AF100 Zeiss Ultra Vs Compact

[vagarob]

Hello,

This is my first post here, although I have been a lurker for awhile =)

I am about to pre-order my AF100 through Vistek.ca and the issue of lenses came up.

My initial idea was to go with a set of 3 Zeiss Compact Prime Lenses ($4K each). But, I noticed the crews.tv test was shot using Ultra Primes ($12K each) and it looked amazing.

Would the upgrade to Ultra's be that much better on the AF100?

Would you buy one Ultra Prime, over getting 3 Compact Primes, and just increase your lense collection over time?

I also own a Zeiss still lense collection, which i heard conflicting reports that the Compact primes are "not that much better."

Anyone have any thoughts? thanks!!! :cheesy:

[Steve Kahn]

Why not rent before you buy? I saw at Birns and Sawyer (http://www.birnsandsawyer.com/) you can rent the full set of 7 CP2s for $450/day.

I saw that report as well. In terms of sharpness I think there is virtually no difference. The cinema lenses are superior with their longer throw focus rings as well as precise calibration of said rings - but for the price I'd rather go SLR and learn to work with them.

[Yak]

Start with your Zeiss still lens collection that you already own. after you use it then decide what lens you need to add.

[vagarob]

Well the AF100 is not a full frame sensor, so i don't know how much more a ultra prime is going to give me over a compact prime (although both are for full frame, I figure ultra's are even better in the corners). I haven't seen any comparison tests. I figure the crews.tv just took the best possible lense they could get (since a rental shop provided it for them).

Thats the annoying thing. Like the recent finding @ using an onboard codec vs nano, there was not a huge difference (unless you are planning on putting your stuff on a huge screen). Soooo it's difficult....

[Steve Kahn]

Though it is true that the crop for your slr lenses is 2x, the crop factor is 1.18 for a PL mount lens.

So if you get a CP2 for PL mount the FOV will be very close to what it would be on a 35mm film camera.

[Jarek Zabczynski]

Is it true that optically, the Zeiss CP2s and the ZFs are the same?

[Matthew B]

Hello,

This is my first post here, although I have been a lurker for awhile =)

I am about to pre-order my AF100 through Vistek.ca and the issue of lenses came up.

My initial idea was to go with a set of 3 Zeiss Compact Prime Lenses ($4K each). But, I noticed the crews.tv test was shot using Ultra Primes ($12K each) and it looked amazing.

Would the upgrade to Ultra's be that much better on the AF100?

Would you buy one Ultra Prime, over getting 3 Compact Primes, and just increase your lense collection over time?

I also own a Zeiss still lense collection, which i heard conflicting reports that the Compact primes are "not that much better."

Anyone have any thoughts? thanks!!! :cheesy:

Why not get a set of ZF's and get them cinemoded by Duclos, nearly identical optics to the CP's but you can get 3 ZF's for the price of 1 CP. At the end of the day you can spend a fortune on lenses, but where do you draw the line. I'm not saying don't get them, but renting would probably be the best bet for jobs where you need amazing glass. What will make a nice image is good lighting, composition and subject matter, as long as you nail those things people won't care what lenses you shot it on.

[Barry_Green]

Well the AF100 is not a full frame sensor, so i don't know how much more a ultra prime is going to give me over a compact prime (although both are for full frame, I figure ultra's are even better in the corners).
You sure about that? I think the Ultra Primes don't cover full frame. No cinema lenses do, other than the Compact Primes.

"full frame" has pretty much nothing to do with cinema, cinema lenses typically will cover either the 35mm cinema frame, or at most, the S35 frame. The Compact Primes are unique in that they will cover the still-photography "full frame". Almost -- the 18mm doesn't cover fully, it'll vignette a little on a full frame camera.

[Barry_Green]

Is it true that optically, the Zeiss CP2s and the ZFs are the same?

Well, mostly, yes. But there are differences; for example, the CPs have a 14-blade iris, for delicious perfectly circular bokeh. The ZFs don't.

The CPs are based on the ZF glass, so they're very similar. Most of the difference is in the housings, the construction, the same-size diameter and common size overall between them, focusing the right way instead of the Nikon way, and the 14-blade iris.

[Barry_Green]

Why not get a set of ZF's and get them cinemoded by Duclos, nearly identical optics to the CP's but you can get 3 ZF's for the price of 1 CP.
That was my original plan, and I bought the entire ZF set, planning on doing that. But in the end, I knew I wasn't going to be satisfied. They still focus the wrong way, they're different sizes which means fooling around with the mattebox, etc... in the end, I bought a set of Compact Primes (got a great deal on a full set of all 7 CPs).

The Duclos option is pretty viable; it won't satisfy everyone but it's probably the best option out there short of buying purpose-built cinema lenses.


At the end of the day you can spend a fortune on lenses, but where do you draw the line.
Also consider whether the additional expense is actually going to deliver you a discernible difference in the footage. There comes a point where the better glass isn't going to make much of a difference in a 1920x1080 image. On a DSLR like the 7D, I found that a $50 ebay Zeiss jena lens was indistinguishable from my $1500 ZF version of the same lens. The AF100 resolves a lot more so it matters more, but still, I doubt anyone's going to see THAT much of a difference between a ZF and a Master Prime, other than the much-sweeter wider iris on wider lenses.


I'm not saying don't get them, but renting would probably be the best bet for jobs where you need amazing glass.
Undoubtedly!


What will make a nice image is good lighting, composition and subject matter, as long as you nail those things people won't care what lenses you shot it on.
That is totally true. I sprung for the CPs because of the usability factors, but as far as footage wise, the ZFs would do a nearly visually indistinguishable job.

Of course, I happen to think there are many factors that make something worth more, not just the ultimate end result; but if you're focused solely on the end result, and you can work with the DSLR lenses, then yeah, the ZFs will probably extract just about everything an AF100 can use.

[vagarob]

Thank you Barry, you made me decide to go with the CP Primes over the ultra...B&H should give you a commission! =) Like I assumed the crew.tv people just picked the best lense because they could (wouldn't we all?) but would not make a huge difference on the AF100.

I also agree that technical stuff aside, a good movie could be made on a cheap camcorder vs an expensive one as long as the story is good, acting etc. Just because you have amazing equipment does not equal an amazing shot or movie.

With that aside... I just didn't want to invest $$$ into compact primes and find out out, oops you should have really started buying up Ultra's instead!

[Barry_Green]

Well, it depends on what you're going to do with the lenses. If you intend on renting them out, the sweet spot is probably the CP.2's, because they could be rented by Nikon users, PL users, or Canon users. PL-mount lenses like the Ultra Primes could only be rented by PL users.

Zeiss has a comparison chart of the various lenses they offer, which let you see where some excel over others. The Compact Primes are the budget line; they're fully professional housings and mechanics, and the optics are frankly based on the very best SLR lenses available, so they're not slouches. But they're no Master Primes either. They exhibit chromatic aberration when wide open, and they have inconsistent T-stops, whereas in top-of-the-line lenses they are standardized around a set T-stop.

Not to say they're bad or anything (like I said, I just sunk some dough into a set), but ... they're not Master Primes, by any stretch. Then again, I would find it doubtful that a 1080p user would need or even really benefit from the top-end glass that much; if you were shooting on an Alexa or Epic, then yeah, you'll definitely get the benefit of the better glass. But it's WAY more expensive.

[Michael Olsen]

Just out of curiosity, Barry, have you had a chance to try any of the Red Pro Primes?

[GRENCH]

Why not rent before you buy? I saw at Birns and Sawyer (http://www.birnsandsawyer.com/) you can rent the full set of 7 CP2s for $450/day.

I saw that report as well. In terms of sharpness I think there is virtually no difference. The cinema lenses are superior with their longer throw focus rings as well as precise calibration of said rings - but for the price I'd rather go SLR and learn to work with them.

Steve I believe you are right on the money. I am a go buy it guy but when it comes to glass I prefer to rent big price lenses. Not to mention the fact that the cameras houses that I now know of take excellent care of there lenses. Gear, and glass are always in great shape. My Zeiss SLRs will do me great in between.

[vagarob]

I'm not big on renting. I'll be using the af100 long term and at 500 per day to rent a cp2 set... No thanks :D

I'm still curious how much better the ultras are especially for lowlight. I keep thinkg I should sink money into one or two ultras and use zf lenses for anything else I need.

I wish I had the 100K to buy the ultra set :D

[Steve Kahn]

I bought a set of Compact Primes (got a great deal on a full set of all 7 CPs).
Did you go with the PL mount (and if so what adapter are you using)?

For the first short I'm shooting (I hope in early January if I can actually get the cam) I may rent the CP2 set of 7. To be honest though having 7 sounds like way overkill to me. I know from experience as a still photographer that I have my favorite two lenses that I end up using again and again (28 and 50mm).

Even when I shoot video I'm usually zoomed pretty much all the way out and it's usually not so much of an issue to move in or away from a subject.



Not to say they're bad or anything (like I said, I just sunk some dough into a set), but ... they're not Master Primes, by any stretch. Then again, I would find it doubtful that a 1080p user would need or even really benefit from the top-end glass that much; if you were shooting on an Alexa or Epic, then yeah, you'll definitely get the benefit of the better glass. But it's WAY more expensive.
I wonder (I don't know) how true this actually is. dSLR lenses are made to take 15-20megapixel stills. That seems like quite a standard. Now I understnad ergonomics of the cinema lenses - pulling focus, smooth iris ring, matte box friendly sizing but for pure image quality... I'm not so sure.

Now if were talking NASA Barry Lyndon f0.7 ultral sharp Zeiss well yeah I totally understand why the lens costs a half a million bucks.

[Steve Kahn]

I'm not big on renting. I'll be using the af100 long term and at 500 per day to rent a cp2 set... No thanks :D

I'm still curious how much better the ultras are especially for lowlight. I keep thinkg I should sink money into one or two ultras and use zf lenses for anything else I need.

I wish I had the 100K to buy the ultra set :D

The CP2 50mm is f2.1 where the Ultra Prime is f1.9 that equates to about 3/10 stop faster. Not much.

[Homunculus]

Hmm Steve Kahn brings up a good point, Red's 4k resolution is equivalent to what? Cursory search on google shows me 12 or so megapixels. Something like Canon 5dmkii takes 22-23 megapixel stills and as such its lenses presumably are designed for such a task. How do you reconcile that Barry G.? In theory DSLR lenses should be even more advanced and sharper than Zeiss ultra primes and such that shoot a measly 4k resolution compared to 23 megapixels and the like.

[mcgeedigital]

Just out of curiosity, Barry, have you had a chance to try any of the Red Pro Primes?

I have, and they are excellent quality, but heavy beasts.

[dop16mm]

Ultimately you have to weigh economics vs. ergonomics. Decent still glass will produce an excellent image, but pulling focus will be the issue. What market are you in, how often do you work and will the client pay a fair rental rate for your lens kit. Once your lens budget gets close to the 20k range why not go all it and move up to RED. This is a revolutionary camera at its price point, and what is really cool is that it can use lenses you probably already own. Get a PL mount and rent high end glass as needed. Use nikons or canon FD's to practice with for everyday shooting.

The OP mentioned already have a set of zeiss still lenses, so that is a starting point, I probably wouldn't reproduce those focal lengths for cp's, but others may differ. Zeiss isn't the only solution either, cooke panchro's, the new russian stuff (not sure the name, optimus, illumina something like that) the duclos conversions, you might even find a struggling RED owner to give up his rights to buy their lenses. The cp.2's are popular as they can change to canon mount and cover 5dII. If you are doing commercials you can be sure that whatever you have will not be good enough and the client will want whatever they have heard is the best, cooke s5, leica etc.... That's what has carried the 5dII, it is the buzz camera, full frame everything out of focus la la and cheap. As good as we all know the af100 is going to be it still has to get past the 5DII buzz in certain markets.

[Homunculus]

dop16mm, can anyone tell me what is the difference pulling focus on still lens and cinema lens. I have never used a 'cinema lens" why does everyone say pulling focus is a nightmare on stills lenses compared to cinema lens? What is the difference?

thanks

[Barry_Green]

Just out of curiosity, Barry, have you had a chance to try any of the Red Pro Primes?
I have not.

[Barry_Green]

Did you go with the PL mount (and if so what adapter are you using)?
The ones I got are CPs, not CP.2's, so they don't have the interchangeable mount, they're only PL-mount. I've ordered a ciecio7 adapter and I'm looking at the Hot Rod. If there's a big difference, I'll reserve the ciecio7 for the GH2 and use the Hot Rod on the AF100. If there's not a big difference, I'll get a second ciecio7.

[Michael Olsen]

dop16mm, can anyone tell me what is the difference pulling focus on still lens and cinema lens. I have never used a 'cinema lens" why does everyone say pulling focus is a nightmare on stills lenses compared to cinema lens? What is the difference?

thanks

Not dop16mm, but I'm a big fan of the format...so...stand-in?

1. Cinema lenses are permanently geared, ready to receive a standard follow focus gear.
2. Cinema lenses have a long "throw", allowing for precise focus.
3. Cinema lenses have a very smooth physical motion as the product of precise internal engineering.
4. Cinema lenses have focus gears which rotate towards infinity in a standard direction, making it easy to switch from one lens to another without worrying about one being a Nikon.
5. Cinema lenses (if properly maintained) have very accurate and repeatable focus markings.
6. Cinema lenses are generally optimized to breathe as little as possible while focusing.

[Barry_Green]

The CP2 50mm is f2.1 where the Ultra Prime is f1.9 that equates to about 3/10 stop faster. Not much.
For the 50, yes. But for the 18mm, the difference is T3.6 vs. T1.9, which is, what, 1.75 stops? That's massive.

[Barry_Green]

Hmm Steve Kahn brings up a good point, Red's 4k resolution is equivalent to what? Cursory search on google shows me 12 or so megapixels. Something like Canon 5dmkii takes 22-23 megapixel stills and as such its lenses presumably are designed for such a task. How do you reconcile that Barry G.? In theory DSLR lenses should be even more advanced and sharper than Zeiss ultra primes and such that shoot a measly 4k resolution compared to 23 megapixels and the like.

There's numbers, and then there's reality. No kit lens off the 7D is going to hold a candle, or even an excited electron, in comparison to a $20,000 cinema prime.

Don't get caught up in numbers. Numbers would make you think that a 1920x1080 Canon HV20 is better than a 1280x720 Varicam 2700. But it ain't, not by a hundred thousand miles.

[Barry_Green]

dop16mm, can anyone tell me what is the difference pulling focus on still lens and cinema lens. I have never used a 'cinema lens" why does everyone say pulling focus is a nightmare on stills lenses compared to cinema lens? What is the difference?
It's one of those things where you just have to sample it once, to see. It's like the difference between a world-class sirloin steak, and a McDonald's hamburger. Someone can try to minimize the difference by saying "they're both beef" but ... no. Cinema lenses (well, good ones) are extremely precise, with huge focus rotation distance (300 degrees or so), and precise markings all around the barrel and great distances between the markings so you can precisely hit your target each and every time. Stills camera lenses are vaguely labeled and are marked no more accurately than "in the ballpark", they have usually extremely short focus throws, and the mechanisms are night and day different.

[Michael Olsen]

But it ain't, not by a hundred thousand miles.

...damn.

--

Seriously, Barry's right. Resolution gets a lot of talk, probably because its easy to talk about how this camera has more megapixels or out-resolves another. But there is a lot else left to be said about lenses, including the way they reproduce a scene aside from how sharp they are when sitting in front of a lens projector.

[Barry_Green]

Not dop16mm, but I'm a big fan of the format...so...stand-in?

1. Cinema lenses are permanently geared, ready to receive a standard follow focus gear.
2. Cinema lenses have a long "throw", allowing for precise focus.
3. Cinema lenses have a very smooth physical motion as the product of precise internal engineering.
4. Cinema lenses have focus gears which rotate towards infinity in a standard direction, making it easy to switch from one lens to another without worrying about one being a Nikon.
5. Cinema lenses (if properly maintained) have very accurate and repeatable focus markings.
6. Cinema lenses are generally optimized to breathe as little as possible while focusing.


Among other things. Like having silky buttery-smooth iris action with infinite positions, instead of clunky half-stops. Or that cinema lenses are typically all the same diameter and size, so swapping one out for another means no hassles whatsoever with re-fitting your follow focus or your mattebox or whatever.

[Michael Olsen]

Among other things. Like having silky buttery-smooth iris action with infinite positions, instead of clunky half-stops. Or that cinema lenses are typically all the same diameter and size, so swapping one out for another means no hassles whatsoever with re-fitting your follow focus or your mattebox or whatever.

Oh sure...he just wanted the short list about focusing though!

Cinema lenses are wonderful creations. One reason I'm loving the idea of the little RED mini-primes or even some of the Zeiss distagons. Talk about a fun little camera.

[Rolf Silber]

dop16mm, can anyone tell me what is the difference pulling focus on still lens and cinema lens. I have never used a 'cinema lens" why does everyone say pulling focus is a nightmare on stills lenses compared to cinema lens? What is the difference?

thanks

Michael Olson has put it excellently clear - just anther angle: Cinema lenses are also optimized for the very "act of focussing". Because change of focus is an important mean of story telling - not just a technical/aesthetical necessity. Cinema lenses are the "Steinways" of film making..... ;-)

[Barry_Green]

Exactly. Now, in comparison, many stills lenses are simply just not well suited to the task. Especially an autofocus lens. One thing that attracted me to the ZFs is that they have absolutely magnificent focus, for SLR lenses. About as good as you're going to find in any DSLR lens. If you simply cannot justify the (comparatively exorbitant) cost of cinema lenses, don't worry about it, there are plenty of very inexpensive or (comparatively) affordable stills lenses that will deliver beautiful results. Cinema lenses cost a lot because they aren't mass-manufactured consumer products, they're highly specialized and extremely precision-engineered marvels. For certain types of uses, they're just plain indispensible. For other uses, they're massive overkill.

On a shoot with a budget, and a dedicated 1st AC, and a mattebox, the cinema lenses are going to be soooo worth it. On a no-budget shoot where the camera operator is pulling his own focus and the catering budget is pizza, the cinema lenses are going to be a waste of money. There are many places where that money could be better spent. But at a certain level of production the cinema lenses move from being a luxury to being (what I consider) a necessity.

[Michael Olsen]

But at a certain level of production the cinema lenses move from being a luxury to being (what I consider) a necessity.

I think the weak link analogy works here - if the project has the budget to get good actors, a good director, and a great camera, it would just be a pity if all of those were "filtered" by a lens that didn't do it justice.

[vagarob]

Well the nice thing about CP2s is that they support PL, nikon/EF and sony alpha mounts (for maybe a sony af100 competitor). So, it appears to have good resell value if you decide to upgrade later.

Speaking of Sony and saving money (hmm, those never go together). There are other ways to minimize your budget as well.

We recently purchased a NEXVG10 and stuck a Zeiss lense on it, and then put the entire thing onto a Merlin Steadicam and ran it through a crowded asian market.

A few filters later, and slowing the footage down, it became a perfect dream sequence. It was stuck between two pieces of red footage, and you couldn't tell that we just went from red to a sony handycam.

Saved us from hiring a pro steadicam operator that could support a red one camera and lense.



Course this was just for a web movie but.. :D

[Matthew B]

That was my original plan, and I bought the entire ZF set, planning on doing that. But in the end, I knew I wasn't going to be satisfied. They still focus the wrong way, they're different sizes which means fooling around with the mattebox, etc... in the end, I bought a set of Compact Primes (got a great deal on a full set of all 7 CPs).

My solution is reversing the gearbox on my follow focus.

[Noel Evans]

Thats the plus side of the Durus.

[Matthew B]

Thats the plus side of the Durus.

Plus it's silky smooth gearbox.

[dop16mm]

As zeiss has designed the cp.2's to take different mounts, you can be sure m4/3 will be available by the time the camera ships. This could be a deciding factor if exposure can be set and controlled in camera. If I could have three I'd probably pick 35mm, 50mm and 85mm, and hope they were not a bad match for 14mm and 20mm pancakes, which will hopefully support the electronic focus tracking features.

That said, I work at the lowest of no budgets and make the most of what I have. If I had zeiss glass in any mount, I'd be finding a way to make it work before dismissing it for a new purchase. I still hope someone will produce an affordable single chip 2/3 camera so I can use my 16mm lenses and be done with it. Doesn't need to be RED or RAW, just saying.

[vagarob]

So... the crop factor on the Zeiss CP.2 4/3 mount will be about the same as what the lense is listed for? 35mm will be around 35mm? is that right ?

[Barry_Green]

The crop factor has nothing to do with the lens, at all. The lens is the lens.

It's the sensor that does the cropping, not the lens.

[vagarob]

Mmm.. Steve said earlier:

"Though it is true that the crop for your slr lenses is 2x, the crop factor is 1.18 for a PL mount lens.

So if you get a CP2 for PL mount the FOV will be very close to what it would be on a 35mm film camera."

and

"A Nikon 50/1.4 (50mm F1.4) = 60(ish)mm F2.4(ish) view on an AF100 if you're coming from RED, 7D, T2i, D90

A Nikon 50/1.4 (50mm F1.4) = 92(ish)mm F3.8(ish) view on an AF100 if you're coming from Canon 5D MKII Video."

I'm confused coming from still photography... :D

p.s. Barry when are you going to compile this into a lil blog/FAQ/whatever, with a nice donation button. You're a wealth of information, and save a lot of people $$$ with time. :D

[Michael Olsen]

I think it may make more sense to just use a field of view calculator and a depth of field calculator for the imager you are working with than to try and make comparisons between different sensors. That will give you the FOV as a simple degree and the depth of field in inches or feet, along with the near limit, far limit, and the hyperfocal distance. It's simple, it's straightforward, and it doesn't lead to misunderstandings about lenses "becoming" another focal length and so on.

[groveChuck]

vagarob- yes, it's confusing. Here's a FOV calculator.

Speaking of confusion, am I correct that 35mm stills (film) is the same as the 5DMkII?


http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

[vagarob]

That calculator helped a lot. Thanks!!! Sooooo... If I wanted a CP.2 50mm lense with the AF100, I'd pick the 28mm one instead, okay. i think ? :D

Now I just have to wait for the Zeiss 4/3 mounts to come out. Saves me a $1000 not having to buy the PL adapter.

[Arnarfjodur]

Thanx for a very useful discussion on still v.s. cine lenses.

Now, for the truly low budget, can someone comment on the usability of C/Y mount Zeiss still glass v.s. other Zeiss stills? It seems like a very cheap way to have a prime lens kit with a fancy name and it looks like it can be adapted to most formats. What is the downside?

p.s. I admire you people who constantly take on the task of explaining effective focal lengths, and the "crop factor". There used to be a joke that all internet discussions eventually end in someone being compared to Hitler. Seems to be all threads on lenses eventually end in someone being confused about "crop factor".

[Michael Olsen]

Seems to be all threads on lenses eventually end in someone being confused about "crop factor".

Which is, in all reality, equitable to Hitler.

[groveChuck]

There used to be a joke that all internet discussions eventually end in someone being compared to Hitler. Seems to be all threads on lenses eventually end in someone being confused about "crop factor".

Hitler was known for a particularly vicious crop factor. You're right, it happened.
We now return to our previous thread of discussion... :Drogar-Mark-10(DBG)

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

To answer the OP:

Ultra's are more expensive, better quality and a better build... kinda.

The ultra's are cine lenses. No doubt. They have faster apertures and better optics. I would bet they are better color matched in a set and have the same T-stop throughout the set. They are heavier, longer, and are notorious for stiff focus ring feel. The Ultra's are made for S35mm format, and only the long focal lengths would cover a larger sensor size. They are made for cinema, not photography. They are only available in PL mount. The CP'2's are not consistent in maximum aperture throughout the set, and require more light (which I don't think is a very big deal as sensors are more sensitive. Just make sure you know the least common denominator stop of the lens you plan on using in a scene). However they are much less expensive, have pretty good, but not as, quality. Their biggest strength is the very short and lightweight build. I can't comment on focus markings on the barrel, as I do not have enough experience on those as I do on, say, Cooke's, RPP's, or SuperSpeeds, however, the focus rings are not as 'stiff' as the Ultra's and I like that. They are great options at anytime, but steadi-cam would highly benefit from their build size and weight. These lenses also utilize the lens element tech from the famous still photography line ZE's/ZF's. These lenses have an interchangeable mount, and because of it's circle projection size for photography, can cover just about any format up to FF photography. The CP'2's focus like a cine lens, meaning the barrel turns in the right direction, and the focus markings are spread out unlike photography lenses of today. The Ultra's and CP'1's of course are like this (cine style) as well. This is only mentioned as the still lenses the CP2's are based off of are not. The CP'2's I believe have more aperture blades.

I'm always curious why some lenses pick some aperture blade numbers while others pick something different. It's odd to me. But it does effect the look!

[Steve Kahn]

This is my aesthetic, my opinion and very personal but I rather dislike seeing a scene where focus is pulled. It must be done in subtle ways and not too frequently or, I feel, like bombastic music or (God forbid) a zoom during the shot, it can really stand out like a sore thumb and take the viewer out of the moment.

Though it isn't always possible, I'd much rather set an f-stop/camera distance where the actors are and remain within focus with a background that falls off nicely with bokeh. Hell sometimes actually many times it is best to stop down entirely to get a deep dof.

My fear is that (like the zoom shots of old) pulling focus will be done to such an extreme that it will become apparent and therefore distracting to a casual viewer. And that day (like the days of power zooms) will be the last day of focus pulling.

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

This is my aesthetic, my opinion and very personal but I rather dislike seeing a scene where focus is pulled. It must be done in subtle ways and not too frequently or, I feel, like bombastic music or (God forbid) a zoom during the shot, it can really stand out like a sore thumb and take the viewer out of the moment.

Though it isn't always possible, I'd much rather set an f-stop/camera distance where the actors are and remain within focus with a background that falls off nicely with bokeh. Hell sometimes actually many times it is best to stop down entirely to get a deep dof.

My fear is that (like the zoom shots of old) pulling focus will be done to such an extreme that it will become apparent and therefore distracting to a casual viewer. And that day (like the days of power zooms) will be the last day of focus pulling.


You might get your wish when the DSLR shooting at F/1.4 fad goes away and people go back to the ever-so-pleasing look of T/2.8, T/4, or T/5.6. I've been pushing for that for a long time. T/1.4 or F/1.4 is just silly, unless the story really calls for that aesthetic.

[Taylor Rudd]

This is my aesthetic, my opinion and very personal but I rather dislike seeing a scene where focus is pulled. It must be done in subtle ways and not too frequently or, I feel, like bombastic music or (God forbid) a zoom during the shot, it can really stand out like a sore thumb and take the viewer out of the moment.

Though it isn't always possible, I'd much rather set an f-stop/camera distance where the actors are and remain within focus with a background that falls off nicely with bokeh. Hell sometimes actually many times it is best to stop down entirely to get a deep dof.

My fear is that (like the zoom shots of old) pulling focus will be done to such an extreme that it will become apparent and therefore distracting to a casual viewer. And that day (like the days of power zooms) will be the last day of focus pulling.

99% of focus pulls are to simply keep the subject in focus. It's as common and necessary as the sound guy using microphones to hear dialogue.

I agree that zooms often take me out of the movie. But pulling focus is more often a duty than a stylistic choice

[Steve Kahn]

You might get your wish when the DSLR shooting at F/1.4 fad goes away and people go back to the ever-so-pleasing look of T/2.8, T/4, or T/5.6. I've been pushing for that for a long time. T/1.4 or F/1.4 is just silly, unless the story really calls for that aesthetic.

T5.6 is a nice place to be where many of the top ASCs spend much of their time.

[Rick Burnett]

I don't think the F1.4 "fad" is going to be going away anytime soon. I use my 30mm F1.4 Sigma ALL THE TIME wide open and I love the lens. Mainly, what I like about it is the ability to use LESS light to light my scenes. It allows me more freedom with current sensors to really get some great shots in locations that I would typically require a lot of light and then, with that light, I run into having to shoot in ways to prevent seeing all the extra lighting (like when we shot with the HVX200).

Sigma has just sent me a 50mm F1.4 to review for them for video purposes, as the Canon 50mm F1.4 is HORRIBLE wide open for us. The CA is horrible. I also have an 85mm F1.4 and use it quite a bit at F1.4 for focus reveals, but for other stuff, I do use it much higher for deeper DoF all the time. Having faster lens gives you the freedom to do those sorts of shots in more ways when you want.

I did in fact put a CP.2 50mm on my 7D a month ago and I can tell you, the lens does in fact look great. I did some video AND some stills. And the silky smooth operation is awesome.

However...

The lens is HEAVY and HUGE! For many uses to shooting cine style lens, I am sure this is fine for you, but I like to run around with a hand held stabilizer (Blackbird by CMR) and there is NO WAY that is going to be happening with these lens for me! :) Of course, if you have a vest system, you'll be fine. The lens felt like it weighed more than my 7D and it got in the way of the Manfrotto mounting plate I had on the camera!!

The reason I mention all this is do you guys get bothered by the weight at all?

[Clark]

...am I correct that 35mm stills (film) is the same as the 5DMkII?

Yes. The "Full Frame" sensor refers to a full 35mm frame.

[Clark]

If I wanted a CP.2 50mm lens with the AF100, I'd pick the 28mm one instead, okay. i think?

vagarob,

It depends.

If you're used to shooting 35mm stills (or Canon 5D I or II), then a 25mm Zeiss CP.2 lens on the Panasonic AF100 will give you a similar field-of-view.

If, however, you are used to the FOV of the APS-C sensors (Canon 7D, T2i, etc), 35mm motion picture film or RED One, etc. then you'll get a similar field-of-view (albeit slightly wider) from the 35mm Zeiss CP.2 lens on the Panasonic AF100 (2x crop factor). 40mm would be a better match, but it's not an option with the CP.2 lenses.

[avro]

You sure about that? I think the Ultra Primes don't cover full frame. No cinema lenses do, other than the Compact Primes.

"full frame" has pretty much nothing to do with cinema, cinema lenses typically will cover either the 35mm cinema frame, or at most, the S35 frame. The Compact Primes are unique in that they will cover the still-photography "full frame". Almost -- the 18mm doesn't cover fully, it'll vignette a little on a full frame camera.

Master Primes Do.....but not all .

[David W. Jones]

Thanx for a very useful discussion on still v.s. cine lenses.

Now, for the truly low budget, can someone comment on the usability of C/Y mount Zeiss still glass v.s. other Zeiss stills? It seems like a very cheap way to have a prime lens kit with a fancy name and it looks like it can be adapted to most formats. What is the downside?

p.s. I admire you people who constantly take on the task of explaining effective focal lengths, and the "crop factor". There used to be a joke that all internet discussions eventually end in someone being compared to Hitler. Seems to be all threads on lenses eventually end in someone being confused about "crop factor".

I put together a set of C/Y mount Zeiss lenses some time ago and have been very pleased with them. Not only do they focus cine-wise, most people can't tell the difference between them and the newer ZF & CP.2 line which are based off the original C/Y designs.
In my situation they perform flawlessly for shooting local and regional TV commercials at a much lower budget than CP.2 lenses, with no discernible quality difference.

All The Best!

Dave

[Barry_Green]

Master Primes Do.....but not all .

What Master Primes do? None of them are designed to. If any of them do cover, I would bet that they're the longer telephoto ones, like 50mm+, and that it would be the same accidental effect we're seeing with c-mount lenses on the GH1/GH2/AF100. They're not designed to cover the much-larger 4/3 sensor, but the longer focal lengths usually do. Not well though; you're definitely seeing areas of the frame that Zeiss would most definitely prefer you not be using! Distortion, aberration, blurry corners, all that stuff happens with the c-mount lenses, and I would wager that the edges and corners of a Master Prime on a 5D would exhibit similarly less-than-optimal effects in the corners.

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I did in fact put a CP.2 50mm on my 7D a month ago and I can tell you, the lens does in fact look great. I did some video AND some stills. And the silky smooth operation is awesome.

However...

The lens is HEAVY and HUGE! For many uses to shooting cine style lens, I am sure this is fine for you, but I like to run around with a hand held stabilizer (Blackbird by CMR) and there is NO WAY that is going to be happening with these lens for me! :) Of course, if you have a vest system, you'll be fine. The lens felt like it weighed more than my 7D and it got in the way of the Manfrotto mounting plate I had on the camera!!

The reason I mention all this is do you guys get bothered by the weight at all?

Did you just call the 50mm CP.2 heavy and huge?! At 2.2lbs? Lol. I think it's time you experience a camera that weighs over 28 ounces. :) You should be fine with a 2lb lens... how heavy are the ones you use now? A glidecam2000 can take about 10lbs (I push it over the 6 limit). You don't need a vest.



What Master Primes do? None of them are designed to. If any of them do cover, I would bet that they're the longer telephoto ones, like 50mm+, and that it would be the same accidental effect we're seeing with c-mount lenses on the GH1/GH2/AF100. They're not designed to cover the much-larger 4/3 sensor, but the longer focal lengths usually do. Not well though; you're definitely seeing areas of the frame that Zeiss would most definitely prefer you not be using! Distortion, aberration, blurry corners, all that stuff happens with the c-mount lenses, and I would wager that the edges and corners of a Master Prime on a 5D would exhibit similarly less-than-optimal effects in the corners.



Yeah... MP's don't cover FF intentionally. I've never tested them, but I'm sure some of the very high focal lengths do have larger projections. My Cooke Panchro/i lenses cover FF but with only the 75mm and 100mm. Illya friedman tested my lenses on one of his PL'd 5D's. But who knows about quality.

Barry is correct to fear some optical issues outside of the intended projection circle. Which is usually around 30-33mm for high end PL lenses.

[Rick Burnett]

You can add more weight to the camera, but the less is better for me :) Sure, I could run with the 2.2lbs on there, but if I had a lens that was lighter, I can go even longer! :) I use a blackbird stabilizer. Given I was shooting on the 7D, that lens is overkill! :)

[Alpern]

accouding to Illya of Hotrodcameras the following will cover a 5D or FF35mm. I have used some of the following lenses along with my CP's on PL-5D.

Duclos 11-16mm Tokina (at 15mm-16mm only)
Zeiss Compact Primes 21mm – 85mm (6x lenses)
Zeiss Ultra Primes 32mm – 180mm (8x lenses) (**Note on at least one set the 40/50mm Ultra Primes did not cover, but on another set the 40mm and 50mm covered)
Zeiss Master Primes 50mm -150mm (5x lenses)
Cooke S4 Lenses 65mm – 300mm (7x lenses) (Please note I have every reason to believe that the longest S4 lenses cover although I have not tested longer than 180mm)
Cooke Panchro 75mm and longer (2x lenses)
Red Pro Primes 85mm and longer (2x lenses)
Zeiss Super Speed MKIII 85mm, Zeiss Standard Speed 135mm

[Terry_Lasater]

Just asking...

Isn't the "Full Frame" on a 5DM2, when recording video, smaller than the "Full Frame" it uses for stills? If so, which "Full Frame" are we talking about?

[Barry_Green]

Okay, but again -- when we say "they'll cover", do they do so in a robust enough way that it's actually a good idea to use them? If you're paying for the use of Ultra Primes or Master Primes, you want edge-to-edge performance that's every bit as good as when used on an S35 camera (which is what they were designed for). Have these cinema lenses been tested for edge-to-edge clarity when being put on a full frame camera?

[Barry_Green]

Just asking...

Isn't the "Full Frame" on a 5DM2, when recording video, smaller than the "Full Frame" it uses for stills? If so, which "Full Frame" are we talking about?
It is slightly smaller. It's the same width, but cropped down from 3:2 aspect ratio down to 16:9.

[avro]

Epic from RED is OK from 18mm ON......i know it is a bit smaller then FULL 35mm.
FULL FRAME with Master primes are OK from 35mm on ....

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

^ What do you mean.

Full Epic 5k requires a 33mm projection circle, I believe. Still considerably smaller than Full Frame size.

Most cinelenses will be optimally designed for a bit smaller than the 5k Full epic, however you'll find some people will try to stretch the numbers like we have been talking about. HOwever that will be much less than doing so for FF.

[Terry_Lasater]

It is slightly smaller. It's the same width, but cropped down from 3:2 aspect ratio down to 16:9.

Sometimes, I delude myself into thinking I've clearly expressed my point only to realize later... not so much.

That 3:2 cropped down to 16:9 may be the extra bit of wiggle room some of the aforementioned lenses needed in order to say they cover "Full Frame".

[Shoots56]

I still hope someone will produce an affordable single chip 2/3 camera so I can use my 16mm lenses and be done with it. Doesn't need to be RED or RAW, just saying.

Your wish just came true and it shoots 12bit raw. http://www.ikonoskop.com/dii/footage/

I'm seriously considering one now that they are starting to become real. It would be so nice to maybe have a DSLR type rig for it, for handheld shots, and you have a much thicker file to work with than any camera out there under $50k.

[Joe Walker]

Hey Ryan, what is the actual front diameter of the Cooke Panchro-i 18mm? I've seen some specs list it as 110mm and some list it as 87mm. Just curious.

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Hey Ryan, what is the actual front diameter of the Cooke Panchro-i 18mm? I've seen some specs list it as 110mm and some list it as 87mm. Just curious.

The 18mm is 110mm, a bit wider than the 25, 32, 50, 75, and 100, which are all 87mm. The 18mm manufacturing began much later than the initial 5-set, in-fact I believe they just started shipping earlier this month. Mine gets shipped out on Monday. :) There were also some misprints regarding the image circle originally stated at 30mm, like the S4's. All of the Panchro/i's are 33.54, according to Cooke... which will cover what Red has announced the Epic 5k size to be.

[Joe Walker]

In your opinion do the Panchro's handle chromatic abberation better than the CP's? I've noticed quite a bit of CP footage showing chromatic abberation.

[Barry_Green]

The CP's get aberrational at wide open, but it pretty much disappears if you stop down half a stop.

[Joe Walker]

The CP's get aberrational at wide open, but it pretty much disappears if you stop down half a stop.

Which sounds like the typical story with just about all lenses, stop down a tad and everything clears up.

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

In your opinion do the Panchro's handle chromatic abberation better than the CP's? I've noticed quite a bit of CP footage showing chromatic abberation.

The Cooke's were designed and advertised to work optimally at wide open and stopped down. With that said, I have yet to notice any aberrations or noticeable sharpness differences from wide open to stopped down. They are advertised to be just as sharp wide open as the cooke s4's when at the equivalent T/2.8 stop. I am wanting to do some very rigorous testing soon in regards to comparing them. If I could get my hands on a set of S4's for a day, I'd like to test. I'll be putting the 18mm through some tests when I get it, but I suspect and expect it to function the same.

I don't know about the CP.2's. I've played around with them but have never put them through any official tests.

[stuinoz]

This incredibly helpful as I've been looking at the ziess compact primes and the ziess planar and distagon lenses and trying to figure out the difference. What do you mean by 'get them cinemoded by duclos'? couldn't agree more about what's in front of the lense being more important than the glass itself.

[Barry_Green]

This What do you mean by 'get them cinemoded by duclos'?
http://www.ducloslenses.com/Duclos_Lenses/Cinemod.html

[BollingerPro]

Guys,

Do the Zeiss ZE canon lenses allow for correct focus pull direction?

Is there a benefit to having a manual iris ring? I am thinking about getting three ZE lenses (28mm, 50mm 85mm) to go along with a Birger mount.

[mkfotos.com]

Guys,

Do the Zeiss ZE canon lenses allow for correct focus pull direction?

Is there a benefit to having a manual iris ring? I am thinking about getting three ZE lenses (28mm, 50mm 85mm) to go along with a Birger mount.

Yes, they do. Yes, no power needed, etc. I think you're confusing glass here. The ZE lenses are fully manual, so a Birger (designed to give electronic focus, iris, and IS control over Canon, and Canon protocol compatible lenses such as Sigma, Tokina, etc.) won't do anything for them.

[BollingerPro]

mKfotos,

This page tells me that the ZE Lenses have no manual aperture control?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/ze.htm

Looking at the ZE lenses, I don't see a aperture ring.

[Bern Caughey]

Looking at the ZE lenses, I don't see a aperture ring.

The ZE focus the right way round, & do not have aperture rings, but the Birger adapter should allow setting apertures in 1/3 stop increments.

While long focus throws are preferable in many circumstances, I know two prominent DPs who like still lenses' short throws when they're handheld, & pulling their own focus.

Best,
Bern

[Oliver Rush]

So, how many situations have been in where you have said to yourself "if only I had that $12K lens so I get that shot..." Frankly, unless you have EVERYTHING else you need, and ALOT of business, is it worth it to own over renting? Frankly, you can have the best glass in the world, but unless you have proper lighting, support, etc, and the talent to bring it all together, it is not going to get you a great movie. I have seen awesome looking films shot on still glass with a $12K budget... Cine-glass is nice, but not the end-all be all of getting great shots.

[kylekmd]

Guys,

Do the Zeiss ZE canon lenses allow for correct focus pull direction?

Is there a benefit to having a manual iris ring? I am thinking about getting three ZE lenses (28mm, 50mm 85mm) to go along with a Birger mount.


The ZE's don't have an aperture ring but the ZF.2's do. And the focus pull direction is correct.

[Barry_Green]

Is there a benefit to having a manual iris ring?
I'd say there's a huge benefit to it, and that would be -- what if you want to use these lenses on something other than a Canon? I bought the ZF lenses instead of the ZE's, specifically because they do have the focus ring, and I've been happily able to use them on the GH1, GH2, AF100, and my 16mm movie camera for about a year with no worries about iris rings, and will be able to use them on pretty much anything that ever comes out, because they're not dependent on any electronic support from anything else.

But, the tradeoff, is that I'm stuck with backwards focusing. Sigh.

[broughtonfilm]

One thing to remember is that cropping the lens's original image circle also means not using its full resolution. If we measure the resolution as a number of lines that the lens can resolve per picture height (or per inch, per mm, etc. depending on the method) then this is not an absolute number - absolute only for the given format. If you use a camera that has a smaller sensor size (and therefore smaller picture height) then the number of the lines resolved will be decreased. It is somewhat compensated by the fact that the center resolution of the lens is usually greater but that center resolution will also be proportionally decreased. That's why it is in general a bad idea to use i.e. medium format lenses on 35mm still photo camera, not to mention 35mm motion picture. The same lens, i.e. 80mm Carl Zeiss Planar optimized for 6x6 still photo will perform very poorly on a motion picture camera and perform beautifully on its "native" 6x6 body. In other words, the smaller the sensor size the greater the resolution the lens has to have. Some DP's would never use 35mm motion picture lenses on a S16 camera, even though they obviously cover the S16 frame - their resolution is just not good enough as compared with lenses specifically designed for S16. Ultra Primes are designed to perform excellently in a smaller image circle, benefit of that is especially visible in wide angle lenses. Their resolution is "packed" into a smaller area. CP's are still photo lenses really, just re-barreled to be convenient in cinema world (don't get me wrong, I want one set! ). Now, in reality, how much of an optical resolution do you really need for the camera that is not even 2K?

[Barry_Green]

There is certainly truth in the notion that the smaller the format you're shooting to, the sharper the lens has to be in order to perform optimally.

However, it is also true that lenses typically (if not invariably) perform better in the center, than they do on the edges. This is the so-called "sweet spot" of the lens, and using a lens from a larger format on a smaller sensor results in the camera only "seeing" through the "sweet spot". That alone may be enough to overcome any worries about whether the lens is sharp enough, in general, for the smaller format. This effect can be seen in reverse when you put a smaller-format lens (such as a 16mm cinema c-mount lens) on a larger-sensor camera such as an AF100. The center looks great, but the edges get really soft and nasty.

In this AF100 forum, for use on the AF100, I'd say it's not something to worry about. The ZF's easily outresolve anything the AF100 sensor can see; any of the ZF's, even at wide open, deliver as much sharpness as the AF100 can resolve. Part of this is due to the AF100 being a less-than-2K system, and part is due to it having a much larger sensor than 16mm film, its sensor is over 3x as large as 16mm and it is almost as large as 35mm cinema film. The Compact Primes glass was originally designed as the ZF series to cover the stills "full frame" but Zeiss offers them as cinema lenses for the 35mm and S35 frame, which tells me they're comfortable having their name on these lenses as used for movie work.

It is an interesting question though, and since I have a PL-mount Super16 camera and some dedicated S16 lenses as well as the CP's, I'm planning on running some sharpness tests between them. The ZF/CP lenses are astonishingly sharp when stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8, so I have confidence that they are way more than enough for any large sensor (35mm "full frame" or 35mm/S35 cine or 4/3's) but it will be interesting to see if they still translate enough sharpness when rendering all the way down to S16...

I will say that I used the ZF's on Ultra16 on "A Verse Before Dying" and they were plenty sharp, intercutting easily with the AF100 and its Compact Primes.

[broughtonfilm]

All this is of course relative, it depends on what the delivery format is and where the final product will be screened. I understand that ZF's where plenty sharp on "Verse..." but was it blown up to 35mm in 4K and screened in a movie theater? That would be the test and I doubt they can handle it (again it is relative what we call acceptable results) - they would in my opinion not even come close to S16 lenses.

[Barry_Green]

It has been screened on large screens and will be screened next month on a movie theater in NY, as far as I understand. Blowing up to 35mm and 4K doesn't do anything to add sharpness that wasn't already captured in the first place.

S16 lenses are a red herring -- they're useless on an AF100 so it doesn't matter if they're sharper or not, they don't cover the sensor so ... why discuss them?

But, again -- I have some S16 glass and some CP's and an S16 camera and will be able to compare them directly.

My point was -- seeing as this is the AF100 forum, the CP's are more than a match for anything the AF100 can deliver.

[blackcat]

All this is of course relative, it depends on what the delivery format is and where the final product will be screened. I understand that ZF's where plenty sharp on "Verse..." but was it blown up to 35mm in 4K and screened in a movie theater? That would be the test and I doubt they can handle it (again it is relative what we call acceptable results) - they would in my opinion not even come close to S16 lenses.

I don't see your point. If a lens looks sharp at 1080p, any softening of the image at 35mm would reflect the transfer, not the performance of the lens. If another lens did not perform as sharp at 1080p, it would not look as sharp at 1080p or blown up to 35mm...

[broughtonfilm]

It has been screened on large screens and will be screened next month on a movie theater in NY, as far as I understand. Blowing up to 35mm and 4K doesn't do anything to add sharpness that wasn't already captured in the first place.

4K doesn't of course add sharpness but reveals its (possible) lack more than 2K, that was my point. [/QUOTE]




My point was -- seeing as this is the AF100 forum, the CP's are more than a match for anything the AF100 can deliver.
Agree.

[broughtonfilm]

I don't see your point. If a lens looks sharp at 1080p, any softening of the image at 35mm would reflect the transfer, not the performance of the lens. If another lens did not perform as sharp at 1080p, it would not look as sharp at 1080p or blown up to 35mm...

How you perceive sharpness depends on the size of the image you are looking at and your distance to it. It is not absolute. In a movie theater image screen is usually huge and some people sit very close to it, in a distance smaller than diagonal of the screen.

[Barry_Green]

4K doesn't of course add sharpness but reveals its (possible) lack more than 2K, that was my point.
Not sure I follow though. When you project on a big screen, you're going to see all the detail that was recorded in the original signal. If you plug the camera directly into a 1080p projector and project it -- that's all there is. Uprezzing to 4K might make it look a little better because the uprez process might smooth out edges better than the 1080p projector does, I guess. Transferring to film won't improve anything, it'll instead be a degradation caused by the introduction of the film's grain and any transfer will degrade things... a digital projection from a 4K file from an uprezzed 1080p image is going to look sharper and clearer than a film transfer would (assuming, of course, the projector is up to the task).

Putting the AF100 image through an uprezzing process to a 4K projector is going to make it look better than if you just projected it directly. And we projected it directly, and I'm sure the NY screening is going to be a direct 1080p projection too.

[broughtonfilm]

Not sure I follow though. When you project on a big screen, you're going to see all the detail that was recorded in the original signal. If you plug the camera directly into a 1080p projector and project it -- that's all there is. Uprezzing to 4K might make it look a little better because the uprez process might smooth out edges better than the 1080p projector does, I guess. Transferring to film won't improve anything, it'll instead be a degradation caused by the introduction of the film's grain and any transfer will degrade things... a digital projection from a 4K file from an uprezzed 1080p image is going to look sharper and clearer than a film transfer would (assuming, of course, the projector is up to the task).

Putting the AF100 image through an uprezzing process to a 4K projector is going to make it look better than if you just projected it directly. And we projected it directly, and I'm sure the NY screening is going to be a direct 1080p projection too.

You are right, sure, sure - no benefit here.I am in the film world and 4K is always better there... However, transferring to film and introduction of grain helps. It masks any digital artifacts, aliasing, noise, etc. It becomes less digital. I experienced it many times Du Art lab in NYC has presentations of 35mm blowups from different formats and magic happens. Footage also gains little bit of color reproduction of light sensitive film stock - of course nothing that hasn't been captured is not magically brought back but... looks better...Hard to explain it rationally.

[broughtonfilm]

Not sure I follow though. When you project on a big screen, you're going to see all the detail that was recorded in the original signal. If you plug the camera directly into a 1080p projector and project it -- that's all there is. Uprezzing to 4K might make it look a little better because the uprez process might smooth out edges better than the 1080p projector does, I guess. Transferring to film won't improve anything, it'll instead be a degradation caused by the introduction of the film's grain and any transfer will degrade things... a digital projection from a 4K file from an uprezzed 1080p image is going to look sharper and clearer than a film transfer would (assuming, of course, the projector is up to the task).

Putting the AF100 image through an uprezzing process to a 4K projector is going to make it look better than if you just projected it directly. And we projected it directly, and I'm sure the NY screening is going to be a direct 1080p projection too.

Actually I know where I was coming from, we were talking about your Ultra 16 footage, not digital footage, so there is no plugging of the camera to the projector , it needs to be scanned. And there 4K will definitely be a tougher test and will reveal lack of lens's sharpness more than 2K scan. I wasn't clear in few posts up. I was talking about testing how ZF's performed on your Ultra 16 camera, not on AF100. I have no doubts they perform well on AF100 but have big doubts they perform well on Ultra 16.

[Barry_Green]

You are right, sure, sure - no benefit here.I am in the film world and 4K is always better there... However, transferring to film and introduction of grain helps. It masks any digital artifacts, aliasing, noise, etc. It becomes less digital. I experienced it many times Du Art lab in NYC has presentations of 35mm blowups from different formats and magic happens. Footage also gains little bit of color reproduction of light sensitive film stock - of course nothing that hasn't been captured is not magically brought back but... looks better...Hard to explain it rationally.
Oh, I totally agree. The grain texture just makes it feel more organic, smoother, and just ... more pleasing. I've transferred video to film before, and seen the effect firsthand. I was only puzzled about the idea that the film transfer would reveal more defects, when I think it would instead mask any defects, but I think we're on the same page now, right?

[Barry_Green]

Actually I know where I was coming from, we were talking about your Ultra 16 footage, not digital footage, so there is no plugging of the camera to the projector , it needs to be scanned. And there 4K will definitely be a tougher test and will reveal lack of lens's sharpness more than 2K scan. I wasn't clear in few posts up. I was talking about testing how ZF's performed on your Ultra 16 camera, not on AF100. I have no doubts they perform well on AF100 but have big doubts they perform well on Ultra 16.
Roger that, that makes sense. They may or may not perform as well as the best S16 glass when used on S16 film, I don't know yet, they are obviously one of the most recent designs but Zeiss doesn't rate them as high in sharpness as they do Master Primes, obviously. For an AF100 or other large-sensor 1080p system I think they're certainly enough, as to whether they'll deliver fully on the smaller S16 frame, that will need to be tested. It's on my list of things to do... :thumbsup:

[broughtonfilm]

Thanks. That will be a great test. I think I know the results but seeing is believing.

[mkfotos.com]

mKfotos,

This page tells me that the ZE Lenses have no manual aperture control?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/ze.htm

Looking at the ZE lenses, I don't see a aperture ring.

Yep, my bad, I think I mistakenly looked at pics of ZFs, which would be the better lens set to get anyways, making them independent of the mount (Nikon, Canon, m43, etc.).

[TimurCivan]

The Cooke's were designed and advertised to work optimally at wide open and stopped down. With that said, I have yet to notice any aberrations or noticeable sharpness differences from wide open to stopped down. They are advertised to be just as sharp wide open as the cooke s4's when at the equivalent T/2.8 stop. I am wanting to do some very rigorous testing soon in regards to comparing them. If I could get my hands on a set of S4's for a day, I'd like to test. I'll be putting the 18mm through some tests when I get it, but I suspect and expect it to function the same.

I don't know about the CP.2's. I've played around with them but have never put them through any official tests.

The cooke pachros also have an easter egg. If you light for a T2.8 and open the lens up wide, there is a small round "matte" that lets you achieve spherical bokeh at a measured T2.8, but if yo ustop down to T2.8+1/3, you get the cooke "flower" bokeh. So you have the options of circular, and traditional... at a nice working stop, at the lens' peak performance.

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

The cooke pachros also have an easter egg. If you light for a T2.8 and open the lens up wide, there is a small round "matte" that lets you achieve spherical bokeh at a measured T2.8, but if yo ustop down to T2.8+1/3, you get the cooke "flower" bokeh. So you have the options of circular, and traditional... at a nice working stop, at the lens' peak performance.

Yeah, wide open bokeh without having to be wide open at unreasonable apertures (1.4) is nice! Also, the iris assembly's in the Panchro/i's are the same as the Cooke S4's... so unless you're shooting at T/2.8, the bokeh will match exactly between the sets, meaning a 'mother-daughter' camera setup can have A-camera on S4's and B- camera on Panchro/i's and if at the same T-stop over T/2.8, they will have the exact same out of focus shape.

Also important if you own Panchro's but occasionally have to rent S4 lenses that are not in the Panchro/i focal range yet must match color, contrast and look... such as a S4 12mm, 40mm, 135mm+, etc.


PS: In regards to my quoted response from earlier, I did do the lens tests with a set of S4/i's and there wasn't a difference at all. Color, contrast, sharpness all matched. On a nano-scale I could barely see that the S4's had a pinch more contrast and were slightly warmer. When I say this, it was pixel peeping and quick juxtaposition of 4k images to even notice in the first place. At a casual look, I even missed it. The degree of difference was probably close to the degree of difference between a lens set, not to mention we are talking between two different lines of Cookes. Cooke S4's have always been known to be one of the most color matched lenses, and the Panchro's are no different, being from the same stock.

For those interested the findings and 4k images of the test can be found and downloaded from a thread here in DVXuser.

[Barry_Green]

Thanks. That will be a great test. I think I know the results but seeing is believing.

Sometimes the answer is so obvious that it hurts that I didn't think of it before. I mean, I've gone and shot some S16 with both the Compact Prime and the 16mm/S16 lenses, but -- now it becomes painfully obvious that I don't have to go doing a 4k scan of s16 film to find the answer. I've got a camera sitting here that can shoot 5k digital frames on its own - the GH2! Even though there's some cropping involved in S16 (the GH2's sensor is ~1.5x the width of S16 film) if I frame a 4K chart to fit within that 12.4mm width, I should have an easily-accessible 3K+ digital scan of the full S16-sized frame.

Accordingly, herewith, are some comparison shots of an Angenieux 17.5-70 Super16 lens, a Cinema Products 25mm Ultra T 16mm lens, and a 21mm Zeiss Compact Prime. All stopped down to f/5.6 for maximum sharpness. The Angeniuex is brand-new old-stock, the Ultra T was a premium lens for CP cameras designed to compete with the SuperSpeeds of its day, and the CP is basically a full-frame design rebuilt as a modern cinema lens.

http://dvxuser.com/barry/GH2/CP21mm-4k.jpg
http://dvxuser.com/barry/GH2/Angenieux-4k.jpg
http://dvxuser.com/barry/GH2/UltraT-4k.jpg


Yeah, this was a slam dunk and easy to determine. After reviewing the results of this test, I have no doubt that the Compact Primes (and the ZFs, for that matter) are definitely resolving at least as much as the dedicated S16 and 16mm lenses. And I'm pretty happy with how the Angenieux performed, it looks largely on par with a modern Compact Prime! The Ultra T doesn't measure up to the others, especially in the corners, but in the center it's on par.

With this test in hand, I don't think it's fair to say that vintage S16 glass is necessarily sharper than modern stills glass, when used for an S16 frame size. And most definitely not for when using the full m43 frame size.

Of course, this isn't comparing against a modern Ultra 16 lens, granted...

(and don't read those resolution numbers as being absolutely accurate... the chart was vaguely framed for what I figured would be a S16 frame crop out of the entire GH2 full 16:9 frame, and I got actually quite close... the GH2's frame size is approximately 1.53x wider than S16 (18.9 vs. 12.4mm); that would make the ideal S16 extraction about 3265 pixels wide. I did a little math and vaguely got it close, my S16 extraction ended up being 1.49x, or 3334 pixels wide. Not too bad for eyeballing it!)