mm) but it does give an impression of how much cine zooms weigh..

I agree with everything you wrote Chris. It's technically perfect.

Still, from a branding and market perspective point of view, I can see how they wouldn't want to call the cine zooms EF-S regardless of the back focus. Canon also hasn't made an EF-S L lenses. Sure, they could. And, yes, the 17-55/2.8 IS has the visual quality, if not the build and weather proofing. But they avoided making it an EF-S L, which would dilute the implied hierarchy of EF-S -> EF -> L.

The distinction might not be real from a technical standpoint, but from a marketing standpoint, it's advantageous to keep the "feel" of a pecking order.

I had a discussion about the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS with the
Canon pro photo tech reps recently at PhotoPlus Expo in New
York. According to them, the only reason why this lens is not
branded as "L" is because the "L" lenses by definition must
fit on every Canon body, especially the 1-series cameras.

Since an EF-S will fit only the crop-sensor bodies, it misses
out on the "L" designation. Supposedly that's the only reason.

I wonder if the Cine zooms fit on every body - even though the image circle would be smaller than a FF sensor.

BTW, I would like all the full frame cameras to provide cropped video at faster frame rates. In that case, an S35 lens would have value on the full frame cams as well as on the crop cams.

Chris, it is misleading, because the site clearly states 35 and super35. If 35 is not full frame then what is it?

In the world of cine lenses it could be the standard 35mm motion picture format, in fact 35mm would probably be the usual industry term. An unusual reference with a stills mount, but inaccuracies in copy can arise given that the same lens is available with the motion picture PL mount.

You may be able to use these lenses with 35mm film cameras, so these may not just be purely digital zoom lenses, but have the clearance to allow the use of a mirror shutter, unlike some recent digital camera zoom lenses which don't allow this. This would also allow them to be used with the Arri Alexa Studio and the up coming digital Aaton, both of which have mirror shutters.

On film cameras "35mm" is the traditional format rather than Super 35.

It is odd that due to DSLR, video has adopted back the still camera size of the 135 cartridge - 36 x 24. The trouble with saying "35mm" now is are we running the "film" horizontally or vertically?
Even the S35 terminology isn't technically correct as the aspect ratio is wrong.
If the primes do cover a larger sensor I'm curious how Canon explains this design. Why would a C300 buyer want that size?

Looking at the specs, there's a good chance that these lenses are based on DSLR optics, just as the Zeiss compact primes are, so by their very nature they can cover FF35.

Yeah, the primes are full frame. The zooms are S35.

The distinction might not be real from a technical standpoint, but from a marketing standpoint, it's advantageous to keep the "feel" of a pecking order.

In addition to what Chris wrote, EF-S is the physical mount. You _cannot_ mount an EF-S lens on to a regular EF mount camera like the 5D. Physically, it will not fit unless you take a hacksaw to it - seriously, there's an FAQ available on how to modify an EF-S mount.

'hacksaw', '5D' and 'lens' should never be in the same paragraph...

Hacksaw, no. Dremel tool, maybe. ;)

any specific date when they ll be on sale?